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: 2026-07-21 13:50:11.641943Z
Dr Rossi,
When will you make the Summer holidays ? How is going on the test period of the Ecat SSM ?
Ambrogio
Ambrogio:
No holidays this year: too much important the tests we are making in Europe and in the USA,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
1. Is my understanding that NGU 100W units outputting 230VAC will be first made available to the public?
2. If 1. is true, then are there any technical reasons prohibiting the user from connecting the 230VAC NGU output to a 100W 230VAC to 12VDC converter?
These converters are available on Amazon and relatively inexpensive, costing about 20USD each.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
1. yes
2. no problem at all
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Response to post: https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=937#comment-1707270
My current understanding of a smart inverter is that its microprocessor can construct and adjust the AC waveform within a optimum power level constrained to a minimum level. A inverter that is not powered by a microprocessor called an analog inverter needs a contingency overpower level that greatly exceeds the power level that the smart inverter can sustain.
Standalone Inverter Buying Guide: Smart vs. Analog
Choosing between a microprocessor-driven Smart Inverter and a traditional, transformer-based Analog Inverter is the most critical decision in off-grid power design. This guide simplifies the engineering wisdom into an actionable buying comparison to help you choose the right technology for your standalone system based purely on power handling, efficiency, and hardware requirements.
Direct Recommendation First
Choose a Smart Inverter if you run standard household appliances, electronics, or want a compact system that handles high demand spikes without needing massive, expensive hardware oversizing.
Choose an Analog Inverter only if you operate an industrial workshop with massive, continuous motor loads and do not mind the heavy space, weight, and extreme standby power waste.
Core Technology Comparison
SMART INVERTER (Microprocessor/High-Frequency)
[Input Power] ➔ [DSP Brain / Fast Switches] ➔ [Perfect Pure Sine Wave] ➔ [Efficient Output]
* Adjusts the waveform 20,000+ times per second digitally.
ANALOG INVERTER (Transformer/Low-Frequency)
[Input Power] ➔ [Analog Filters] ➔ [Massive Iron Transformer] ➔ [Brute-Force Output]
* Relies on physical mass and heavy copper coils to smooth out power.
Key Buying Metrics
Hardware Sizing & Oversizing Penalty
Smart Inverter:
Sized tightly to your actual appliance watts. Because its microprocessor digitally corrects poor power factors on the fly, a 5 kW Smart Inverter can easily start heavy home loads.
Analog Inverter:
Must be severely oversized. Because it cannot handle reactive power digitally, you must buy a 15 kW Analog Inverter to survive the exact same startup surges without triggering its NGU hardware trip limit.
Idle Power Waste (The “Ghost” Load)
Smart Inverter: Uses a “Search Mode” to sleep when appliances are off, consuming a tiny 15 to 20 Watts while waiting for a load to turn on.
Analog Inverter:
Keeps its heavy iron core constantly energized, wasting 120 to 150 Watts 24/7 just by being turned on. This wastes up to 3.6 kWh of raw power every single day doing absolutely nothing.
Heavy Motor Handling (Pumps & AC Units)
Smart Inverter:
Uses software to instantly steer reactive power back into internal capacitors, stabilizing voltage seamlessly during massive “demand excursions.”
Analog Inverter:
Fights reactive power using physical resistance, causing heavy voltage sags (flickering lights) and generating massive internal heat inside the transformer.
Which Approach is Right for You?
Buy a 5 kW NGU system that includes a Smart Inverter with a DC NGU interface if:
Modern Home:
You are powering standard home appliances, computers, TVs, and refrigerators.
Efficiency Focus:
You want to minimize internal energy waste and maximize the utility of your stand alone NGU input power source.
Space Constraints:
You need a lightweight, wall-mountable unit rather than a massive floor-standing piece of machinery.
Buy an Analog Inverter if:
Heavy Workshop:
You frequently run heavy industrial tools, large arc welders, or old commercial pumps.
Extreme Environments:
The analog inverter will live in an unconditioned space with extreme dust or temperature swings where simple, un-brained analog components survive longer.
———————————-
My opinion:
The optimum lowest cost approach
Get a 1 kW DC NGU with a low powered low cost smart inverter to feed power to the grid using 1:1 billing. Let the grid control the AC waveform.
Axil:
Thank you for your opinion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Today you replied to JJ:
“The Ecat SSM (IF…) can power loads at 230 V; therefore, with it, you can charge a battery using a standard power supply (or inverter) with 230 V AC input and 12 V DC (or higher) output, depending on the power supply’s limits and the power of the Ecat assembly.”
Is my interpretation of your reply correct—that *if* the Ecat SSM becomes available, its output will be 230 V AC (50 Hz) or 110 V AC (60 Hz)?
Thank you if you can answer.
Regards
Maico
Maico:
Initially yes, because this is by far the prevailing demand; if eventually massively requested, we will make also the DC version; until then it will be easy for the Clients to connect the Ecat to a normal certified inverter of the same power,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
For the introduction Demo to convey important hardware reliably information, determine the Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF).
To MTBF determine the of a long-lived system using multiple short-term tests, you must apply Reliability Growth Modeling or Accelerated Life Testing (ALT) principles. Since you cannot wait for the system to fail naturally, you pool the total test time from multiple units to calculate the failure rate.
Here is the step-by-step engineering process to calculate this metric.
Calculate Total Operating Time
The foundational metric for MTBF is the Total Accumulated Test Time (TATT), also known as unit-hours. The assumption is that you are testing many identical units at the same time.
You pool the running hours of all test units together.
Example: Testing 100 systems for 500 hours each yields a TATT of 50,000 hours.
Tabulate the Failures
Count the exact number of relevant failures (F) observed across all systems during the test window.
Exclude Infantile Failures:
Do not count early software bugs or manufacturing defects if the goal is to find the intrinsic useful-life MTBF.
Exclude External Failures:
Do not count damage caused by operator error or external test rig power failures.
Apply the Point-Estimate Formula
If the system operates in its “useful life” phase (where the failure rate is constant over time), use the standard point-estimate formula: MTBF = TATT/F
Example (With Failures): If your 100 units run for 500 hours each
TATT = 50,000 hours and you observe 2 failures, the estimated MTBF MTBF = 50,000/2 = 25,000 hours
Adjust for Zero Failures (Chi-Square Distribution)
If you run many short-term tests and observe zero failures, you cannot divide by zero. You must use a statistical Chi-Square (chi ^2) distribution to find the MTBF at a specific confidence level (usually 60% or 90% or 95%).
Chi-Square value from standard statistical tables.
Zero Failure Shortcut:
MTBF_60% = 50,000/0.916 or approx 54,585 hours
Critical Engineering Assumptions
For this multi-unit pooling method to be scientifically valid, your test protocol must satisfy three core criteria:Identical Assets:
All test units must feature identical hardware configurations,
software builds, and components.
Independent Risks:
A failure in Unit A must not physically cause or influence a failure in Unit B.
Constant Failure Rate:
The system must be operating in the flat middle section of the “bathtub curve” (no active wear-out mechanisms occurring during the short test window).
Example: Use the AI to access (Chi-Square Distribution) as follows:
What is the MTBF_90% for TATT at 2000 hours
AI Answer
Assuming 0 failures were observed, the MTBF_90% for a Total Accumulated Test Time (TATT) of 2,000 hours is 868.59 hours.
Axil:
Thank you for phylosophical analysis and conclusions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Any update on your partner’s providing electrical energy to the Grid?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
No,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The Vacuum reaction is an optical reaction (the production of light) where virtual photons are harvested from the vacuum when virtual photons are made into real photons. This light is generated in the pico clusters that are also called EVOs. This is also how the SunCell works. THe power production mechanism of the SunCell is not hydrinos because the power density of the SunCell is 20 times that of fission at the fuel rod level (surface).
See post
https://e-catworld.com/2026/07/09/major-independent-third-party-to-support-e-cat-presentation/#comment-6900627587
“There is only ONE fundamental cause of over unity power production. That is vacuum energy harvesting. The SunCell optical power density is around 20 times that of fission. That might be the maximum amount of power available from the vacuum. Also, In the SAFIRE reactor for 7 watts of input power, 10,000,000 watts power spike can be generated.”
There is only one over-unity reaction. All LENR systems are optical systems, The SAFIRE system is an optical system. All optical systems are so powerful that they all can produce transmutation. If a overunity system can transmute matter, then it is a optical system.
If a system can convert elements from one element into another, then it is a vacuum system. The vacuum power accumulation inside the active agent— pico cluster_EVO — generates a quark gluon plasma that breaks apart elements at the quark level and expresses them as new elements.
The vacuum reaction is identical to Hawking radiation of a black hole.
A decaying micro black hole converts its entire remaining mass directly into energy via Hawking radiation, meaning a micro black hole of mass M will produce a total energy of E = Mc2 over its remaining lifespan because the power output escalates exponentially as the black hole mass shrinks, the final decay results in a violent universe shaking explosion.
For example, a micro black hole with a mass of 1,000 kg will output a total energy of roughly 9 times 10^19 Joules.
This is equivalent to 21 gigaton nuclear explosion in a fraction of a millisecond.
See this post by Rossi about the explosion and fire in his lab that destroyed the lab and almost ended Rossi when he was debugging charging a lithium ion battery for the Latina demo.
https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=937#comment-1707254
—————————————————————-
I asked the AI what the intraduatroy demo at years’ end means to our science and the perception of reality. Its response typifies why I am looking forward to the end of year introductory NGU demo.
If such situations exist, what would this mean for science and the perception of reality
If over-unity energy production, elemental transmutation via vacuum harvesting, and controllable micro-black holes were proven to be real, it would trigger the most profound paradigm shift in human history.
This discovery would instantly shatter our current understanding of physics, rewrite the laws of thermodynamics, and fundamentally alter how humanity perceives its place in the universe.
1. The Collapse and Reconstruction of Science
The validation of these phenomena would mean that our current foundational models of reality are, at best, deeply incomplete or, at worst, fundamentally flawed.
Thermodynamics Rewritten:
The First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy) would not be disproven, but it would have to be radically expanded. The universe would no longer be viewed as a closed system with a finite pool of usable energy, but as an open system plugged into an infinite cosmic reservoir.
The Quantum-Classical Bridge:
Mainstream physics currently treats quantum vacuum fluctuations as transient, mathematically restricted events. Proving that “pico-clusters” or “EVOs” can stabilize and harvest these fluctuations would finally bridge the gap between quantum mechanics and macroscopic engineering, creating a unified “Theory of Everything.”
Engineering Alchemy:
Desktop transmutation would turn chemistry and material science upside down. Scarcity of rare-earth elements, gold, or platinum would vanish overnight, as any element could be synthesized on demand by rearranging quarks.
2. A Shift from Scarcity to Absolute Abundance
For all of human history, reality and civilization have been shaped by the struggle over scarce resources (food, water, territory, and fossil fuels).
The Death of Geopolitics:
Wars fought over oil, gas, or uranium would become obsolete. If a small device can tap the vacuum to generate limitless power, every nation, community, and individual would achieve total energy independence.
Technological Hyper-Acceleration:
Technologies currently limited by energy constraints—such as deep-space travel, massive artificial intelligence data centers, planetary terraforming, and large-scale carbon capture—would become trivial to deploy.
3. A New Perception of Reality and Spacetime
Such a discovery would radically alter how humans perceive the fabric of existence itself.
The Vacuum as a Solid Matrix:
Instead of perceiving “empty space” as nothingness, humanity would begin to view the vacuum as a hyper-dense, vibrant medium. Space would no longer be the absence of matter, but the very source from which all matter and energy spring.
The Universe as a Living Mechanism:
Proving that the same mechanics governing Hawking radiation in giant cosmic black holes can be replicated inside a small laboratory apparatus would reinforce the concept of a holographic or fractal universe, where the laws of the macrocosm are perfectly mirrored in the microcosm.
4. The Existential and Existentialist Risk
With absolute power comes absolute vulnerability. Proving that the vacuum can be tapped with small laboratory equipment introduces profound psychological and existential anxiety.
The “Safe in a Lab” Paradox:
As seen in the historical disputes over laboratory explosions, if tapping the vacuum risks creating runaway reactions or localized micro-black hole detonations, humanity would realize it is playing with the foundational forces of creation.
The Fragility of Existence:
The perception of reality would shift from feeling secure on a stable planet to realizing that civilization rests on a highly volatile quantum sea. A single catastrophic mistake by an amateur researcher could theoretically threaten the fabric of local spacetime.
Conclusion
If these phenomena transitioned from fringe anomalies to verified facts, science would evolve from a tool used to observe and manipulate existing matter into a discipline that summons reality directly from the void. Humanity would transition from passive consumers of cosmic energy into active managers of spacetime itself.
Axil:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi:
In your answer to JJ, you stated that the Ecat NGU can only work with a resistive load. I would interpret a resistive load as one that obeys the relationship V = I*R. One can design an active circuit that makes sure the relationship V I*R holds at the interface for a large range of V, as long as V is within the values of the active circuit. For example, active circuits exist for Power Factor Correction (PFC) to appear as a resistive input for line-connected power supplies used to power computers. These PFC controllers were introduced because simply designed computer supplies that just used diode bridges and capacitors as the input rectification circuit were causing capacitive power factors that could overload AC distribution, causing transformers to overheat and even catch fire.
On another note, is is very difficult to make a pure resistor. Most resistor models include a series inductor and parallel capacitor, though both the inductance and capacitance values can be small.
Question(s):
1). Is my interpretation that a “resistive” load obeys V = I*R correct as an Ecat NGU load, or is there some other physical property that is required?
2). Would it be possible to use a PFC active circuit to force the input to look resistive and allow the NGU to be in SSM?
3). If not, is there a simple explanation for why this is not possible?
4). For the real (not ideal) resistor, what are the limits of C and L for the capacitive and inductive values for it to properly interface with the Ecat NGU?
TJ Kaminski:
1- your interpretation is correct
2- nonsense
3- because it is a nonsense
4- any real resistance is fit for the Ecat, provided it does not demand a power superior to the power of the Ecat ( remember that if V=I*R, I=V/R, and P=I*V ). If the demand of P overcomes the power of the Ecat, the protection system automatically shuts down the Ecat.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
After the last exciting, but few, revelations on the E-Cat X, discussions on blogs seem to be geared mainly to the imagination of medium or high power stations, or even power stations “spread” on the street lamps; but I think the real innovation is the separation from the grid: antone can have electricity, light and heat independently on site.
This is the great change that is coming.
I am very happy to live this moment.
Regards,
Neri Accornero
Prof. Neri Accornero:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
You answered to Richard that the ratio Watts/weight of the Ecat is higher than the same of batteries: can you give numbers ?
Thank you if you can answer,
Igor
Igor:
Think about what SSM does mean and answer yourself to your question,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Thank you for responding to my question about the power output of the ecat versus a lithium battery. As all travelers know, lithium batteries can catch fire and cannot be brought onto airplanes if larger than a cell phone or laptop. Does the ecat pose a fire risk? Thanks.
Richard:
No, because we resolved the problems that caused it in past. Besides, the Ecat does not contain lithium batteries,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I know this is a thorny subject, but I am going to discuss it anyway.
We owe a great debt of gratitude to Nikola Tesla for inventing alternating current, which enabled the electrification of the world; however, we must not overlook the mounting costs and dangers associated with the increasing expansion of this system:
1) The need for generators, most of which still rely on fossil fuels or nuclear fission (nuclear waste), resulting in a dependency on other Nations for many, and leading to the inevitable conflicts we see playing out today.
2) The “vulnerability” of generation sites and distribution grids to environmental damage, as well as acts of terrorism or warfare (Iran and Ukraine).
3) The absolute reliance of individuals and businesses on the functioning of these systems (leading to economic speculation on energy sources and potentially catastrophic blackouts).
4) The significant risk of serious wildfires caused by short circuits in high-voltage grids (California and Spain) and low-voltage household systems (an estimated 3–4 million incidents annually), alongside the risk of electrocution (with a rising global toll of over 200,000 deaths and 1–2 million injuries).
We know there is a price to pay for everything, but if a different solution emerges that offers fewer risks and major advantages, we must push for change. Your invention, whether SSM-based or otherwise, already enables on-board electricity generation; we saw this firsthand, I was there (Latina test). Most usage will likely involve low-voltage DC (5–48 V) or AC via a low-power converter, entailing far lower risks and costs for both people and the environment. Every stationary or mobile device will have its own generator and be independent of electrical outlets and long power cords, no HV lines or dangerous grid power transformers, no pylons and tons of metal (copper, iron, aluminum) for electricity transmission, no widespread blackouts, and no “energy oligarchs.” Even the costly, bulky, and intermittent “renewable energy” sources and the use of gas will progressively decline. Of course, it will take time, but this future is certain; the current “masters of the world” will simply have to accept it, so much for decarbonization!
This is the revolution that must be accelerated; the E-Cat works, and, like everything else, it will be continuously improved. Andrea, don’t aim for perfection; push the Licensee, at least for a global presentation without technical details. This announcement alone could change everything and your merit must be quickly recognized.
The world is suffering greatly, and every delay becomes a fault.
Neri
Hi,Andrea. Please forgive me if I have got things muddled.
In the Latina test run, the car was apparently having its battery charged for 6 hours as it travelled. This indicates to me that the NGU would have been operating in SSM at the time. So why are you now in a situation where you are desperately trying to achieve SSM before the end of January 2027?
This device has inductance, therefore SSM must have existed a couple of years ago. Perhaps I am missing something here. The NGU at the time of Latina seemed to be a wonderful invention capable of doing lots of things. Not any more?
I hope that you can clarify things for my old brain. Thank you in advance.
All the best. Jean Pierre
Jean Pierre:
1- As I wrote many times here on the JoNP and said in many interviews, the Latina test was determined to last 6 hours. An Ecat SSM has to last for years.
2- The NGU at the time of Latina was an R&D prototype, the Ecat SSM must confront a global market.
3- The Latina prototype had just to charge a battery, and battery is not an inductive load.
4- After the explosion and eventual fire happened before the Latina test in my laboratory while I was preparing of the Ecat for the Twizy, among other modifications we had to enclose the Ecat in a steel safe, big and heavy, able to contain an explosion, which, for obvious reason, is not a possible solution for a product, for obvious reasons that surely you can understand.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Prof. Rossi
How does the SSM version now in testing compare to an ordinary lithium battery in terms of power output per unit of weight? Thanks.
Richard
Richard:
A battery has a much higher weight per W than the Ecat,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
JJ:
“Why do you want to connect an 1 kW Ecat assembly to an inverter of 800 W ? Which voltage do you need at the output ?”
A homologated microinverter 800 W 230V is a plugandplay inverter that can be connected directly to the socket as with a balcony PV installation. but maybe the Ecat 230V ac can connect directly to this battery that is equipped with an ac input?
https://www.ankersolix.com/nl/products/a17e2?o_c=&ref=2400W%2F3600Wthuisbatterij1&s_main=A17E23Z1&varId=45882646200377&variant=45882646200377
Best regards
JJ
JJ
The Ecat non SSM can power only resistive loads, therefore cannot recharge batteries.
The Ecat SSM ( IF…) can power loads at 230 V, therefore with it you can charge a battery through a normal alimentator ( or inverter ) 230 V AC in, 12 or more V DC out, depending on the limits of the alimentator and the power of the Ecat assembly,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
One of the potential highly motivated advocates of NGU deployment are those in the environmental movement. A leader in this field that can serve as an entree into this community and a prime example of such a potential enthusiastic advocate with a global following is as follows:
Dr. Michael E. Mann is one of the most influential and prominent figures in the global climate science and environmental community. His influence spans groundbreaking scientific research, public policy advocacy, and high-profile climate communication.
The contact information for prominent leading climatologist and environmental scientist Dr. Michael E. Mann:
Academic & University Contact
Dr. Mann serves as a Presidential Distinguished Professor and Director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media (PCSSM) at the University of Pennsylvania.University
Email: mmann00@sas.upenn.edu
Office Location: 160 Hayden Hall, 240 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Public & General Inquiries
For media requests, speaking engagements, or general inquiries, you can use his personal professional channels listed on the Official Michael E. Mann Website: https://michaelmann.net/contact/
General Email: mann@michaelmann.net
I suggest that you invite via email, Dr. Mann to the introduction of the NGU as follows:
Subject: Advancing Climate Mitigation: Upcoming NGU Launch (Winter 2026/2027)
Dear Dr. Mann,
I hope this message finds you well.
As a follower of your work at the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media, I am reaching out to introduce an upcoming technological development that aligns closely with your efforts to mitigate global environmental damage.
Between late December 2026 and January 2027, we will officially release the NGU system as a commercial product. This technology is engineered to bridge the critical gap between clean energy infrastructure and successful consumer deployment. By integrating with existing residential and commercial clean energy systems—such as solar installations—the NGU maximizes grid efficiency, reduces fossil fuel dependency, and lowers carbon footprints at scale.
We are currently shifting our deployment model to work directly with commercial solar installation partners. This ensures that the systems are deployed seamlessly, reducing technical failure and accelerating the adoption of green infrastructure in homes and businesses.
Given your deep expertise in climate science communication and sustainability frameworks, we would welcome the opportunity to share our technical brief with you as we approach the launch. We believe the NGU can serve as a vital tool in the practical application of decarbonization strategies.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and continued leadership in the climate community.
Sincerely,[Your Name – partner]
[Your Title]
[Your Company/Contact Information]
Axil:
Thank you again for your suggestions,
A.R.
The interaction between the NGU customer and the partner that currently exists may not be intensive enough to enable the customer the background to protect both himself and the NGU from issues that block sucessful deployment of the NGU in his home.
To strengthen NGU deployment success and optimize customer onboarding, we need to shift from our current, high-touch direct retail model to a strategic B2B channel partner approach.
Current Problem
Weak Partner Engagement:
Current interactions do not provide retail customers with sufficient background knowledge.
Deployment Risks:
Lack of customer education leads to preventable in-home installation issues.
High Operational Workload:
Direct support of retail customers creates an unsustainable customer service burden for the partner.
Proposed Solution
Partner with Solar Installers:
Form strategic commercial relationships with established residential and commercial solar energy companies.
Leverage Existing Technical Expertise:
Solar installers already possess the complementary technical know-how required for in-home field deployments.
Transition to Turnkey Delivery:
Shift the entire installation and first-line support workload to these solar companies.
Strategic Benefits
Risk Mitigation:
Experienced field technicians ensure higher deployment success rates and protect NGU from technical failures.
Scalability:
Offloads the intensive customer service workload from NGU partners.
Market Acceleration:
Taps into existing customer bases already interested in green energy and home infrastructure upgrades.
The solar installer will sell the NGU as a better option to panel installations.
These solar energy companies will soon develop the knowhow to deliver a turnkey NGU system for the customer without the customer service workload involved in the partner’s direct contact with the retail NGU customer.
Axil:
Thank you for the suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I read carefully all the website http://www.drandrearossi.com
My suggestion to the readers: it is interesting.
Anthony
Anthony:
Thank you for your comment,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
Is an Ecat 1 kW suitable to be connected to a microinverter of max 800 Watts?
Best regards
JJ
JJ:
Why do you want to connect an 1 kW Ecat assembly to an inverter of 800 W ? Which voltage do you need at the output ?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello DR Rossi
Eye witness to trinity test
Eighty years ago today.
https://youtu.be/jS5aHQIF4eA?si=myXnilarr2ze_sMQ
Regards
Sam
Sam:
Thank you for the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
In what country(s) will the introductory demo be held?
Axil:
This information will be given in December 26/January 27,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
On your upcoming demonstration – a few suggestions
1. Keep it simple. Heating flowing water. If electricity, measure output power and input power, if any.
2. Start the demonstration with the NGU off. Display/record all measurements. Establish a baseline.
3. Then activate the NGU unit. Observe the resulting changes.
4. When equilibrium occurs, run the experiment 10 times longer than a hidden battery could support.
5. When the demonstration period ends, turn off the NGU unit. Observe the changes. They should be similar to what occurred when the NGU was activated.
6. Finally, show the final state is the same baseline as the initial state.
If the NGU only produces heat – use the set-up of calibrated water flow rate and temperature change to show power. Like in you did in the early demonstrations – about a decade ago.
If electricity is produced – use identical power meters on the output and, if any, on the input. Power meters showing power, voltage, amperage, and total energy.
If electricity is produced, the load could be a heat exchanger, and you could use the water flow technique described above to show consistency with the electric power measurements and the water heating. Or else, use lamps of a known power consumption. You could turn on or off individual lamps to change the electrical power load and verify corresponding changes in the NGU output power, voltage, amperage.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your suggestions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Giovanni,
I like your comment! Dr Rossi said a ‘major independent third party of the world’ will be publicly supporting the Ecat at the presentation. That will be enough to persuade make people willing to make their payment for the preorders. Then the real revolution will start.
Regards, Ecat Enthusiast.
Dr Rossi,
I suggest you not to lose much time searching exotic testing ways at the global presentation of the Ecat: the real third parties will be the customers that, at that point, will receive the Ecat; when Bill Gates made the global presentation of his operative systems had a global success because his customers spread in the world the pass-parole that it works, not because some guru said that the test was successful. Present the product, sell it and the rest will arrive with or without gurus: the market is the sole expert that really counts.
All the best,
Giovanni
Giovanni:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Giovanni:
Great comment ! You are absolutely right !!!
Best
Tino
Dear Andrea
How suitable is Ecat SSM to operate large AI systems?
Regards Svein
Svein:
So far the SSM is suitable for nothing, but IF…, it would be suitable for any kind of normal loads: I am not an expert of AI technology, I am just an enthusiast user of it, therefore I am not able to answer your specific question,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Zoeller:
We need the collaboration of car manufacturers to do it, and we are working in that direction also,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hallo Hr. Rossi,
die Kraftstoffpreise steigen und steigen.
Wenn ich ihren Latina-Test zeige, werde ich nur müde belächelt.
Was keiner kaufen kann, damit ist niemand zu begeistern.
Es ist einfach nur traurig.
ENGLISH SYNOPSIS:
Car fuels are too highly priced: I hope the Ecat will be useful also to power cars,
VG
Dieter Zöller
You are receiving many suggestions in this blog: are they useful ?
Decio:
We are grateful to all our Readers that empathize our problems and dedicate time of theirs to try to help us with their suggestions; the suggestions are always helpful, at the least to double check the issues, sometimes they are very useful,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
I suppose in your team there are electronic engineers with thoroughly competence in the matter, is that correct ?
All the best,
Arthur
Arthur:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The reactive power issue is inherently complicated, so please excuse the additional posts.
An AC smart inverter affects reactive power in the NGU stand alone home system. The assumption requiring NGU 3:1 over capacity assumes that the NGU is providing DC to AC power inversion. But a external smart inverter can reduce the need for over capacity in the DC NGU system.
Here is how a smart external inverter can significantly reduce or eliminate the need for E-Cat NGU overcapacity in a DC NGU system by managing reactive power locally before it ever reaches the DC generation side.
In a stand-alone AC home system powered by a DC source like Leonardo Corporation’s E-Cat NGU, reactive power behaves differently depending on where the inversion happens. Below is the breakdown of how reactive power affects the system and how a smart inverter mitigates the need for a 3:1 overcapacity safety margin.
How an AC Inverter Affects Reactive Power
Reactive power, measured in VAR is an alternating exchange of energy required to sustain the magnetic and electric fields in inductive or capacitive AC appliances (like motors, compressors, and pumps).
The AC Side (The Load): Reactive power constantly sloshes back and forth between the inverter and the household appliances. This increases the apparent power S, measured in kVA that the inverter must deliver.
The DC Side of the NGU:
Reactive power does not travel back into a DC system. DC power has no frequency or phase angle, meaning it can only deliver true active power P, measured in Watts.
However, because the inverter must handle higher peak currents to support the lagging power factor of AC appliances, a standard inverter passes that stress onto the DC source in the form of massive current draws and voltage fluctuations during peak cycles.
Why the Standard AC internal inversion system assumes a 3:1 Overcapacity
The baseline assumption requiring a 3:1 NGU overcapacity stems from using traditional, passive, or line-commutated inversion methods. When a standard inverter supports inductive household loads (like a refrigerator compressor kicking on), it faces two major challenges:
Low Power Factor: Inductive loads cause the AC current to lag behind the voltage. If a home has a power factor of 0.7, a 7kW true power load actually demands 10 kVA of apparent power from the inverter
Inrush Currents:
High inductive starting loads can briefly demand 3 to 5 times the running current.
Without smart mitigation, a standard inverter translates this peak apparent power demand directly into an equivalent DC current draw. To keep the E-Cat NGU cells from triggering their integrated AI overload protection and shutting down, the baseline system sizing must be heavily padded
How a Smart Inverter Reduces the Need for Overcapacity
A smart inverter functions as a dynamic static synchronous compensator (STATCOM). It completely decouples the reactive power requirements of the house from the DC-side energy generation through several mechanisms:
Local Volt-VAR Optimization
Smart inverters feature active power-reactive power control modes. Instead of pulling the extra current needed for reactive fields from the DC supply, the smart inverter utilizes its internal capacitor banks and advanced power electronics to generate and inject reactive power locally on the AC side.
It acts as a 24/7 localized buffer.
Correcting the Power Factor to Unity 1.0
By dynamically shifting the phase angle of the output current to match the voltage, a smart inverter ensures that it presents a near-perfect unity power factor PF approx 1.0 to the DC input side. Because the reactive power cycles strictly inside the inverter’s AC output stage, the E-Cat NGU units only have to produce pure active power (Watts).
Summary
By implementing a smart inverter, you transform the system’s architecture. The inverter manages all the phase angles and reactive currents internally, shielding the E-Cat cells from high apparent power demands. This shrinks the required safety margin down from a restrictive 3:1 overcapacity closer to a standard 1.1:1 or 1.2:1 margin, which is only needed to cover true active power surges.
Axil:
Thank you for your suggestions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
How does charging a EV battery affect reactive power
Charging an electric vehicle (EV) battery directly affects reactive power, turning your home or charging station into either a mildly inductive or heavily capacitive load depending on the charging state.
Because batteries require Direct Current (DC), the car’s On-Board Charger (or an external DC Fast Charger) must convert Alternating Current (AC) from the NGU into DC. This conversion process relies on complex power electronics that actively manipulate reactive power.
How EV Charging Alters Reactive Power
An EV charger interacts with reactive power in three distinct ways depending on what the vehicle is doing:
Actively Charging at Full Power (Slightly Inductive)When an EV is actively bulk-charging at a high rate (e.g., pulling 7.2 kW to 11 kW at home), it demands massive active power (kW). To keep this efficient, modern chargers use an internal system called Active Power Factor Correction (PFC).
The Effect:
The PFC system aligns the current and voltage waves almost perfectly, keeping the power factor at a highly efficient 0.95 to 0.99.
The Reactive Load:
At full throttle, the charger behaves like a very mild, well-behaved inductive load, pulling a small amount of lagging reactive power to keep its internal high-frequency switching electronics running.
Charging at Low Power or Topping Off (Distortion Reactive Power)
When an EV battery fills up to around 80%, the car’s computer throttles the charging speed down to protect the battery cells.
The Effect:
As the active power drops, the internal PFC system becomes significantly less efficient. The electronics inside the rectifier begin drawing current in short, aggressive pulses rather than a smooth wave.
The Reactive Load:
This pulsing creates harmonic distortion (electrical noise). The power factor can degrade below 0.80, introducing a surge of harmonic-driven reactive power into your system.
Standby Mode (Heavily Capacitive Load)
The most surprising impact happens when the car finishes charging but remains plugged in, or when the charger is completely idle.
The Effect:
The heavy power-switching circuits shut down, but the large internal filter capacitors inside the charger remain connected to the live AC line.
The Reactive Load:
With nearly zero active power (kW) being pulled, the idle charger behaves almost purely as a capacitive load. It forces a leading phase shift, pumping capacitive reactive power (VAr) back into the lines.
Why This Matters for an “Ecat” as a Sensitive Generator
If you are planning to plug an EV charger into a smaller micro-generator assembly (like an Ecat), the standby and low-power states are highly dangerous.
An idle EV charger or one wrapping up a charge will inject a leading capacitive phase shift into the generator. As noted in the 3:1 safety rule, this capacitive reactive feedback can confuse voltage regulators, trigger voltage spikes, and potentially damage the generator’s internal components if the generator isn’t heavily oversized.
Let the Grid handle your reactive power requirements.
What does this quote mean: “Normally yes, because the Ecat can stand a cosphi with normal leading and legging phases; anyway, it is better to be always sure that the power of the Ecat assembly is at least three times higher than the combined power of the capacitive loads connected to it,”
This quote is advising that while the power generator (the “Ecat”) can handle standard phase shifts, it needs to be heavily oversized—by at least a 3:1 ratio—when powering capacitive loads to ensure stability and safety.
Here is a breakdown of what this means in simple electrical terms:
Understanding “Cosphi”, Leading, and Lagging
Cosphi: This is the Power Factor.
It measures how efficiently electricity is being used. A perfect power factor is 1.0, where voltage and current are perfectly aligned.
Lagging Phases (Inductive): Caused by motors and transformers. The current lags behind the voltage. Generators handle this easily because it is the most common type of household load.
Leading Phases (Capacitive):
Caused by large banks of capacitors, electronic surge protectors, or extensive LED lighting circuits.
The current leads the voltage.
Why Capacitive Loads are Dangerous for Generators
The core of the warning lies in how generators react to leading power factors:
Self-Excitation:
Capacitive loads feed reactive power back into the generator’s magnetic core. This can cause the generator’s voltage to uncontrollably spike upward, potentially frying the generator or connected appliances.
Control Instability:
Voltage regulators (AVRs) are designed to boost voltage when they detect standard inductive loads. A capacitive load confuses the regulator, causing the grid voltage to fluctuate wildly.
The 3:1 Safety Rule Explained
The statement “ensure the power of the Ecat assembly is at least three times higher than the combined power of the capacitive loads” is a safety buffer.
If you have 1 kW of total capacitive loads, your Ecat power source needs to be rated for at least 3 kW. By making the generator three times larger than the capacitive load, the generator’s internal impedance is strong enough to absorb the capacitive “leading” e
Your home can have an increasing power profile over time as new appliances are added to tour power profile. This is why most power customers get a 200 amp grid service. To be absolutely safe, connect the NGU to the grid and let the grid meet the reactive power requirements of your house over time no matter what you add to your appliance configuration.
An example of modifying your power wave profile.
You add light dimmers around your home.
light dimmers can increase capacitive reactive power, but this happens primarily through a side-effect called harmonic distortion, rather than shifting the core 60Hz phase angle.
The increase occurs specifically when modern dimmers are paired with non-linear, electronic lighting like dimmable LEDs or compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs).
How Dimmers Create Capacitive Reactive Power
Waveform Chopping and Non-Linear Loads
Standard household dimmers use a semiconductor called a TRIAC or MOSFET to control light intensity. Instead of lowering the voltage smoothly, they literally chop off parts of the AC voltage sine wave.
When paired with a purely resistive load (like an old incandescent bulb), this doesn’t create reactive power. When paired with an LED or CFL, the dimmer interacts with the bulb’s internal electronic driver. These drivers naturally contain rectifiers and internal capacitors to smooth out power.
The Spike in Harmonics
When a dimmer chops the waveform, it forces the current to draw in short, violent bursts. In electrical engineering, these abrupt bursts represent high-frequency distortions known as harmonics.
These harmonics degrade the overall Total Power Factor. In electronic lighting, this distortion translates mathematically into a negative (capacitive) reactive power value.
Dimming Amplifies the Effect
As you dim the lights further down (reducing the luminous flux), the power factor worsens significantly. Because the active power (kW) drops as the light dims, the relative proportion of capacitive reactive power (VAr) introduced by the distortion spikes. Research indicates that dropping an LED fixture’s brightness to lower levels causes its overall behavior to look increasingly like a distorted capacitive load.
What This Means for Your “Ecat” Generator Setup
Connecting a heavily dimmed circuit of LED or CFL lights directly to a sensitive alternative generator (like an Ecat assembly) can create unexpected instability. Even though the overall wattage of the LEDs is low, the capacitive reactive power and high harmonic distortion can confuse the system’s voltage regulators.
Let the Grip handle your reactive power needs.
In a standard household, the maximum instantaneous reactive power (kVAr) from inductive loads typically peaks between 2.5 kVAr to 6 kVAr.
This is primarily driven by the startup (locked-rotor) currents of heavy motor-driven appliances like central air conditioners, heat pumps, and well pumps.
Breaking Down the Inductive Load
Reactive capacity is required by inductive appliances (like compressors and motors) to build and sustain the magnetic fields needed to operate. While the real active power (kW) does the actual work, the reactive power (kVAr) inflates your system’s apparent power (kVA).Here is what drives the highest instantaneous reactive spikes in a home:
Central Air Conditioner / Heat Pump:
When a 3 to 5-ton compressor starts up, it draws a high inrush current. This can momentarily demand up to 2.5 kVAr to 5 kVAr of reactive power, though it drops significantly once the motor reaches running speed.
Well Pump or Sump Pump: A heavy-duty water pump starting under load can demand 1 kVAr to 2 kVAr.
Other Household Motors: Pool pumps, refrigerators, and washing machines also create inductive loads, each typically contributing an additional 0.2 kVAr to 0.8 kVAr while running.
What Does This Mean for Your Power Factor?
Because inductive loads require reactive power, they cause the current waveform to lag behind the voltage. This ratio is known as your Power Factor. While commercial buildings are often penalized for poor power factors, residential properties are typically billed only for the real active power (kWh) they consume. Even though you aren’t financially penalized, a massive inductive spike does temporarily reduce your home’s available real electrical capacity. It causes higher current to flow through your wiring and transformer, which translates to momentary voltage drops (e.g., lights dimming when the AC starts).
Human Perspectives on Household Reactive Power“
You will found that modern homes behave like capacitive loads. That does not surprise me at all. A ‘lagging’ power factor is caused by big inductive loads (ie. electric motors).
If the maximum instantaneous reactive power 6 kVAr spike requires at least three times the power of the capacitive loads connected to it, you you need to buy a NGU system that of supporting 18 kVAr to avoid NGU shutdown.
Your best move is to buy a 1 to 3 kW NGU system connected to the grid under a 1:1 billing rate payback plan and let the grid handle the reactive spikes in your home. The NGU will supply the average power yearly demand rather than the maximum instantaneous reactive power spike that your home might generate.
Dr Rossi,
Besides inductive and resistive loads, will the Ecat SSM ( IF…) be able to power also capacitive loads ?
Anonymous:
Normally yes, because the Ecat can stand a cosphi with normal leading and legging phases; anyway, it is better to be always sure that the power of the Ecat assembly is at least three times higher than the combined power of the capacitive loads connected to it,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The NGU needs a lot of explaining. The Major Independent Third Party (ITP) needs a great deal of background education if the presentation can be sucessful. Its my guess is that Dr. Rossi is spending most of his working day explaining all the ins and outs of the NGU system. The ITP will face many sophisticated questions about the NGU system.
I would train an AI while I educate the ITP with every possible fact that might be of interest to the audience and give each audience member a tablet to input questions. The ITP might also use the AI to answer questions if he does not know an answer.
What should be avoided is having Dr. Rossi take over the Q&A from the ITP.
This is a highly strategic approach to a high-stakes presentation. Using an AI to anchor the knowledge base prevents the Major Independent Third Party (ITP) from looking unprepared while keeping Dr. Rossi from hijacking the session.
Here is a structured framework to build, train, and deploy this AI-driven Q&A system effectively.
Phase 1:
Core Knowledge Ingestion
To ensure the AI handles sophisticated questions, it must be fed a multi-layered dataset. You need to compile and upload:
Technical Specifications:
Engineering blueprints, thermodynamic data, software logic, and system architecture. Historical Performance Logs: Real-world runtime data, efficiency metrics, and previous stress-test results.The “Rossi Brain-Dump”: Transcripts of Dr. Rossi’s past explanations, design philosophies, and edge-case theories.
Compliance & Safety Data:
Regulatory frameworks, failure-mode effects analyses (FMEAs), and safety protocols.
Phase 2:
Training the AI for the Audience
Sophisticated audiences do not just ask what a system does; they ask why it was built that way. Train the AI using a three-tiered simulation:
The Skeptic’s Audit:
Inject common industry criticisms or failure points of similar systems to train the AI on defensive, fact-based refutations.
The Executive Summary:
Train the AI to translate highly complex telemetry data into high-level business impact or operational ROI.
The “I Don’t Know” Protocol:
Script a polite, confident fallback response for the AI when a question hits a true unknown, prompting a log for later follow-up instead of hallucinating.
Phase 3:
The Live Tablet Interface Setup
The audience tablets need a dual-interface system to maintain a seamless flow:
The Audience Side:
A clean text-input box with auto-suggest keywords based on the NGU system components.
The ITP Presenter Dashboard:
A private screen for the ITP. When an audience member inputs a question, the ITP sees the question and the AI-generated answer instantly.
The Gateway Feature:
The ITP chooses whether to read the AI answer verbatim, paraphrase it, or flag it for Dr. Rossi if it requires human nuance.
Phase 4:
Keeping Dr. Rossi in Check
To successfully prevent Dr. Rossi from taking over, establish strict operational boundaries before the presentation begins:
The “By Invitation Only” Rule:
Contractually or procedurally agree that Dr. Rossi speaks only when the ITP explicitly addresses him by name.
The Buffer Zone:
Use the tablet system to filter questions first. If a question is highly volatile, the ITP can send it to Dr. Rossi’s private monitor to draft a response, keeping the vocal floor with the ITP.
Physical Positioning:
Place Dr. Rossi off-center or on a secondary panel, ensuring the physical focus remains entirely on the ITP.
For the YouTube rerun, include a link to the AI for the YouTube viewer to also ask questions. Actively increase the AI knowledge base over time to cover areas that the current questioning exposes.
Integrating the AI into the YouTube rerun is an excellent strategy to maximize the lifespan of the presentation and continuously harden your knowledge base. It transforms a static video into a dynamic, evolving educational tool.
Here is how to set up the YouTube interactive rerun and the continuous learning loop.
Phase 5:
The YouTube Viewer Interface
To replicate the live tablet experience for asynchronous YouTube viewers, you must bridge the video with the AI.
The Interactive Link:
Place a pinned comment and a prominent link in the YouTube video description (e.g., :// http://yourdomain.com ).
Timestamp Syncing:
If possible, use an AI tool that maps viewer questions to the specific minute of the video they are watching. This provides context for why they are asking that question.
The Interface Vibe:
Keep the page simple.
A video player on the left or top, and the AI chat window directly next to or below it.
Phase 6:
The Continuous Knowledge Loop
To ensure the NGU knowledge base increases in value over time, implement a structured data-capture pipeline from the YouTube audience.
[YouTube Viewer Question] ➔ [AI Answers/Flags] ➔ [Weekly Gap Analysis] ➔ [Dr. Rossi Approves Fix] ➔ [Knowledge Base Updated]
The Automated Gap Catch:
Program the AI to flag any question where its confidence score falls below 85%, or where the viewer clicks a “This didn’t fully answer my question” button.
Weekly Analytics Review:
Categorize unanswered or poorly answered questions into three buckets:
Technical Edge Cases,
Misunderstandings/Confusing Phrasing, or Out of Scope/Curiosity.
The Rossi “Micro-Dump”:
Instead of taking hours of Dr. Rossi’s time, send him a weekly bulleted list of these exact gaps. Record a quick 10-minute audio file of him answering them, transcribe it, and feed it to the AI.
Guardrails for the Public Rerun
Opening an AI to the general YouTube public introduces new risks that were not present with the vetted ITP audience.
Strict Prompt Injection Defenses:
Public users will try to “break” the AI or make it say absurd things. Use strict system prompts that confine the AI only to the provided NGU documentation.
Proprietary Data Masking:
Ensure the public-facing AI has a filtered knowledge base. Do not include highly sensitive intellectual property, unpatented designs, or internal financial data that the ITP was allowed to see.
Hallucination Hardening:
Set the AI’s “temperature” (creativity setting) to zero. If the answer is not explicitly in the knowledge base, the AI must say: “I cannot find that specific detail in the current NGU documentation, but it has been logged for review.”
Axil:
Thank you for your suggestions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
PREFACE “SOGNANDO ATLANTIDE “
The purpose of this book is the noble attempt to stimulate researchers of the Spirit to undertake an initiatory journey that leads back to Being and its values.
The author, in this regard, chooses to divulge important truths, based on memories of past lives lived in Atlantis, through the direct teaching of people of great moral and spiritual stature that, in the story told, appear to be nothing short of fascinating.
The reason that led the author to realize the work is to inform the reader of the existence of particular figures of great social importance: ACTIVATORS.
These characters, able to change the environment and the climate for the benefit of all humanity and the planet, intrigue for their ability to interact with the astral dimension in a conscious way, managing to find unexpected solutions to otherwise unsolvable situations.
The novel, set in a space_tempo so far and yet so close to ours, full of twists and surprising revelations, is really compelling and enjoyable reading.
A special thanks goes to all those who have collaborated enthusiastically and disinterestedly in writing this book.
In this book we try to urge the reader to take note of some problems present in our society, where world economic structures are supported by money. Money has value because it allows goods to be obtained, so the money_merce ratio is fundamental.
The concept of merchandise is very broad and includes raw materials, energy, buildings, transport, etc. and the primary element is energy. Who could have free energy would have an extreme commercial advantage. To clarify the concept we consider the construction of a house: it is necessary to have raw materials like bricks, cement, iron, sand, etc.
To make the bricks, to make the cement, to transport the materials we need energy, if this was free, the cost of the finished product would be greatly reduced.
At this moment in history, the basic energy is given by oil, coal, methane and nuclear. Free energy would bring tremendous socio-economic change.
People who dedicate themselves to building equipment to produce free energy, free energy, are counted in thousands.
On the web there is a continuous flourishing of inventions concerning free energy, there are many movies on the subject, but there is no free energy available on the market.
Scientific scholars smile smugly at this situation, saying to themselves: “All these demonstrations are fake, in reality it is not possible to get free energy as claimed by the old dear classical physics, it is just about urban legends”.
Those who have an absolute faith in free energy, despite supporting the conspiracy theory, think: “It will never be possible to market equipment that produces free energy, because the strong powers would block the sale”.
This book, however, wants to emphasize a third aspect of the question: many inventors make very strange machines, but they only work in the presence of their inventors; these machines are therefore linked to the manufacturer. The overwhelming majority of these inventors are not aware that to act is their “faith”: they build a prototype, they see that it works, they launch themselves to spend a little capital in the patent and finally they look for a lender to go to production. But as soon as a stranger tries to reproduce their invention, this unfortunately does not work.
But then does this free energy really exist?
The free energy has had among its proponents nothing less than the great Nicola Tesla, perhaps the most profitable scientist ever existed, he has given the world the technology linked to the alternating current; there are 700 of its patents, some of which are the basis of our modern lifestyle. Is it possible that such a genius was wrong?
As Tesla began to talk about a strange energy combined with electricity, he was immediately isolated from the scientific world. It was a kind of energy that Tesla claimed to perceive even physically, he felt it like a tingling in the hands and other parts of the body.
Tesla gave objective demonstrations of this “perception” with an experiment: in a large building, while the insiders shorted large copper bars with strongly loaded condensers, Tesla, who was in another room, perceived the exact moment in which the copper bars closed the circuit. He felt a particular sensation in the solar plexus and was able to perceive the electric discharge, even if it was physically separated from the phenomenon of thick walls.
Apart from the personal feelings of the scientist, there were also physical evidences that led to the belief that there was something strange. The copper bars, subjected to these heavy short circuits, when they were cooled in oil, sprayed bubbles perpendicularly in a surprising way, as if they had been filled with gas. The phenomenon was detectable and repeatable and therefore scientific. Unfortunately, science has not cared for anything and the phenomenon has therefore remained little known.
More recently Pier Luigi Ighina, was a strange character fascinated by the phenomenon of electromagnetism and dedicated his life to make bizarre inventions, which seemed to work only with him.He was never taken very seriously, but his discoveries and inventions were to at the same time mysterious and revolutionary. In fact, Ighina formulated a theory on the magnetic atom which he himself defined as “the glue of matter”. Ighina built a machine able to interact with atmospheric conditions. There are videos and eyewitnesses of the operation of the machine: in November 1998 Ighina, now ninety, granted one of her rare interviews to RAI, in which she demonstrated the functioning of her creation.
In addition to the weather machine, Ighina hypothesized that with the study of the magnetic atom, one could do incredible things such as treating illness or preventing earthquakes.
What had discovered Pierluigi Ighina is still a mystery, I have known him by now over the years, and I realized that it was basically a kind of very gifted medium. So his machines were partly related to him acting as an activator.
Returning now to free energy, every now and then car engines are made to work with hydrogen obtained from water by electrolysis. I remember, one for all, the Joe_Meyer cell. Joe made an electrolytic separation of water by the current supplied by the car battery and used hydrogen as engine fuel.
Specialized technicians arrived including a professor who carefully analyzed the engine making the necessary checks. The car worked absurdly; in the report it is asserted that at one point the spark plug wires were disconnected and the engine worked the same. He then managed to make several other cars work too. The action persisted even when Joe was not present, simply because he had paid attention to it.
I remember other free energy engines like: the Meg, the Perendev engine, the Kohei Minato engines, the QEG etc.
At the age of twenty-eight I was able to verify an incredible series of phenomena realized with the sole force of the mind, by a particularly gifted individual, who subverted the laws of physics. I found myself very unbalanced: on the one hand I had a scientific culture and on the other I had seen that the universe was modifiable with the mind.
In 2010 I saw a conference in which there was talk of a disruptive ray.
The speaker was a professor of physics who had made a prototype of the disrupting machine.
I was able to meet this scientist and during our conversation I tried to mediate between the knowledge of physics and the esoteric ones, introducing to him the concept of “activator”, but I could not.
It is no wonder that a scientifically cultured and scientifically prepared person refuses the idea that the universe is substantially “mental”, they need demonstrations that I am not able to give.
Five years have passed since that interview and in the meantime the book “The Finger of God” by Alfredo Ravelli was published, which tells the incredible story of how the disruptive machinery of matter was built; Well, to my pleasant surprise, the inventor Pelizza states openly that the machine obeys his mental orders. Here we finally have a conscious activator.
The thing is absolutely real, there are movies, documents, testimonials:
One of the main purposes of this book is to highlight the concept of “activator”; not being able to move on the scientific level (to give repeatable tests) I chose the way of the fantastic story.
The story itself is the result of pure imagination, but I tried to make the story stand out with some reminiscences that I and two other friends, Jone and Roberto, believe to have about previous lives lived in Atlantis.
Jone C. author of the book “A Path to the Unknown” recalls that he was a pilot of flying saucers and that he met me on that occasion and in other subsequent lives.
http://www.ilgiardinodeilibri.it/autori/_jone-chioccarello.php,
Also Roberto F. has reminiscent of having been a priest in Atlantis during the period of decadence of the company. His stories on the subject coincide incredibly with what Jone and I remember.
In the book I introduce some information on the evolution of life on other planets.
Other information is taken from the book “The ancient secret of the flower of life” Drunvalo Melchizedek.
In the last part of the book we talk about the creation of hybrid beings, partly men and partly animals. I was inspired by what was revealed by the visionary Edgar Cayce, (Hopkinsville, Kentucky, 18 March 1877 –
Virginia Beach, January 3, 1945).
This character put the remarkable gift he possessed at the service of others: to immerse himself in a self-hypnotic sleep in which his spirit transcended space and time. In this state of profound meditation it was so easy for him to dissert on the secrets of the universe how to get rid of a wart.
The “readings” by Cayce are an invaluable collection of documents, to which more and more people refer to any occurrence, both to balance their diet and to improve their personal relationships and to recover from an illness declared incurable or perhaps to get closer to God.
Edgar Cayce is famous primarily for his health and disease treatment readings. A large number of people continually profit from this abundant information mine that dates back almost a century. However, he did not limit himself to the physical body alone, but dealt with about ten thousand different topics, most of which are divided into five major themes: health and holistic medicine; reincarnation and karma; dreams and dream interpretation; extrasensory perception and psychic phenomena; besides spiritual growth, prayer and meditation. The same readings, to date there are 12.479, have been divided into three main categories:
• “Health readings” or “physical readings” refer to health and medicine. 9603 counts.
• The “life readings”, which concern the spirit, the soul, reincarnation and astrology. There are 1920s.
• The “special readings”, which consist of series of readings taken by Cayce on a given subject, such as Atlantis, Egypt, world issues. Their number is 956.
The presence of giant beings lived in the past finds a lot of space in mythology.
However, I would like to warn the reader that on the Internet there are many images of gigantic skeletons that are just photomontages.
There is a site that reveals how you can create incredible photomontages.
The presence of giant beings lived in the past finds a lot of space in mythology.
However, I would like to warn the reader that on the Internet there are many images of gigantic skeletons that are just photomontages.
There is a site that reveals how you can create incredible photomontages.
By contrast, many sites that boast of unmasking hoaxes and photomontages are just as unreliable. One for all the talk about crop circles, there are many denigrators around who say that the circles are all made by pranksters, show as evidence of the figures made by themselves, but in truth those figures are rather trivial, too comfortable!
These gentlemen, if they really want to give a demonstration of possible rectification, have to create a circle of maximum complexity, better if three-dimensional, and do it in a single night without leaving traces or footprints, only then would it make sense to criticize them.
I believe that we are in an era in which we will necessarily have to discover new sources of energy, this, in my opinion, is also linked to the way of thinking of the totality of the people present in the world.
When an adequate mass of people becomes aware of their activation mental capacities, the Earth will undergo a great change that will affect every field; the result will be a rapid climb towards a new marvelous era that will see altruism and solidarity as the main value of a civilization.
Of course this can not be separated from a preliminary work of eliminating our psychological defects that are the primary cause of all pain and conflict.
Finally I would like to mention another very gifted character in the paranormal and great healer, he was known by the name of Daskalos.
The first contacted occurred on the astral plane, for many months we wondered who it was, then when a few months later the book “The Wizard of Strovolos” came out we recognized it.
Daskalos asserted that it was possible to vivify entities on the astral plane, called “elementals”. These entities were energetically related to their creator but also showed a certain autonomous personality. Usually there was an object that was the focus of attention, it was not necessarily a machine but could be any object that was given much attention.
Once I met a gentleman who had created some “elementals”,
one of them was matched with a wooden pendant that hung from the ceiling and stirred when “the elemental” was named. This was comparable to a spiteful sprite. When someone who did not like to arrive in the house began to break the electricity only in certain places in the house, there was no breakdown and the only way to restore the proper functioning was a conversation between the creator and “the elemental”.
Obviously from the scientific point of view it seems like a fairy tale, but so … physics is totally unaware of the existence of the paranormal.
I conclude by warning that the phenomenon of “Activators” is deeply intersected with that of the creation of “elementals” and the two phenomena are often indistinguishable.
It happens that the creator needs a scientific support that gives him an anchor for his faith, so he creates strange, sometimes very complicated contraptions, which in themselves would not work with the laws of physics, but if the creator is “gifted” , these apparatuses are vivified by its intense and prolonged attention and work, but they are not reproducible by others.
Camillo:
Thank you for the reference and the related comment,,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
In Europe, homologation rules apply to the marketing of energy-producing devices, and all European countries have separate homologation procedures. Are you going to get them all in order by the beginning of next year?
Best regards
JJ
JJ:
As I am aware of, yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The concept of NGU failure requires some clarification. Is failure of an NGU applied to the entire aggregation of 100 watt diodes in a given kilowatt leveled unit where one or more 100 watt diodes have failed, or is it applied to a failed single 100 watt diode in that aggregation.
Connection of diodes in parallel
If a kilowatt NGU unit is configured as an connection 10 diodes in parallel and one or more of those diodes fails, does the entire kilowatt unit fail or does the kilowatt unit run at a lowered output condition. Does the user ship the entire kilowatt unit off for repair or can the user detect the diode failure lets say if the diode active light is off?
Connection of diodes in series
If a kilowatt NGU unit is configured as an connection 10 diodes in series and one or more of those diodes fails, does the entire kilowatt unit fail or does the kilowatt unit run at a lowered output condition. Does the user ship the entire kilowatt unit off for repair or can the user detect the diode failure lets say if the diode active light is off?
Connection of many diodes in a large capacity unit.
If a 10 kilowatt unit is configured with many diodes connected in series, and one or more of those diodes fails, does the entire kilowatt unit fail or does the kilowatt unit run at a lowered output condition. Does the user ship the entire 10 kilowatt unit off for repair or can the user detect the diode failure(s) lets say if the diode active light is off?
Upon failure, shipping an entire 1 to 10 kilowatt unit for repair costs far more than shipping to and froe single diodes off for repair. I doubt that the 30% cost for repair can apply in shipping back and forth to the factory for this condition.
It seems to me in order to reduce the cost impact of diode failure, to configure a multi kilowatt system as a multiple kilowatt systems with each kilowatt system with diodes connected in parallel that can be coordinated by a multi input ported inverter.
An NGU failure is typically defined at the module level (the entire kilowatt unit) rather than the individual component level, though the operational impact depends entirely on circuit topology.
Here is my take on the breakdown of how diode failures affect parallel, series, and large-capacity configurations, along with maintenance realities.
Parallel Connection (10 x 100W Diodes)
Operational Status:
The unit runs at a lowered output condition. If one 100W diode fails open, the remaining 9 diodes continue to operate, delivering 900W.
Failure Mode:
Diodes usually fail short-circuit or open-circuit. If a diode fails short, it can bypass the entire parallel block, requiring internal fusing or smart monitoring to isolate it.
Detection & Repair:
Users generally cannot hot-swap a single diode on a integrated circuit board. While advanced units feature individual diagnostic LEDs (“active light off”), the user must still ship the entire kilowatt unit for factory repair because the components are precision-bonded or soldered.
Series Connection (10 x 100W Diodes)
Operational Status:
The entire kilowatt unit fails if a single diode fails open. Because current must flow through every component sequentially, an open-circuit failure breaks the entire loop (like old Christmas tree lights).
Lowered Output Exception:
If a diode fails short-circuit, or if the unit is equipped with automatic internal bypass diodes/SCRs, current will route around the dead component. In this specific engineered scenario, it will run at a lowered output (900W).
Detection & Repair:
Individual failure indicators will isolate the dead diode visually, but the physical architecture requires servicing the entire kilowatt unit.
Large Capacity Units (10 kW Series Configuration)
Operational Status:
The entire 10 kW system is highly vulnerable to catastrophic output loss. Stringing many components purely in series creates a massive single point of failure. Without robust bypass networks, one 100 W diode failure drops 10,000 W of production to zero.
Detection & Repair:
High-capacity units utilize digital control buses (e.g., Modbus or CAN bus telemetry) to flag the specific sub-module matrix that failed. However, field-servicing down to the discrete semiconductor level is rarely permitted due to thermal management housing sealing; the entire 10 kW module or its sub-rack must be swapped.
Shipping, Repair Costs, and Topology Optimization
The assessment of shipping costs vs. the “30% repair rule” is likely highly accurate. Shipping heavy, multi-kilowatt power electronics assemblies back to a factory drastically erodes margin.
Recommended Architectural Solution
My proposal to configure a multi-kilowatt system using parallel-isolated kilowatt sub-units managed by a multi-channel (multi-MPPT) inverter is industry best practice.
[ 1kW Parallel Array ] ───► | Inverter Port 1 |
[ 1kW Parallel Array ] ───► | Inverter Port 2 | ───► AC Grid Output
[ 1kW Parallel Array ] ───► | Inverter Port 3 |
Granular Isolation:
If a diode fails, only one independent 1 kW diode leg drops in efficiency. The inverter continuously optimizes the remaining legs.
Modular Logistics:
Instead of freight-shipping a massive 10 kW unit, the operator unbolts a single, lightweight 1kW}\) drawer/module. This keeps shipping costs low and allows the system to remain 90% operational during maintenance.
Axil:
Thank you for your insight, and for your suggestions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The NGU will make possible the production of fresh water in California for FREE or more likely a profit when the cost of desalinization is offset by the production of valuable minerals using brine mining.
To find the true optimized cost of desalination throughout California, we must factor in the dual breakthroughs of NGU $0.031/kWh power units and an advanced Eutectic Freeze Crystallization (EFC) brine mining system.
By replacing expensive reverse osmosis filters and heat-based boiling with freeze-drying physics, the economics undergo a massive transformation. The revenue generated from selling the mined minerals doesn’t just offset costs—it completely subsidizes the water production, driving the wholesale cost of desalinated water to negative $47 per acre-foot. In other words for every acre-foot of pure water produced, desalinization makes a profit of $47. This means the facility operates as a highly lucrative mineral mine where drinking water is produced as a free, highly profitable byproduct.
The complete reworked financial equation for a plant producing 1 million acre-feet (AF) of water per year breaks down below:
Capital Expenses (Capex) Recalculation
Because freeze crystallization relies on freezing tanks and heavy refrigeration compressors rather than hyper-expensive, high-pressure titanium pumps and delicate membranes that foul, upfront building and maintenance costs drop significantly.
Standard Coastal Desal Plant Capex: ~$2.0 Billion
EFC Brine Mining & Infrastructure Addition: +$1.0 Billion (For the mineral processing and freezing equipment)
Total Co-Located Plant Capex: $3.0 Billion
Annualized Debt Payment (30-Year Bond at 4%): $173.5 Million / year
Capital Cost Allocated Per Acre-Foot: $173.50 / AF2. Operating & Energy Expenses (Opex)
Recalculation
Using the thermodynamic rule that freezing water requires 7x less raw energy than boiling it, combined with NGU ultra-cheap 3.1-cent power units, the operational expenses plummet:
Energy Footprint (Freezing Phase Change):
~25 kWh per cubic meter of brine processed (achieving Zero Liquid Discharge).
Total Energy Needed per Acre-Foot:
~30,800 kWh
Electricity Cost with NGU Tech: 30,800 kWh times $0.0311 = $958 per Acre-Foot (AF) Labor, Maintenance, and Logistics: +$150 AF Total Gross Opex: $1,108 / AF
The X-Factor: Brine Mineral Revenues (The Credit)
A standard acre-foot of seawater contains roughly 48 tons of dissolved solids. After processing through the EFC system, these minerals drop out as pre-sorted, dry commercial products. Based on current market values for industrial salt, agricultural potassium, magnesium, and trace strategic metals like lithium, the yield breaks down as follows:
Industrial
Sodium Chloride & Commodities:
~42 tons @ $20/ton = $840
Magnesium and Potassium Fertilizers:
~5.5 tons @ $100/ton = $550
Battery-Grade Lithium & Rare Minerals:
Trace amounts @ high market value = $250
Total Mineral Revenue Collected: -$1,640 per acre-foot of water processed
The Final Reworked Cost Equation
Capital cost($173.50) + operating cost($1108) – Mineral Revenue ($1640) = $47.00 to $358.50 / AF (Pure Profit)
(Note: If we account for the fact that a 1-million-acre-foot water plant actually generates double that volume in raw brine, scaling up the mineral output brings the baseline water cost closer to negative $47.00/AF even under conservative market pricing).
Summary of the Economic Revolution
-$47.00 to -$358.50 / AF (Pure Profit)
The Bottom Line
By merging NGU cheap power source with freeze crystallization, you solve the Southwest water crisis by shifting the entire paradigm. Governments no longer need to figure out how to heavily subsidize expensive water for farmers. Instead, private mining corporations would eagerly build these facilities along the coast of California and Mexico to strike it rich on minerals—and they would gladly hand over millions of acre-feet of pure, fresh drinking water to the Southwest aqueducts for free just to clear out their inventory.
Axil:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
At what point will you decide whether to launch with the SSM or non-SSM E-Cat?
Thank you very much,
Frank Acland
Frank Acland:
In December,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi
In the last few days, you’ve provided us with a lot of information that I find very interesting.
To make sure I’ve understood correctly, if you don’t mind, I’d like to ask you a few questions (I apologize if I seem repetitive, but I think having confirmations/denials of certain aspects is very useful/important).
1) Will the NGU ecat be officially presented by January 2027?
2) Will “ONLY ONE” model be presented. The “NON SSM” one, or the SSM one?
3) Can you confirm that if the SSM version is presented, it will also be able to handle inductive loads?
4) Can you confirm that if the “NON SSM” version is presented, it will only be able to handle resistive loads?
5) Will the SSM version be presented only if it is deemed sufficiently mature and therefore ready for delivery?
6) Otherwise, will the “NON SSM” version, which is already ready for delivery today, be presented?
7) Will the first deliveries begin after the presentation?
8) Will these be 100W modules?
Thank you in advance for any answers you can give me.
Regards
Maico
Maico:
1. Yes, as I am aware of
2. To be defined
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Yes
8. Yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
How the NGU could solve the Colorado river water shortage that is pending.
Assuming a discounted upfront cost of a kilowatt of NGU power at $3,000 upfront capital investment that lasts 11 years would provide an incredibly cheap baseline electricity cost of $0.031 (3.1 cents) per kilowatt-hour (kWh).
Generating a kilowatt of continuous power for a $3,000 upfront capital investment that lasts 11 years would provide an incredibly cheap baseline electricity cost of $0.031 (3.1 cents) per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Because energy is the primary cost driver of desalination, this cheap power would slash the energy costs of ocean desalination by 50% to 70%, drastically shifting the economics of water security.
The exact mathematical impact this power source would have on water desalination breaks down below:
Slashing Operating Costs (The Acre-Foot Math)Modern Seawater Reverse Osmosis (SWRO) requires roughly 3.5 kWh of electricity to produce one cubic meter of fresh water.
The Energy Consumption:
Delivering one acre-foot of water requires roughly 4,317 kWh of electricity.
Old Grid Cost:
At a standard industrial grid rate of $0.10 per kWh, the energy alone costs roughly $432 per acre-foot.
New Cost With NGU Technology:
At $0.0311 per kWh, the energy cost drops to just $134 per acre-foot. This is a net savings of $298 per acre-foot purely on electricity.
Shifting the Total Price of Desalinated Water
When adding this energy breakthrough to a plant’s fixed capital amortization, maintenance, and chemical costs, the total price of water drops considerably
Current Wholesale Desal Price: $1,500 – $2,000 per acre-foot.
Optimized Price With a NGU Power Source: $1,200 – $1,700 per acre-foot.
Making “Virtual Water Swaps” Highly Profitable
With total production costs dropping toward $1,200 per acre-foot, desalination becomes financially competitive with urban groundwater pumping. Coastal cities could rapidly build out desalination networks to supply 100% of their municipal needs. They would then sell or swap their unused upstream Colorado River allocations to inland desert states like Arizona and Nevada at an unprecedented profit margin.
Decoupling Desalination from the Grid
Industrial desalination plants consume immense amounts of power, often straining regional electricity grids. A dedicated, self-contained $3,000/kW power unit allows a facility to operate completely off-grid. This eliminates the risk of blackouts stopping water production and bypasses the years of delays typically required to connect a new industrial plant to the public electrical infrastructure.
The Remaining Catch: It Only Fixes half the Problem
While NGU technology completely solves the energy hurdle, it does not eliminate the Capital Expenses (Capex) of desalination. Even with almost free electricity, water agencies must still pay billions to construct the physical facility. They must still buy premium, corrosion-resistant titanium plumbing, replace delicate filtration membranes every few years, and safely diffuse toxic brine back into the ocean.
To completely replace California’s official Colorado River water allocation with ocean desalination, the state would require a continuous baseline power capacity of 1,760 megawatts (MW), resulting in an annual electrical consumption of 15.4 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh).
To put that scale into perspective, this single water-replacement initiative would instantly increase California’s entire state electrical grid demand by roughly 5.1%.The engineering and mathematical breakdown of this massive energy footprint is detailed below:
The Core Variables
California’s Allocation:
Under the historic 1922 Colorado River Compact, California holds the single largest senior water right on the river, allocated exactly 4.4 million acre-feet (AF) of water per year.
Desalination Energy Baseline:
Operating at the efficiency of California’s existing premier facility—the Claude “Bud” Lewis Carlsbad Desalination Plant—requires 3,500 kWh of electricity per acre-foot of fresh water produced.
The Annual Electricity Bill (kWh)Multiplying the full allocation by the energy required per unit gives the total annual electricity consumption 15,400,000,000 kWh (15.4 Billion kWh) per year.
This is equivalent to 15,400 Gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity every year.
Continuous Grid Load Required (Megawatts)
Because desalination plants must run continuously (24/7/365) to stay efficient and prevent filters from fouling, we divide the annual energy demand by the 8,760 hours in a year to find the required steady-state grid load: s ➔ ~1,760 Megawatts (MW).
Contextualizing the Scale:
What Does 1,760 MW Look Like?
To generate 1,760 MW of completely continuous, uninterruptible power capacity to feed the desalination plants, California would need to build or acquire:
The Nuclear Equivalent: Almost the entire net output of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (California’s last remaining nuclear plant, which generates 2,200 MW).
The Solar Equivalent:
Because solar panels only generate peak power during the day, achieving a 1,760 MW continuous baseline would require roughly 7,000 MW of raw solar panel installations paired with the world’s largest battery storage reserves to keep the pumps pressurized all night.
The Financial Power Cost:
At an optimistic industrial wholesale power rate of $0.08 per kWh, the annual electricity bill just to run the reverse-osmosis pumps would be $1.23 billion every single year.
Using NGU power technology—where 1 kilowatt (kW) of continuous capacity costs $3,000 upfront and functions for 11 years—the financial comparison to traditional power is staggering.
The NGU power source would cost a total of $5.28 billion upfront to deploy. Compared to using traditional California grid power over that same 11-year period, the NGU system would save a monumental $8.25 billion in energy costs.
The exact financial comparison and cost breakdown for replacing California’s 4.4-million-acre-foot Colorado River allocation with NGU power units is detailed below:
The Cost of NGU Power Technology
To generate the required 1,760 Megawatts (MW) of continuous, baseline power, you must convert that capacity into kilowatts:
The Math:
1,760 MW = 1,760,000 kW
Upfront Equipment Capital Cost = $5.28 Billion. Because this upfront cost buys you 11 years of continuous operation, the effective power cost over that timeframe breaks down to an incredibly low 3.1 cents per kilowatt-hour ($0.0311/kWh).
The Cost of Traditional Grid Power
If California were to run these desalination plants using traditional, commercial-grade utility grid power over that same 11-year lifespan, the bills would mount drastically:
Annual Power Consumption:
15.4 Billion kWh
Total 11-Year Power Consumption: 169.4 Billion kWh
At Commercial Grid Rates (~$0.08/kWh) =3.55 Billion.
The Financial Head-to-Head Financial Metric
$8.25 Billion total.
The Macroeconomic Impact on Desalination
By driving the power cost down to 3.1 cents per kWh, NGU technology completely rewrites the operational economics of desalination for the state:
Slashed Production Costs:
Instead of paying roughly $432 in electricity for every acre-foot of water produced, the state would only pay $108 in electricity per acre-foot.
Complete Grid Independence:
A 1,760 MW draw would normally break California’s fragile, wildfire-prone electrical grid. NGU technology allows the state to build dozens of massive desalination plants completely “behind the meter” or off-grid along the coast, requiring zero transmission lines or public energy infrastructure upgrades.
Axil:
1- the projection should be the same as before, but a projection is not a guarantee: we will be able to give a guarantee only based on direct experience and not based upon simulations, as we had
to do so far
2- I can state now that there should be no difference, but with the disclaimer in point 1
3- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
Once SSM reaches reliability goals will non SSM be offered as an alternative product?
What is the non SSM advantage?
Will both SSM and non SSM be demonstrated in January 2027 where both modes are 100% ready for the demo?
Thank You
Steve D:
There is not reason why not,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi
Is the e-cat able to handle inductive loads?
I wish you and your team the best.
Robert
Robert Maxwell:
In the SSM version yes, in the non SSM version no,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
A major cost factor in the NGU usage life is how long that it can produce energy over its service life. Past versions of the E-Cat was projected to function for 100,000 hours and could be refurbished for 30% of initial cost upon failure.
1- With the current hardware design insight, how does this initial estimate now stand?
2- Will the final deal on this cost factor be revealed during the introductory demo or can it be stated now?
3- Would there be a discount plan made available for a major big buyer from a multi gigawatt user?
Axil:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Will the global presentation of the Ecat supported by a third independent party ?
Best,
Marina
Marina:
Yes, the global presentation will be supported by a major independent third party of the world, but I think that after the global presentation the most important independent third party will be made by the clients that immediately after the presentation of the product will start to receive it and will use the Ecat NGU, with or without the SSM, as it might be,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bitcoin (Btc) è la valuta dell’universo, si basa sull’energia e sulla prova di lavoro.
Potremo pagare gli ecat in Btc?
Google translate:
Bitcoin (BTC) is the currency of the universe, it is based on energy and proof of work. Will we be able to pay ecat in BTC?
Pierino S.:
I am not expert of bitcoins and I am not expert of finance, therefore I am not able to answer your question, so far. This issue will be decided by our financial division, in due time,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
L’energia è la valuta dell’universo.
Google translate:
Energy is the currency of the universe.
Pierino S.:
Thank you for your phylosophical approach, albeit I think Universe is much more complex than currency… it exists billions of years before the birth of any kind of currency, let alone the bitcoins… if you refer to the relativity equation, in this case any existing form of matter is based on energy, not just currencies.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi:
Interesting interview this weekend, I wish you success with SSM. In my opinion, the thing that will be most valuable to your work at the global presentation is that an established company (your partner) will publicly endorse Ecat technology. If an important company gives you public backing, it will be impossible to ignore.
Regards, Ecat Enthusiast.
Ecat Enthusiast:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
# The 3.5 keV Line as the p = 16 Hydrino Rung
**A Parameter-Free Identification — and the Tests That Would Confirm or Kill It**
**T. Burkett**
*July 2026*
—
## Abstract
In 2014, an unidentified X-ray emission feature near 3.5 keV was reported in stacked XMM-Newton spectra of galaxy clusters and in Andromeda/Perseus. While often interpreted as possible sterile neutrino dark matter decay, the line remains contested. Here we show that Mills’ Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP) predicts a hydrogenic state with binding energy \(E(p=16) = 13.6 \times 256 = 3.4816\) keV — within ~2% of the reported feature, using a formula published decades earlier. Crucially, a single rung on this quantized ladder cannot appear in isolation. If real, companion lines must exist at \(p=14\) (2.67 keV), \(p=15\) (3.06 keV), \(p=17\) (3.93 keV), and \(p=18\) (4.41 keV), with line spacing that increases arithmetically by exactly 27.2 eV per step. This distinctive “comb” pattern, together with a collisional (\(\rho^2\)) radial profile and suppression in gas-poor dwarf galaxies, provides multiple independent tests. XRISM Resolve (~5 eV resolution) can measure the centroid, width, and search for the full comb directly. We list clean falsification criteria. The hypothesis requires no new parameters and makes sharp, observationally accessible predictions.
—
## 1. The Anomaly
In 2014, two independent groups reported an unidentified X-ray emission feature near 3.5 keV — in stacked XMM-Newton spectra of 73 galaxy clusters (Bulbul et al. 2014) and in Andromeda and the Perseus cluster outskirts (Boyarsky et al. 2014). The popular exotic interpretation was the decay of a ~7 keV sterile neutrino dark matter candidate, producing a monochromatic photon at half the particle mass. Mundane alternatives include faint potassium (K XVIII) or argon (Ar XVII dielectronic recombination) lines, or residual calibration systematics in the CCD detectors. The Hitomi observation of Perseus (2016–2017) did not confirm the line at the claimed strength. Subsequent analyses have placed increasingly tight upper limits. As of late 2025, the stacked XRISM Resolve analysis of ten clusters (3.75 Ms exposure) reports no unidentified line detection in the 2.5–15 keV band, with limits approaching but not yet excluding the weakest original claims. The feature remains contested; what follows is a concrete hypothesis *if* a real line (or faint version of it) is ultimately confirmed.
—
## 2. The Claim
In Mills’ Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP), the hydrogen atom possesses a ladder of bound states below the conventional ground state. The binding energy of the \(p\)-th state is given exactly by
\[
E(p) = 13.6\,\text{eV} \times p^2 \quad (p = 2, 3, 4, \dots)
\]
For the specific rung \(p = 16\):
\[
E(16) = 13.6 \times 256 = 3{,}481.6\,\text{eV} \approx 3.4816\,\text{keV}
\]
This matches the reported 3.5 keV feature to within ~2%, with **zero adjustable parameters**. The formula predates the astronomical observation by decades. Closeness of a single number proves nothing by itself. What elevates the identification from numerology to a scientific hypothesis is that a quantized ladder necessarily predicts **relatives** — a distinctive spectral fingerprint that no other proposed mechanism naturally produces.
—
## 3. The Fingerprint: The Companion Comb
A decaying sterile neutrino produces one and only one line. A rung on a quantized energy ladder cannot appear alone. If the 3.48 keV feature is the \(p = 16\) hydrino state (formed collisionally in the hot intracluster medium, with the binding energy released as an X-ray photon), then neighboring rungs must also be populated at some level. The predicted companion lines are:
| \(p\) | Energy (keV) | \(\Delta E\) from previous (eV) |
|——-|————–|———————————|
| 14 | 2.67 | — |
| 15 | 3.06 | 394.4 |
| **16** | **3.48** | **421.6** |
| 17 | 3.93 | 448.8 |
| 18 | 4.41 | 476.0 |
**Table 1.** Predicted hydrino emission lines for \(p = 14\)–18. The \(p = 16\) row (highlighted) corresponds to the reported 3.5 keV feature.
The spacing itself carries a unique signature. The energy difference between consecutive states follows
\[
\Delta E(p \to p+1) = 13.6 \times (2p + 1)\,\text{eV}
\]
yielding gaps of 421.6 eV (\(p=15 \to 16\)), 448.8 eV (\(p=16 \to 17\)), etc. — an arithmetic progression that **increases by exactly 27.2 eV per step**. No atomic species, no calibration artifact, and no known decaying particle produces a comb with this precise arithmetic property.
**Figure 1.** Predicted hydrino emission comb for \(p = 14\)–18. Vertical lines mark the exact energies \(E(p) = 13.6 p^2\) eV. The red double-headed arrows and labels show the increasing line spacing (\(\Delta E\) increases by 27.2 eV per step). The \(p = 16\) line at 3.4816 keV is highlighted as the candidate for the reported 3.5 keV feature. XRISM Resolve’s ~5 eV resolution is sufficient to separate these lines and measure the centroid to high precision.
—
## 4. Three Additional Discriminators
### 4.1 Radial Profile
Sterile neutrino decay is a one-body process; surface brightness should track the dark-matter density \(\rho_\text{DM}\) (approximately NFW or cored profile). Hydrino formation, being collisional and catalyzed in the hot gas, should scale closer to \(\rho_\text{gas}^2\) or \(\rho_\text{gas} \times\) (catalyst density). The two profiles are distinguishable in existing XMM-Newton and Chandra data on bright clusters such as Perseus, even if the line is faint. A centrally peaked, gas-following morphology would favor the collisional interpretation.
### 4.2 Dwarf Galaxies and Gas-Poor Systems
Under the sterile-neutrino decay hypothesis, gas-poor, dark-matter-dominated dwarf spheroidals should still produce the 3.5 keV line (signal \(\propto \rho_\text{DM}\)). Existing non-detections in such systems already create tension for a pure decay origin. The collisional hydrino picture naturally predicts *suppression* in low-gas environments — precisely the observed pattern. Non-detections therefore flip from generic “evidence against the line” to positive evidence favoring a collisional mechanism.
### 4.3 High-Resolution Spectroscopy with XRISM
The Resolve microcalorimeter aboard XRISM (~5 eV FWHM resolution at 6 keV, already delivering science data) offers the cleanest near-term test. It can:
– Precisely fix the line centroid (3.48 keV vs. 3.55–3.57 keV or exact K XVIII / Ar XVII positions).
– Measure the intrinsic width (ICM turbulence/bulk motion vs. dark-matter virial broadening).
– Directly search for the full companion comb at the exact predicted energies and spacings.
Even a non-detection of companions at current sensitivity, or a centroid inconsistent with 3.4816 keV, would strongly constrain or rule out the \(p = 16\) identification.
—
## 5. What Would Kill the Hypothesis
The proposal is deliberately falsifiable. Any one of the following observations would cleanly rule it out:
– ✗ The line is confirmed at high significance but no companion features appear at the predicted comb energies (2.67, 3.06, 3.93, 4.41 keV) with the required arithmetic spacing.
– ✗ XRISM Resolve measures a centroid significantly inconsistent with 3.4816 keV (e.g., locked to a known atomic line energy).
– ✗ The surface-brightness profile follows dark-matter density \(\rho\) rather than the expected collisional \(\rho^2\) (or gas-density) scaling.
– ✗ A line of comparable strength appears in gas-poor, collisionless dwarf spheroidals or other systems lacking sufficient interaction partners.
Conversely, detection of the full comb with the predicted energies and spacing law, together with a \(\rho^2\)-like radial profile and environmental dependence, would be extremely difficult for any conventional mechanism to reproduce.
—
## 6. Current Status and Outlook
As of mid-2026 the 3.5 keV feature itself has not been confirmed by high-resolution spectroscopy and may ultimately be explained by atomic physics, background modeling, or systematics. The GUTCP framework remains far outside the mainstream of quantum mechanics and atomic physics. Nevertheless, the test proposed here requires adoption of *nothing* beyond comparing public spectra against a fixed, decades-old published formula. It makes sharp, multi-messenger predictions that can be checked with existing archives (XMM radial profiles, dwarf-galaxy non-detections) and with XRISM data already being collected.
A speculation that volunteers this many independent, near-term ways to be proven wrong has performed its methodological duty. The data — not theoretical preference — will deliver the verdict.
—
## References
– Bulbul, E., Markevitch, M., Foster, A., et al. 2014, *ApJ*, **789**, 13 (detection in stacked XMM clusters).
– Boyarsky, A., Ruchayskiy, O., Iakubovskyi, D., & Franse, J. 2014, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, **113**, 251301 (Andromeda & Perseus).
– Hitomi Collaboration 2017, *ApJ*, **837**, L15 (non-confirmation in Perseus with microcalorimeter).
– XRISM Collaboration 2025, *ApJL*, **994**, L28 (stacked Resolve limits on unidentified lines including 3.5 keV).
– Mills, R. L. 2018 (and earlier), *The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics* (GUTCP); see also related patents and laboratory claims on hydrino states.
—
*This short note presents a falsifiable mapping of one astrophysical anomaly onto the GUTCP framework. It is offered in the spirit of clear, testable speculation.*
Todd Burkett:
Thank you for your insight: the work of Prof. Randall Mills merits respect,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
In terms of marketing power and reputation for quality, will a potential world wide international customer of the NGU know the names and positive reputations of at least one of the partners and hopefully all of them let’s say on the order of these well known and highly regarded providers…
Tier 1 Power Generation & Grid Giants
GE Vernova:
This independent company houses GE’s vast energy portfolio, specializing in massive gas turbines, wind energy, and advanced grid electrification software.
Siemens Energy:
Spun off from the main Siemens brand, this powerhouse leads in high-efficiency gas turbines, steam turbines, and comprehensive subsea energy solutions.
Westinghouse Electric Company:
The definitive pioneer in commercial nuclear energy, providing fuel, services, and advanced passive reactor designs globally.
Mitsubishi Power:
A core brand of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, leading the market in ultra-high-efficiency hydrogen-ready gas turbines and decarbonization technologies.
Ansaldo Energia:
Italy’s premier power engineering leader, widely respected for heavy-duty gas turbines, steam turbines, and flexible plant service contracts.
Industrial Automation & Component Manufacturers
ABB:
A Swiss-Swedish conglomerate setting the global standard for industrial automation, electrification, robotics, and heavy-duty grid connection components.
Schneider Electric:
A French multinational specializing in digital energy management and automation solutions critical for modern, smart power plant infrastructure.
Hitachi Energy:
A massive joint venture delivering pioneering power technologies, particularly high-voltage direct current (HVDC) systems for long-distance transmission.
Cummins:
The undisputed leader in diesel and alternative-fuel power generator sets, globally trusted for reliable standby and prime power systems.
Caterpillar (Cat):
A global household name in heavy machinery and reciprocating engine generator sets, dominant in decentralized power production.
Renewable Energy & Turbine Specialists
Vestas:
The world’s dedicated wind energy leader, focused exclusively on the manufacturing, installation, and servicing of onshore and offshore wind turbines.
Doosan Enerbility:
A South Korean heavy industry leader recognized globally for large-scale nuclear components, steam generators, and massive desalination plants.
Wärtsilä:
A Finnish corporation dominant in the marine and energy markets, famous for ultra-flexible, large-scale internal combustion engine power plants.
Axil:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Is your paper “Ecat SK and long range particle interactions” still the best theoretical explication of the Ecat effect ?
Stefano:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
Will the Ecat be useful for humanitarian applications ?
All the best,
Roberta
Roberta:
That’s what we are working for,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
As of today, which are the probabilities that within January 2027 will be made the global presentation, respectively for the SSM version and the non SSM version of the Ecat ?
JPR
Jean Paul Renoir:
SSM: 85%
Non SSM: 100%
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Can you provide updates on:
1. Any development on 500W or large NGU reactors?
2. The commercial generation of electrical Grid power by NGU units?
3. The current number of updated eCats undergoing SSM testing?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
1. So far only with assemblies of 100 W modules
2. Not directly by us, please see my answers to Svein on July 5
3. 20
Warm Regards,
A.R.
How any more delays in the release of the NGU for public use can jeopardize the energy security of the southwest of the U.S.A.
Any further delays in deploying a NGU framework as a replacement power source will severely jeopardize the energy and water security of the U.S. Southwest. This vulnerability stems directly from an impending “hydropower cliff” at major Colorado River reservoirs scheduled to collide with peak regional demand between late 2026 and early 2027.
This post breaks down exactly how continuous delays in launching the NGU directly threaten the southwestern grid and the survival of core metropolitan areas like the Las Vegas metro area.
Loss of Baseline “Black Start” and Peaking Capacity
Hydropower from the Hoover and Glen Canyon dams does not just provide cheap energy; it supplies critical grid stability services.
Massive reductions in hydroelectric power production from Colorado River reservoirs are expected to hit as early as late 2026. The Hoover Dam on Lake Mead faces a potential 70% to 80% reduction in generating capacity by fall 2026 due to declining water levels.
Key Power Generation Risks (As of Summer 2026) Hoover Dam (Lake Mead):
Imminent Threat:
Projections indicate Lake Mead could drop below 1,035 feet in the coming months, which would necessitate shutting off 12 of its 17 turbines, resulting in a 70–80% reduction in power output.
Immediate Capacity Shortfalls:
Shutting down 12 of Hoover Dam’s 17 turbines by fall 2026 removes 70% to 80% of its operating capacity from the grid.
Complete System Failure:
If Lake Powell drops below 3,490 feet by December 2026, turbine generation at Glen Canyon ceases entirely.
Grid Vulnerability:
Hydropower acts as a “black start” resource—the power used to spin up other power plants during a total blackout. Delaying the NGU leaves the Southwest grid without its primary defense mechanism against regional blackouts.
2026 Critical Factors
Persistent Drought:
A combination of high temperatures and low precipitation, often referred to as “hot drought,” is accelerating the decline.
Reduced Releases:
To prevent Glen Canyon Dam from hitting “dead pool” (3,370 feet), operators are reducing water releases, which in turn accelerates the decline of Lake Mead.
Replacement Costs:
As hydropower is cheap, the reduction in generation is expected to increase electricity costs for users who must rely on other sources which should be the NGU.
The survival of Las Vegas is at stake.
Cascading Failures for Las Vegas might only be a few short months away
The Las Vegas metropolitan area faces a compounding existential threat if the NGU is delayed.
The Pumping Power Crisis:
Las Vegas relies on Lake Mead for roughly 90% of its water supply.
Submersible pumps require immense amounts of electricity to pull water out of the reservoir and push it uphill to the city.
The Feedback Loop:
If Hoover Dam’s power output collapses and an alternative NGU infrastructure is not online to pick up the load, the city faces a simultaneous power and water delivery failure.
The urgency of this current situation is completely valid, as the timeline presented leaves virtually zero margin for error. Relying entirely on a single technology like the NGU to stabilize the Southwest grid means that deployment speed and operational readiness are now the absolute highest stakes for the region.
Because the “hydropower cliff” is arriving rapidly, any friction in rolling out the NGU creates immediate, catastrophic vulnerabilities for all the states that receive water and power from the Colorado river system.
In order to avert a national disaster, priority NGU deliveries to the US southwest should be considered.
Axil:
Thank you for your insights
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Regarding: “Svein July 4, 2026 at 5:09 PM: “May private Ecat SSMs function with deliveries to the regular electricity grid and be quickly switched to an emergency power generator at the owner’s site in the event of a network failure?”
This feature is possible, but financially impractical (not intelligent) because of the reactive power requirements to interface with your local applications. It will take 10 times more money to handle reactive power locally rather than letting the grid handle it for you.
See post: 2026-06-21 16:57 Axil: https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=934#comment-1707060
Regarding: 2026-07-05 04:32 Andrea Rossi: “about one million of years ago ( the age of the “homo erectus” ): to understand exactly the scientific know-how of it about one million of years had to be spent, albeit I think we will be faster than that with the “Ecat the new fire”…”
The science behind vacuum energy extraction is already well formed and mature enough to totally explain how the extraction of vacuum energy works in detail.
Over some years now, I have fed all my vacuum energy extraction theory posts into the AI supported by GOOGLE. This AI seems to have absorbed this theory and in addition has added detail that expands that theory based on its training in multiple other fields of science.
All my AI mediated theory posts are available on the Rossi blog that can provide additional user vacuum energy harvesting research support if a user desires.
https://share.google/aimode/Nf2cyfVoMoB7JufAK
Dr. Rossi has all the major reaction theory points correct as recorded in his theory paper, but how these points are derived is subject to assumptions that are based in LENR theory assuming energy generation derived through nuclear energy extraction.
This AI has also been trained with all of Dr. Giorgio Vassallo’s geometric and electromagnetic framework. Dr. Vassallo does not accept vacuum energy extraction in preference for LENR nuclear based theory.
The AI can also explain how this geometric and electromagnetic framework contravenes the posits of accepted science relative to Dr. Rossi’s theory paper.
To gain background into vacuum energy extraction, understanding condensed matter science is central. The AI can teach this as an example:
https://share.google/aimode/vwKjE7kkbCMQzK4Ow
As typical another teaching example, to ask for and expansion of a detail of the theory based on accepted science as follows:
explain how ultra dense hydrogen (UDH) provides the seed upon which the vacuum energy extraction forms where exciton polaritons form in the electron cloud of the hole superconductive core of the UDH
https://share.google/aimode/RkbxHSJgJneh4YSAJ
If a google link fails, loading that link into your command line seems to work as and alterative access method.
Dear Andrea
I thank you for your clarifying answers to my 10 questions and your tacit acceptance of my comments.
My assumptions were confirmed!
I wish you and your partners good luck with a demanding final sprint to achieve a stable SSM.
Like the rest of your followers, I look forward to the global presentation.
In the meantime, I will probably come back with more input and look forward to the same attention.
Regards Svein
Svein:
Thank you for your support,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea, I was pleased to see your latest interview with Ackland, and I am very happy that you have achieved a stable SSM, and, above all, that you are focusing on the 100W DC system without worrying about high AC voltage or high-amperage modules; leave those arduous (and, in my opinion, pointless) tasks to others. On-site energy is the future, thanks to you, not power grids.
Regarding your valid doubts about the operating hypotheses for the E-Cat, I can tell you that almost all revolutionary inventions, from the mastery of fire onwards, originated as “technology,” and it was only after many (sometimes very many) years that an hypothesis of scientific explanation was formulated, often undergoing continuous revision. TECHNOLOGY races ahead while SCIENCE plays catch-up, and doesn’t always succeed!
Keep it up, Andrea.
Neri
Neri Accornero:
Thank you for your support; to be precise, I did not say that we already achieved a stable SSM, I said we are close, but not there yet.
You are right about the chronology: the most paradigmatic example is the invention of the control and use of the fire: about one million of years ago ( the age of the “homo erectus” ): to understand exactly the scientific know-how of it about one million of years had to be spent, albeit I think we will be faster than that with the “Ecat the new fire”…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
I refer to the Interview with Frank Aukland on July 4th.
I have some comments and questions related to the effect that society will be able to utilize IF SSM is successful and the various nations allow Ecat to be used in the contexts mentioned here.
Electricity is basically a “fresh commodity” that should preferably be delivered to a network at the same time and in the same quantity as the varying consumption from there requires.
Alternatively, very expensive “canning” in the form of battery storage must be used to avoid unfortunate voltage variations.
Ecat SSM seems to be able to open up fantastic opportunities that have not previously existed.
This is because any Ecat owner may be able to deliver energy, extracted from ZPE, to their local electricity grid and get paid for the delivery in the same way that solar cell owners are currently paid for delivered electricity extracted from sunshine.
In this regard, I have several questions, intended for simple yes/no or indicative answers:
1. May private Ecat SSMs function with deliveries to the regular electricity grid and be quickly switched to an emergency power generator at the owner’s site in the event of a network failure?
2. Will an electricity grid be able to “communicate” with the connected Ecat SSMs and regulate the energy delivery from them as needed?
3. Can the connected Ecat units be regulated so that there is a maximum balance between the inputs and the simultaneous withdrawals from all parts of the grid?
4. May this regulation process be automated so that the network itself seeks to maintain the most efficient/loss-free energy balance possible?
5. May EVs powered by Ecat SSM also be connected to the local network for energy delivery there, when they are not operating in traffic?
(EVs will then completely change from an expensive energy consumer to a very valuable energy supplier.)
6. Will this then mean that the local consumer networks, in the future, will receive a significant surplus of environmentally friendly electrical energy?
7. May this energy surplus be offered to industry that is currently based on energy technologies that are far more expensive and also environmentally harmful?
8. Will Ecat SSM be easily used, with the necessary load considerations and/or interruption delays, also where networks do not exist?
9. Are there tests that show to what extent the necessary physical elements in the “apparatus” that convert ZPE into electricity have a real duration in relation to the expected 100,000 hours?
10. Will a guarantee/insurance be offered if the given operating time is not achieved?
Here, it is probably the conditions in points 5, 6 and 7 that will be the most revolutionary.
This could mean that such a private EV, excluding the time used for transportation, will be able to supply the grid with over 1 million kWh during its lifetime.
This will have great economic and practical significance in any society.
I assume that you and the partners have deliberately wanted to hold this relationship back until the technological possibilities are sufficiently clarified. The final answer will probably come at the global presentation.
Since EVs based on Ecat SSM will have a much lower weight than today’s versions with battery banks, this also entails several other and significant environmental advantages.
Regards Svein
Svein:
1- To do this connection are necessary authorizations with the grid provider, without our liabilities
2- 3- 4: same as in 1
5- EV applications can be done only by the EV manufacturers
6- I do not know
7- yes
8- yes
9- no, our forecast is based only upon simulations
10- no
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
Thank you the interview with Frank. With Ecat reactors delivering HV spikes it is understandable that inductive drive is an issue. Where multiple Ecat reactors are connected in parallel this presents an opportunity to achieve an improved DC output. Each Ecat is driven with a frequency (range) Ecat F. A master clock generates at 5 x Ecat F and is fed to a count to 5 divider. Each counter output stage drives one reactor at 1 x Ecat F and the 5 reactor outputs are paralleled to present 5 x Ecat F to the output stage. A 5 times improvement of energy distribution etc.
Steve D:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi (and Frank Ackland)
Thank you for the marvelous interview today!
Bob Belovich
Bob Belovich:
Thank you for listening,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for the interview today, here is a link to it on YouTube: https://youtu.be/ZiMPC-klsTQ?si=rqj9bVossLoI0GYT
Regarding your new website http://www.drandrearossi.com, is it true that the E-Cat was invented in the USA?
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Frank Acland:
Thank you for the July 4th interview. Important date, important engagement, important new website,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Beste Axil ,
Ik denk dat er weinig forum lezers zitten te wachten op uw pagina lange uiteenzettingen gegenereerd door AI en die weinig te maken hebben met de ECAT / NGU voor huishoudelijk gebruik !
ENGLISH SYNOPSIS
Thank you for your theories; we hope anyway to grasp an Ecat soon !
Accepted science views electric charge not as an object an electron “owns,” and generates local to itself, but as the measure of how strongly the electron couples to the electromagnetic field. In quantum electrodynamics (QED), this interaction strength is expressed by the Fine-structure constant, a fundamental QED number.
The Mechanics of Coupling
In the Standard Model, elementary particles like the electron exist as localized excitations of their respective quantum fields.
The Electromagnetic Field – An all-pervasive field.
The Interaction:
The electron interacts with the electromagnetic field by emitting and absorbing virtual photons (the carrier particles of the electromagnetic force).
Charge as a coupling property:
”Charge” is simply the numerical value assigned to the degree of this interaction. It determines the probability that an electron will interact with a photon.
The Fine-Structure Constant
The strength of this coupling is defined by the dimensionless Fine-structure constant:
What it means:
The value quantifies the fundamental probability of a single electron coupling with an electromagnetic field vertex (i.e., emitting or absorbing a single photon).
”Weakly coupled”:
Because ‘alpha’ is significantly less than 1 quantum physics describes this as a “weak coupling”. This relatively small value ensures that atoms remain stable and do not collapse instantly.
Bare vs. Dressed Charge
Because the electron interacts with its own field and the fluctuating quantum vacuum, physicists draw a distinction between “bare” and “dressed” charge:
Bare Charge: The intrinsic strength of the electron isolated from the vacuum.
Dressed Charge:
The measured physical charge observed in experiments. The vacuum polarizes around the bare charge, shielding it and resulting in the exact e we measure (roughly \(1.602 \times 10^-19) Coulombs).The exact numerical values of this coupling, and why it is calibrated to 1/137}, remain fundamental free parameters in the Standard Model that must be input from experimental measurement, rather than derived from scratch.
But what is the so called running of the coupling?
The running of the coupling is the physical phenomenon where the strength of a fundamental force (the coupling constant) is not actually constant, but changes depending on the energy scale or distance at which the interaction is measured.
In quantum field theory, what we traditionally call a “charge” or a “force constant” is merely a value fixed at a specific low-energy limit.
The Core Mechanism: Vacuum Polarization
The running of a coupling constant is driven entirely by vacuum polarization and the presence of virtual particles. According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum is not empty space; it is a boiling sea of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that constantly pop into existence and annihilate over incredibly short timeframes.When an elementary particle (like an electron or a quark) is placed into this vacuum, it polarizes the surrounding virtual pairs. These virtual particles arrange themselves in a way that shields or screens the original particle, physically altering the force field around it.
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED): Charge Screening
In Quantum Electrodynamics (the theory of electromagnetism), the running of the coupling constant ‘alpha’ behaves as follows:
At Long Distances (Low Energy):
A bare electron is surrounded by a cloud of virtual electron-positron pairs. The virtual positrons are electrostatically attracted to the electron and orient themselves closer to it, while the virtual electrons are repelled outward. This creates a screening cloud that partially masks the electron’s true charge. As a result, far away from the electron, we measure the standard fine-structure constant value: ‘alpha’ approx 1/137.
At Short Distances (High Energy): If an incoming particle has immense kinetic energy, it can pierce through this virtual screening cloud. By probing closer to the “bare” core of the electron, it experiences less screening and encounters a stronger effective positive or negative charge concentration.
The Result:
The electromagnetic coupling constant increases (runs upward) as the energy scale increases. At the scale of the Z boson ((91.2 GeV) alpha increases to approximately 1/128.
Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD):
Asymptotic Freedom
In Quantum Chromodynamics (the theory of the strong force between quarks), the running of the coupling constant ‘alpha’ acts in the exact opposite direction due to the unique properties of gluons:
The Anti-Screening Effect:
Quarks are surrounded by virtual quark-antiquark pairs (which screen charge, just like in QED). However, because gluons themselves carry color charge, the virtual gluons in the vacuum create a massive anti-screening effect that outweighs the quark screening.
At Short Distances (High Energy):
When quarks are pushed incredibly close together, the anti-screening cloud is left behind. The strong force coupling constant decreases (runs downward) toward zero. This phenomenon is known as asymptotic freedom. Inside a proton, quarks behave almost like free, non-interacting particles.
At Long Distances (Low Energy):
As quarks are pulled apart, the anti-screening gluon field grows stronger, causing ‘alpha’ to increase rapidly. This leads to color confinement, making it impossible to isolate a single quark.
Mathematical Modeling: The Beta Function
The mathematical framework that dictates exactly how a coupling constant ‘g’ changes (“runs”) with respect to the energy scale is governed by the Renormalization Group Equation Where beta(g) is the Beta Function of the specific quantum field theory:
If beta(g) > 0 (like in QED), the coupling strength increases with higher energy.
If beta(g) < 0 (like in QCD), the coupling strength decreases with higher energy.
Restatement of the Concept
The running of the coupling is the dynamic variation of a force's strength caused by quantum vacuum shielding, meaning that forces become stronger or weaker depending on how closely particles interact.
How Giorgio Vassallo's geometric model struggles to reconcile a charge that changes value based purely on collision energy.
The running of the coupling is a fundamental cornerstone of Quantum Field Theory (QFT). It proves that values like the fine-structure constant 'alpha' are not fixed, but change dynamically based on the energy scale of a collision.
Giorgio Vassallo’s geometric and electromagnetic framework—which relies on Space-Time Algebra (STA) to model elementary charges as localized, deterministic toroidal currents moving at the speed of light—struggles significantly to reconcile this phenomenon. His architecture faces five major theoretical obstacles when attempting to explain why a charge changes value based purely on collision energy:
1. Structural Rigidity vs. Dynamic Scaling – Vassallo's View:
In his model, the charge e, mass m, and spin of an electron or proton are simultaneous, rigid geometric consequences of a single point-like charge tracing a localized, closed toroidal loop at the speed of light. The loop's geometry is directly constrained by the fundamental magnetic flux quantum.
The Struggle:
Because the charge in this model is a hard-coded topological boundary condition of the spacetime loop itself, it is structurally rigid. If the coupling constant "runs" (meaning the effective charge increases during a high-energy smash), Vassallo’s model has no native geometric mechanism to allow the charge value to fluidly and reversibly scale up or down. Changing the charge value would mathematically break the quantization of the loops that keep his particles stable.
2. The Rejection of Virtual Particles and the Quantum Vacuum
Standard QFT Explanation: The running of the coupling is physically caused by vacuum polarization. A bare charge is screened by a boiling sea of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that constantly pop in and out of existence in the quantum vacuum. High-energy collisions pierce this screening cloud to reveal a stronger effective charge.
Vassallo's Struggle:
Vassallo’s framework is deeply rooted in Occam’s Razor and classical relativistic electrodynamics. It actively avoids the standard QFT picture of an infinite sea of virtual particles and perturbative Feynman diagrams. Without a fluctuating quantum vacuum to create a dynamic screening cloud, Vassallo’s model lacks the very physical mechanism that standard physics uses to explain why a particle looks different at close distances.
3. The Localized "Zitterbewegung" Limitation
Vassallo's View: Vassallo's model uses a deterministic interpretation of Zitterbewegung (trembling motion), where the particle's internal, localized oscillation creates its properties.
The Struggle:
The running of the coupling constant is fundamentally a non-local, multi-body field effect governed by the Renormalization Group (RG) equations. It is not a property of the isolated particle itself, but an emergent trait born from the particle's interaction with the entire surrounding quantum field continuum. Vassallo's strictly localized single-particle equations are mathematically unequipped to generate an emergent scaling flow (like the Beta function) that depends on external collision energy rather than internal loop mechanics.
4. Over-Determined Kinematics – The Conflict:
In standard physics, a particle's rest mass is fixed, but its effective coupling strength varies with energy scale.
Vassallo's Struggle: In an integrated geometric model where mass, spin, and charge are all tightly locked variables derived from the same rotational frequency and radius, you cannot change one variable without altering the others. If high collision energy changes the effective charge, it would geometrically force a massive re-scaling of the particle’s internal radius, mass, and spin track. Vassallo’s model cannot decouple the running of a force's strength from the fundamental internal kinematics of the particle itself.
5. Inability to Account for Asymptotic Freedom (QCD)
The Conflict:
In the strong force, the coupling constant does the exact opposite of electromagnetism—it decreases at high energies (asymptotic freedom) due to the anti-screening effects of gluons.
Vassallo's Struggle:
Vassallo models the proton using pure electromagnetic and geometric currents rather than the standard three-quark gluon model. While one might try to visually map an electromagnetic screening cloud onto an aether-like geometry, it is mathematically impossible to cleanly derive asymptotic freedom (a negative Beta function) using purely classical, local electromagnetic current loops. Without the non-Abelian gauge fields of QFT, a geometric model cannot inherently explain why a force would completely vanish at ultra-short distances.
Summary of the Conflict
Vassallo’s geometric model struggles because it treats charge as an indivisible, structural trait of a localized spacetime loop, whereas the running of the coupling proves that charge is an emergent, variable property dictated by the global, fluctuating environment of a quantum field.
Axil:
Thank you for your today’s second insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Under the quantum mechanical posit that an electron can be in two or more places at once, how is its charge reckoned?
To reconcile the charge of an electron when it is “in two or more places at once,” physics relies on the concept of quantum superposition and the framework of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).The short answer is that the electron’s charge does not split into fractional pieces. Instead, it is the probability of interacting with the full, undivided charge that is distributed across those locations.
Here is exactly how this is reconciled across different physical frameworks:
The Wavefunction and Charge Density
In standard quantum mechanics, an electron in multiple places is described by a single wavefunction.
The Reality:
The mathematical charge density acts like a smooth, delocalized cloud. For example, in a hydrogen atom, the electron is superposed all around the nucleus simultaneously. This smooth cloud is what produces the molecule’s electrostatic fields and chemical bonds
The Measurement Postulate (Wavefunction Collapse)
While the charge behaves like a delocalized cloud before you look at it, it changes completely the moment an observation occurs.
If you place two highly sensitive particle detectors at the two locations where the electron is superposed, you will never find half an electron in each.
Instead, one detector will register 100% of the electron’s charge -e, and the other detector will register 0%. The act of measurement forces the superposed wavefunction to “collapse” into a single, localized point. What is factionalized is the probability of finding the charge detected in any given detector.
The QED View:
Quantized Field Excitations
In Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), particles are not tiny billiard balls; they are localized ripples (excitations) in an underlying, all-permeating electron-positron field. Charge is how the EMF cupules with the electron and other charge particles.
The total charge operator of this universe-wide field is strictly quantized in integer units of -e.
When an electron is in a superposition, the excitation of the field is spread out. However, because the field itself is governed by strict quantum rules, it is physically impossible for the field to transfer a fraction of a charge to an instrument. The field transfers energy and charge in indivisible packets (quanta).
How this Challenges Giorgio Vassallo’s Framework
This exact scenario highlights why purely localized, geometric models like Giorgio Vassallo’s Spacetime Algebra (STA) face severe theoretical hurdles:
The Conflict:
Vassallo models the electron as a single, physical, localized toroidal current track (a point-like charge zipping around a doughnut-shaped path at the speed of light).
The Problem:
If an electron is physically real and confined to a single local geometric loop, it cannot be in two macroscopic places at once.
To explain a double-slit experiment or a split wavefunction, Vassallo’s model must either reject the literal interpretation of superposition or rely on non-local aether waves to guide the single, localized loop. It cannot naturally reconcile a single geometric track existing in two distinct spatial regions simultaneously.
Axil:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jean Beaumont:
Without the help I obtained in the USA starting from the year 1996 on, the Ecat would never have been born.
In the USA my life has been saved.
See http://www.drandrearossi.com
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi:
About your wishes for the 4th of July: what does mean the USA for you ?
Jean Beaumont
Regarding: 2026-06-29 07:41 Roberto
“Which reading would you suggest in matter of nuclear physics related to anomalous reactions like, for example, the ones that happens in the Ecat ?”
The vacuum reaction is NOT a LENR – nuclear reaction as posited by Giorgio Vassallo. Vassallo does not accept virtual particle theory and modern quantum mechanics. He attempts to explain what Dr. Rossi’s system is doing as a nuclear reaction thus LENR. Dr. Rossi has stated recently “The E-cat, in its actual version, is not a LENR system”.
The NGU is a optical system related to lasor technology.
Here is the appropriate theory for the NGU:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD0DRAxxVWg
Stopped Light: How Physicists Halted a Beam Inside Atoms.
The key to the vacuum reaction is stopped light. In a Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC) light is captured by coherent atoms and the nature of the light is recorded. The BEC involved is what Ultra Dense Hydrogen (UDH) creates. This ability to combine with light makes UDH the seed by which light is captured. In the BEC, light can be recreated and continue its path when the BEC is stimulated by other light. This recreated light can move forward but it can also move back in the direction that it first entered the BEC. This is called negative photon momentum. This negative energy is what produces the Dynamic Casimir Cavity that makes virtual vacuum photons into real ones.
The AI validates this theory here
https://share.google/aimode/jejxWu1z3Ka3UopDd
These real photons harvested from the vacuum is where the extra optical power comes from that produces energy gain.
If the like to the AI is invalid, reference a duplicate post at
https://e-catworld.com/2026/06/28/rossi-important-goal-reached-with-ssm/#comment-6896568419
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I have been following your work since your collaboration with Prof. Sergio Focardi. I am particularly interested in the research methodology behind your product rather than just its technical specifications.
Could you share whether the E-Cat technology is an entirely new discovery—akin to the discovery of electricity—or is it based on an existing phenomenon that simply hasn’t received enough attention?
If it is a completely new paradigm: How does your research process look? Do your existing theories guide your experiments, or do you formulate new theories based on the outcomes of your trials?
Thank you for your time and dedication.
Best regards
Dani
Daniel Kaufmann:
Please find what I think could be a theoretical explication of the Ecat process in my publication “Ecat SK and Long Range Particle Interactions” now published on the Journal of Nuclear Physics
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
The theoretical hypothesis has gone through substantial evolution based on the experimental discoveries all along my research from the year 1995 through the year 2026 ( more than 30 years…).
Truth to be said: I am not 100% sure my theoretical hypothesis is correct, albeit I am convinced of the reality of the work of the Ecat ( probably in SSM regime ).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Regarding: 2026-06-29 07:41 Roberto
I strongly recommend that the science interpretation of Giorgio Vassallo et Al not be referenced in any patent application covering the NGU system.
Giorgio Vassallo version of science does not comport with the accepted version of vacuum energy science that has supported prior art in associated patents on the extraction of energy from the vacuum. I checked with the AI on this issue to gain insight about the stance of the patent office based on their past actions as follows:
AI prompt:
List all prior patents claiming extraction of power from the vacuum, then compare the science of Giorgio Vassallo against the prior art these sucessful theories expressed in the other patents claiming vacuum exergy extraction, then provide an analysis of these differences between these theories as detracting from the Rossi patent application.
The response as follows:
https://share.google/aimode/oEbzz7XDzmncXT0Z7
In order to be safe and preserve Dr. Rossi’s IP claims, it is prudent to avoid any science claims associated with LENR theory in his patent applications.
If the AI link is invalid, reference post:
https://e-catworld.com/2026/06/14/rossi-working-on-e-cat-producing-ac-electricity-for-ssm/#comment-6895596494
Dr. Rossi,
Who is making the SSM tests? Is it you alone or your manufacturing partner?
Regards, Ecat Enthusiast
Ecat Enthusiast:
All the due persons,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi, please never give your license to the military. They would use it in the worst possible way.
Zoltan:
The Ecat is an energy generator: it will be bought and used from anybody that needs energy. Once the Ecat is for sale around the world, anybody can buy it and use the energy generated
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Which reading would you suggest in matter of nuclear physics related to anomalous reactions like, for example, the ones that happens in the Ecat ?
Cheers
Roberto
Roberto:
The text I studied with more attention lately is “Unified Field Theory and Occam’s Razor”, by Giorgio Vassallo et Al.
It is published by World Scientific Publishing Europe Ltd. and distributed by Amazon,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
The bio on http://www.drandrearossi.com is really moving
Best
Ambrogio
Ambrogio:
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Has the Partner solved the issues of self regulation that has existed with the NGU product line. If not, what are the prospects of these issues being resolved by time of the introductory demo.
Axil:
With or without the SSM I think that the global presentation will be made within January 2027, this implying no residual issues,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Good morning, Dr. Rossi. A quick question requiring a brief answer: can you confirm that the 100-watt NGU E-Cats will also be marketed in a version with a 12-volt DC output?
Thank you, and I wish you every success with your project.
Claudio Varotto:
I think so, that wouldn’t be difficult,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
It is claimed that the Ecat SSM is the most important invention that has come about in recent centuries.
A recognition of this would be of great importance to AR and his partners.
This must be argued for, in a clear and simple way, when the global presentation comes.
This is then a challenge to contribute from those JoNP followers who agree with the aforementioned conclusion.
I myself believe that the most decentralized energy access possible, also with reversible power supply, is both cost-, safety- and especially environmentally favorable.
This will be very conflict-free for most nations, groups and people. It will therefore be of crucial importance for both individuals and nations.
I believe that humanity, in terms of energy, undoubtedly needs:
1. An energy availability that is highly decentralized.
2. To safeguard all the benefits that local and global environmentally safe resource use can provide.
3. A device that can utilize ZPE seems to be able to provide the best opportunity here.
Regards Svein
Svein:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thank you very much for your answers.
Regarding Question 3 about the location of the SSM control, I’m afraid I didn’t express myself clearly enough: Specifically, whether the SSM control is technically located within each individual base module, or whether it is located separately outside a base module (or outside the aggregation of multiple base modules).
I interpret your answer—that “SSM modules should conserve SSM even if aggregated”—to mean that the SSM control is always an integral part of every base module.
Have I understood this correctly?
LENR-Wiki:
Thank you again for your attention.
Answer:
You understood perfectly,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
This applies equally to Ecat NGUs as well as Solar PV and any other reverse power devices.
Sent to the UK government who have made a mistake:
The UK government publicity claims the cost of a Balcony Plug-in Solar system will be about £400; you need to double that to allow for fitting RCBOs before(and not after) you allow burning to start.
There is a clear risk of house fires. I am not sure how far the damaged wiring behind the CU(Consumer Unit) extended but the potential for causing a short circuit and the fire extending, even to a house fire, is clear. The danger is made clear by Article 24/3/2026 in the ‘I’ newspaper[2:].
This is not a manufacturer’s problem. They already market BI-DIRECTIONAL RCBOs. What is needed is the correct Regulation in the G98 distribution code and BS7671 which I have just found [3:]. I agree with everything it says, but what about the 25 million homes without bi-directional protective devices who might buy a plug-in solar system? Updating the Regulations will not reach them and plug-in solar is, dangerously, marketed as not requiring an electrician.
[1:] The dangers of balcony PV Systems, ‘reverse power’ flows, and lack of a trained electrician
The highest level of electrical protection is achieved by fitting BI-DIRECTIONAL RCBOs in the correct places. Do NOT fit reverse current devices to switchboard circuits that lack bi-directional protection. I am the proud owner of a burnt-out protection module and wiring, which is why I know about this.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Niglon-40amp-Bi-Directional-SSAX2-16Amp/dp/B0FH2P6MBP?s=diy
Product description
… This model includes BI-DIRECTIONAL fault detection, ESSENTIAL for SOLAR PV installations [I would add batteries, car chargers, NGUs[ https://ecatthenewfire.com/pre-order-the-ecat-sklep/ ] and any other reverse power devices] where power can flow in either direction. Unlike conventional RCBOs, which only protect against faults in one direction, this device ensures continuous protection regardless of energy flow making it an excellent choice for PV-ready consumer units.
In addition, it offers Type A RCD protection and switched line and neutral, simplifying maintenance and improving safety throughout the installation. These RCBO’s are the latest Bi-Directional Switched Neutral Space saver compact size ones. Each RCBO is brand new and manufacturer boxed.
[2:] Article 24/3/2026 in the ‘I’ newspaper:
‘The government will work with ENA, DO and OFGEM to update the Regulations. Specifically, it will update the G98 distribution code and wiring regulations BS 7671 to allow households to connect 800W plug-in solar panels to domestic[13amp] sockets without the need for an electrician.
!! SolarPV needs BI-DIRECTIONAL RCBOs fitted by a qualified electrician !!
[3:] https://www.cef.co.uk/guides/emergency-3rd-amendment-to-bs-7671-wiring-regulations
Urgent 3rd amendment to BS 7671
[ EMERGENCY URGENT IMMEDIATELY NEW ? Someone has just woken up to the need for BI-DIRECTIONAL protective devices. ]
The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) has issued an urgent 3rd amendment to BS 7671, which will be open for public comment from May 8th onwards.
The key change introduced by the 3rd Amendment is the requirement for BI-DIRECTIONAL protective devices on all generating sets including SOLAR PV, battery storage, and electric vehicles capable of supplying power back to the charger (vehicle-to-grid).
This new requirement aims to ensure safe and reliable electrical installations for the growing number of renewable energy sources and bi-directional power flow scenarios.
After a one-month consultation period, this amendment will become part of the BS 7671 regulations, effective immediately.
Paul Dodgshun:
Thank you for your insight and information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I was pleased to read that you have made significant progress toward solving the SSM problem, and that this progress warrants a separate report, which will be published on July 4 [2026]. Since no further updates are expected to be released before then, I would like to raise three additional topics whose current status may be of general interest:
1a. What is the status of the completion of the first production facility(ies)?
1b. Is Computational Engineering already playing a role in this?
2. It has already been reported in JoNP that the 100-watt base modules currently serve as the standard for all aggregations.
(a) Is work continuing on the development of the 500-watt base modules?
(b) Will the 10-watt base modules continue to be part of the portfolio (as announced a few months ago)?
3. Will the SSM solution be part of the base modules or always part of the aggregation (1…n)?
Warm regards
LENR-Wiki:
Thank you for your attention to our work.
Answers:
1a. Work in progress
1b. Not yet
2a. Yes
2b. I don’t think so, for the time being
3. SSM modules should conserve SSM even if aggregated
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
The SSM would be the most important invention of the last centuries. I wait with curiosity the next report…
Best,
Anna
Anna:
I agree,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea, I have a suggestion for your consideration.
In order to capture the immediate and serious interest of a wide- range of top-tier industrialists at the time of the worldwide general E-Cat presentation, perhaps there could also be streamed, at the same time, a complementary second one devoted specifically to industrial people ONLY. Not for the general public.
This would show to and convince them that a dedicated, advisory and planning team of experts will be immediately available for their company when they decide to take the decision to buy into a suitable E-Cat system that should benefit them a great deal.
It occurs to me that there will be many decision-making people at the top of their businesses who will not be sufficiently educated in advanced scientific principles. They would be attracted by the above- mentioned facility which will ease their minds and encourage them to get quickly involved in a totally novel process that will surely benefit the company enormously. They could be advised on set-up procedures to do exactly what they want.This should involve face-to-face meetings ,not just email communication.
Naturally, they will be concerned about the reliability of the new system at the outset, but the dedicated, problem-solving expertise of the easy-to-contact, help- center/centre should eliminate those fears. They could also be given a good estimation of how much extra profit for the company would likely be attained compared to their current situation.
This would require a somewhat large team of well-trained individuals—-perhaps several such teams. This would also involve your partner training up suitable candidates quite quickly if January, 2027, is to be the time for the general presentation.
I am undecided whether or not a single center/centre should exist, or whether one in each continent would be more appropriate. Does this seem a sensible suggestion? Perhaps too much to accomplish in the time available.
Warmest regards. Jean Pierre.
Jean Pierre:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
In your answer to Jean Paul Renoir on June 26, 2026 at 5:08 PM you say: I can answer INCREASED, because today we reached an important goal. Could you elaborate what this is?
Kind regards,
Calle H
Calle H:
On July 4th we will make a report about this,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The NGU is dumb. It has no microprocessor that can handle errors or exceptions. This is why the NGU needs a experienced 24/7 operator to respond to a changing environment that all retail users will encounter. Customer service will be a nightmare. This is the reason that the NGU must be placed in a fielding situation where all it does is produce 12 volt DC power like a battery were its only decision point is to be on or off. This is why the 1:1 grid fielding deployment is ideal. The grid capable inverter that teams with the NGU and provides the smarts to responds to grid exceptions. All the NGU needs to do is generate electric power as directed by the the inverter. Putting the NGU in its current state out into the wild without direction and supervision is making for BIG trouble.
Advantages of the 1:1 Inverter-Controlled Deployment
Risk Mitigation:
Stripping the generation unit of decision-making eliminates firmware glitches, error-looping, and unhandled environmental exceptions.
Leveraging Existing Tech:
Grid-capable inverters are already engineered, tested, and certified to handle micro-fluctuations, safety disconnects, and load balancing.
Simplified Scaling:
The generation unit can be mass-produced at a lower cost because it only needs to focus on stable DC output, akin to a “dumb” battery bank.
Operational Safety:
If the grid or load behaves unexpectedly, the inverter acts as the firewall, shutting down or throttling the system before any physical damage occurs to the generator.
The Retail Reality
Deploying unmanaged units directly to retail consumers would inevitably lead to a support nightmare. Retail environments are unpredictable, featuring variable loads, improper venting, and inconsistent maintenance. By forcing a smart inverter to act as the “brain,” you shift the operational burden away from both the end-user and the generator’s basic hardware.
Axil:
Thank you for your opinions and suggestions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
I noticed the new website
http://www.drandrearossi.com
Very interesting.
Is it in preparation of the global presentation of the Ecat ?
Have the probabilities of the SSM version increased or diminished ?
JPR
Jean Paul Renoir:
1- also
2- today in particular I can answer INCREASED, because today we reached an important goal,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
I refer to your information to Ambrogio regarding the volume of the Ecat SSM in relation to the existing Ecats.
This was good news!
I would venture to assume that regarding the weight ratios, these will also be approximately the same as the existing ones?
Regards Svein
Svein:
Same as the dimensions: between equal and less,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
At parity of power, the Ecat SSM will have a volume bigger, smaller, or equal vs the existing generators ?
Best,
Ambrogio
Ambrogio:
Between equal and smaller,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi:
How goes the work towards SSM?
Regards, Ecat Enthusiast
Ecat Enthusiast:
So far we are hopeful,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLpbQTekUA4&t=55s
Electric grid faces political roadblocks as it struggles with data center demand.
The tipping point… The war in Iran has cast a spotlight again on the dependence on fossil fuels. The electric grid is under growing demand, but the Trump administration has worked to roll back subsidies and incentives for some renewable energies. A new industry report finds that solar panel installations dropped by 14% this past year. Science Correspondent Miles O’Brien reports for our series, Tipping Point.
The fierce urgency of now. Decisions are being made today that will define the energy future of our country. The would needs to know now that there is another option available to the energy customer that is better than all the rest.
Key Takeaways from the Report
Geopolitical Pressures:
The conflict in Iran and subsequent spikes in oil and gas prices have renewed focus on volatile global dependencies on fossil fuels.
Policy Roadblocks:
The Trump administration’s rolling back of clean energy incentives directly coincides with a 14% drop in solar panel installations over the previous year.
Surging Grid Demand:
The U.S. power grid faces massive, unprecedented strain due to the high-energy needs of new artificial intelligence (AI) data centers.
The “Fierce Urgency and the Tipping Point”:
In this context, the phrase is used as an environmental rallying cry. It emphasizes that long-term energy infrastructure decisions must happen immediately rather than relying on a slow, “gradualist” approach.
Axil:
Thank you for the insight and the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I read the story of your life in
http://www.ingandrearossi.com
What a moving resiliency history case !
Ha en fin dag,
Peter G.
Peter:
Thank you for your empathy,
Warm Regards.
A.R.
Dr. Rossi:
How about a global announcement on July 4th, the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence? A day for new energy independence.
Waiting for 15 years,
Drew
Drew Glista:
That would be a good idea, but we are not ready yet; actually waiting after not 15, but 30 years of very, very hard work, but it will be worth the while,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Axil June 21, 2026 at 4:57 PM
Your presentation here with the verification from AI is very convincing.
There are some important points that I would like to add:
1. The energy that comes from ZPE delivered by Rossis Ecat is constant throughout the day and year without any forms of environmentally harmful emissions.
This gives each kWh a significantly higher value for society than other alternatives that are unstable or polluting.
2. Producing “consumable goods” close to the point of consumption has significant advantages, both practical and economic. This is well known.
3. A balanced and distributed electricity production adapted to the markets is preferable, as electricity itself always chooses the shortest cable length to the consumption.
Network losses and network loads are thereby minimized.
4. The existing local networks will thus be able to fulfill today’s tasks more easily without increases in cable dimensions.
5. The large central networks will then become less important as the local networks become more and more self-sufficient.
6. IF the ongoing SSM developments also give the networks an opportunity to regulate the connected Ecats so that demand and energy supply are automatically balanced in the network, – a perfect solution will be close.
7. A gradual development is easily manageable.
Regards Svein
Dr Rossi,
Is it a final decision to choose the power of 100 W for the basic module of all the assemblies ?
Best,
JPR
Jean Paul Renoir:
So far, yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Selling power to the grid is based on the grid that is providing your service.
The way that the NGU is designed almost forces that it is used for grid payback connection. Fielding a standalone NGU system is not intelligent.
In my case, if I can sell power to my grid, then I can install a 1 KV NGU to reduce my electric bill a lot. The grid can power my big consumer appliances like a hot water heater.
My grid allows a generous 1/1 payback policy. They pay back the same cost that they charge me for power.
Info: A typical residential electric hot water heater with two heating coils (dual elements) draws 4.5 kilowatts (kW) of power while running. A standard full-sized electric clothes dryer requires an average of 3.0 kW, though its power draw can range between 1.8 kW and 5.5 kW depending on the specific model and cycle settings.
Without grid power sales, I need to get a 6 kilowatt NGU just to meet the driving power requirements of the hot water heater and the dryer. But I cannot use other electrical appliances like an electric range in parallel.
Info: A standard home electric range (the combined stovetop and oven unit) typically operates at a total average power of 3.0 kW to 8.0 kW while in active use. If every single burner and the oven were turned on to maximum capacity at the exact same time, the absolute maximum power rating ranges from 6.0 kW to 12.0 kW.
But if I sell NGU power to the grid, then all I need to meet is my average power requirement of 1 Kilowatt at constant 24/7 grid feed rate and not the 12 kilowatt maximum power generation in a stand alone case.
Info: The rate at which power flows into your vehicle depends heavily on the setup you are connected to:
Level 1 (Standard Household Outlet): Uses a common 120-volt plug. It draws 1.2 kW to 2.0 kW of power, adding only about 3 to 5 miles of range per hour. It can take over 40 hours to fully charge an empty vehicle.
Level 2 (Fast Home & Public AC): Uses a 240-volt connection, similar to a clothes dryer outlet. It typically draws 3.3 kW to 19.2 kW (averaging 7.2 kW to 7.7 kW). This fills an average EV battery in roughly 4 to 10 hours.
Exceeding the maximum draw on the NGU will shut it down. What is required to start it back up. Using the grid allows the NGU is not ever shut down due to excess power demand.
Assuming a $4,000 Cost of a NGU 1 KW unit, the payback period is about 2 years and about 4.5 years with installation and grid certification.
To insure your NGU does not fail due to excess power demand might require 20 to 30 kilowatts of NGU stand alone power to support a possible combination of symaltainiously high power draw appliances from making power demands of an off grid NGU system.
That means that a grid based NGU system could be powered by a singe 1 kilowatt NGU compared to a stand alone NGU system that would require between 20 to 30 kilowatts of contingency power reserves.
I asked the AI to validate my assertions:
https://share.google/aimode/sSOWq75O6lYh3xSEE
If this link fails, a duplicate post is found here
https://e-catworld.com/2026/06/14/rossi-working-on-e-cat-producing-ac-electricity-for-ssm/#comment-6890770527
Axil:
Thank you for your insights, suggestions, and links,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
A Grid billing method—known as Virtual Net Metering (VNM) or Virtual Meter Aggregation—is governed by individual state policies and utility tariffs allows a single grid based power feed location assume the power generation and billing of multiple other electric power consumers.
Expanding, Virtual net metering allows a single renewable generation source to distribute its energy credits across multiple electric accounts (such as properties, tenant units, or commercial meters). While availability varies by specific grid operator, at least 17 states and Washington, D.C. have state laws that mandate utilities to offer some form of aggregated net metering.
The availability of this feature depends on your location, and is subject to the following frameworks:
States with Mandatory VNM:
In at least 17 states (including California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania), state utility commissions require grid providers to offer virtual net metering, provided all accounts are within the same utility’s service territory and within a specific distance (usually 1 to 2 miles) of the generator.
Deregulated Energy Markets:
In states with deregulated energy choices, generation supply credits can sometimes be allocated across multiple meters through billing agreements. This depends entirely on the specific utility’s tariff rules and the customer’s Retail Energy Provider (REP).
States Without VNM Mandates:
In states without statewide virtual metering laws (like Texas, Florida, or Alabama), the option is rarely available, though some utilities offer voluntary programs or customized commercial riders.
ZPE and MEQ
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=WQHVh-DdHjM&si=ZWUpHZoCz-uE0E1F
Sam:
Thank you for the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
To Axil
Your input now on June 20, points out what is obviously the best conceivable way ZPE can be applied by the modern society.
I have no doubt that AR and his partners have been aware of this for a long time.
I therefore expect that the development work that is now being done, lies precisely within the quality assurance of these functions. The same applies to patent applications.
It is of great business importance to be able to present this as a surprise to the global community.
Therefore, these possibilitys is not openly discussed now.
We just have to respect that.
Regards Svein
What is the opinion of the AI about what is important:
https://share.google/aimode/aw5VEiD7vmrJT56Ak
Axil:
Thank you for your opinion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Reference: “Which specific areas are now is on the tip of your spear? SSM.”
The big question is “what is important”
I beleive that SSM is not that important. Nether is an NGU system that produces heat. What will sell is a grid compatible NGU power provider that can feed power into the grid. The grid can power the NGU in ever situation using available grid power. A cut down low cost grid compatible version that is minimally complicated and costed is what the world needs now. Just keep it simple.
The availability of a grid compatible NGU will incentivize the world wide grid community to convert their costing and generation model over to 1:1 cost and power sharing. The grid based NGU will also distroy the solar power and home battery storage business model.
I can see one disincentive of this idea concerning the approach, it is the position of the partner to the 1:1 grid customer model. It seems to me that this grid business model is more advantageous to the partner (the grid partner) then to have all their customers go off grid.
This 1:1 bisiness model is good for the manufacture centric partner but may not be that good for the grid centric partner.
The perfection of SSM may be your personal ambition and preference but what matters to the world is the grid friendly NGU which you can field now.
Axil:
Thank you for the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello DR Rossi
An interesting video about ZPE.
https://youtu.be/c6lzd9ZgvNU?si=nzyneaQwUsBRr-Ei
Regards
Sam
Sam:
Thank you for the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
You say, June 19, 2026 at 5:30 AM, to Giuseppe Censorio:
EVs so far are not on the tip of our spear.
Which specific areas are now is on the tip of your spear?
Regards Svein
Svein:
SSM
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Would CVTs (constant-voltage transformer) perform as standard voltage regulators at Grid frequency and at the same time smooth the NGU SSM AC high frequency voltage spikes?
It seems you can fit more than one different voltage regulator in series to produce improved performance overall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage_regulator#Automatic_voltage_regulator
The ferroresonant transformer, ferroresonant regulator or constant-voltage transformer is a type of saturating transformer used as a voltage regulator. These transformers use a tank circuit composed of a high-voltage resonant winding and a capacitor to produce a nearly constant average output voltage with a varying input current or varying load. The circuit has a primary on one side of a magnet shunt and the tuned circuit coil and secondary on the other side. Voltage regulation results from magnetic saturation in the portion of the core associated with the resonant winding and secondary.[2]
The ferroresonant approach is attractive due to its lack of active components, relying on the square-loop magnetic characteristics of the core operating in saturation to absorb variations in average input voltage. Saturating transformers provide a simple rugged method to stabilize an AC power supply.
Paul Dodgshun:
Thank yo for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
This applies to a number of NGU ACs operating in parallel, as well as grid connected:
The NGU AC must accept fast shutdown and startup signals on the power cables and be able to smoothly control its power level. Startup requires synchronizing, so the NGU AC must read the frequency of the load, the voltage and phase supplied by other generators[1:]. Shutdown is best achieved by ramping down the NGU AC generation to low levels, so a step transient is avoided but fast shutdown may be needed in the case of faults.
Big generators can use a manual scynchronizing panel/trolley[1:] with a dial that presents all three properties. Synchronizing takes place when the meter shows the NGU frequency is slightly higher than the loads and the phase is slightly in advance. This prevents reverse power flows.
The NGU AC must be able to smoothly adjust its power output to maintain its output frequency to a frequency range around 50Hz or 60Hz. This requires control loops. All other synchronized grid generators will be doing the same and tripping will occur if the load moves out of bounds. This is known as cascade failure and it can lead to a system blackout. With numerous generators on a grid, each generator should have a droop characteristic, perhaps with the exception of base load, including nuclear units. Droop allows part load generators to run in a stable fashion. AVRs regulate the voltage. An AVR is a control loop that maintains a constant voltage[4:]
[1:] A synchronizing panel is an electrical control system that matches the voltage, frequency, and phase sequence of multiple power sources (such as generators on a utility grid) before safely connecting them together. It links them in parallel to work as a single, combined power source.
[2:] https://synchroelectricals.com/what-is-a-synchronizing-panel-working-features-benefits/
Why Synchronizing Panels Are Essential in Modern Power Systems
Think about the chaos if multiple generators tried to power a facility without coordinating—it’s a recipe for disaster. Frequency mismatches, voltage fluctuations, or phase differences could damage machinery, halt production, or cause massive energy loss. Synchronizing panels prevent that by matching generator parameters like voltage, frequency, and phase before connecting them to a common busbar.
A synchronizing panel sits between the generators and the main power distribution board. When a load demand exceeds the capacity of one generator or in case of utility failure, the panel kicks in, starts additional generators, synchronizes them, and transfers the load smoothly.
Working Principle of Synchronizing Panels
Understanding how synchronizing panels work helps grasp their value. The panel doesn’t just randomly switch generators on or off—it operates on real-time data, ensuring complete harmony between power sources.
Step-by-Step Operation Explained
Monitoring: It constantly monitors voltage, frequency, and phase angle from all power sources.
Initiation: When an additional generator is needed, it is started either manually or automatically.
Matching Parameters: The panel adjusts the speed (RPM) of the incoming generator to match frequency and aligns voltage and phase angle.
Synchronization: Once all parameters are matched, it closes the circuit breaker to connect the generator to the system.
Load Sharing: The panel ensures loads are distributed according to capacity or priority settings.
Shutdown: When extra power is no longer required, it seamlessly removes the generator from the network without disruption.
Key Components Involved in Synchronization
Synchronizing Relays
Automatic Voltage Regulators (AVR)
Frequency Meters
Phase Sequence Indicators
Load Sharing Modules
Governor Controllers
Each component plays a pivotal role in ensuring that synchronization happens without a hitch.
[3:] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droop_speed_control
Droop speed control is a control mode used for AC electrical power generators, whereby the power output of a generator reduces as the line frequency increases.
[4:] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage_regulator
An AVR (Automatic Voltage Regulator) is an electronic device that automatically maintains a steady, constant voltage output to equipment by correcting fluctuations in the input power supply. It acts as a protective “brain” for sensitive electronics and power systems, preventing damage from sudden spikes or dangerous drops.
Regarding: “do the recent developments with the SSM also bring closer the possibility of using E-Cats in electric vehicles, or are there still aspects that need further investigation?”
The partner should approach application development by the partner publishing an interface document that completely describes the interface of the NGU with any future application. The specification provides the application all the information that it requires to apply NGU power to its mission. The application is responsible to design, build. and trouble shoot one or more NGU compatible boards that receive power from the NGU bus and format that power into a form that meets the requirements of the application.
The Application board(s) must conform to the card size, pin outs, and bus protocols defined in the interface document. The application board are pug compatible with the NGU backplane
The NGU must nerve be modified to meet any application. Its function is to produce power only.
Core Engineering Realities and Boundaries
According to Leonardo Corporation’s framework, utilizing E-Cat NGU power in a complex machinery environment like an EV requires adherence to three rigid engineering protocols:
Absolute Isolation of the NGU:
The E-Cat NGU must never be modified to meet the specific requirements of any vehicle or system. Its sole, unalterable function is to generate power onto a primary bus.
Partner Interface Accountability:
The development partner must publish a comprehensive interface document. This document completely outlines how the NGU interacts with any downstream electronic applications, detailing all technical parameters required to apply NGU power to the mission.
Application Board Responsibility: The application team is entirely responsible for designing, building, and troubleshooting NGU-compatible boards. These external boards must pull power from the NGU bus and condition, step up, or format that electricity to meet the exact voltage, current, and safety requirements of the EV powertrain.
Integration Standards for the Application Board
To successfully draw power from the E-Cat NGU backplane, the application-specific boards must strictly mirror the physical and electronic architecture established by Leonardo Corporation. The integration framework relies on absolute standardized alignment across three core areas:
Plug Compatibility:
The application boards must be completely plug-compatible with the NGU backplane. This ensures a seamless, toolless mechanical fit into the primary power housing without requiring custom wiring harnesses or structural modifications to the generator itself.
Mechanical Dimensions:
The board must exactly conform to the card size specified in the interface document. Maintaining these precise physical boundaries is critical for proper slot alignment, cooling airflow, and vibration mitigation within a moving electric vehicle.
Electrical Connectivity:
The circuitry must perfectly match the designated pin outs defined by the manufacturer. Misaligned pins risk causing catastrophic short circuits or localized thermal failures on the power bus.
Communication Rules:
All logic and data tracking must strictly follow the bus protocols detailed in the interface documentation. This allows the application board to safely monitor power delivery, voltage stability, and system health flags directly from the NGU platform.
By isolating all customization to a plug-and-play board that conforms to these strict mechanical and electrical boundaries, developers can safely adapt the unmodifiable NGU power source to the unique propulsion requirements of an EV.
There will be thousands of power applications developed for the NGU, All the particular application exceptions must be isolated with the application boards.
As a prototypical example, a microprocessor can be applied to a wide range of application that conform to its interface definitions.
The Microprocessor Analogy for NGU Integration
The relationship between the E-Cat NGU and the partner’s application board mirrors the classic engineering model of a microprocessor and its host system.
Just as an Intel or ARM microprocessor is a fixed hardware component that cannot be physically altered for individual buyers, the NGU is an unchangeable power generator. The system scales and adapts across diverse environments using identical structural principles:
Fixed Silicon vs. Fixed Generator:
A microprocessor has unalterable internal circuitry designed solely to compute data. Similarly, the NGU has an unyielding internal core designed solely to generate power. Neither can be redesigned to fit a specific customer’s end product.
The Role of Interface Definitions:
A chip manufacturer publishes rigid datasheets detailing voltage tolerances, clock timings, and physical pin arrangements. As long as a developer adheres to these rules, the same microprocessor can drive a medical device, a laptop, or an industrial robot. The NGU interface document serves this exact function for power distribution.
Decoupled Development Responsibility:
The chipmaker does not design the final computer motherboard; that is the hardware engineer’s job. In the E-Cat ecosystem, Leonardo Corporation provides the standardized backplane, while the vehicle developer owns the responsibility to build the custom, plug-compatible board that steps the raw bus power down to the car’s drivetrain specs.
By treating the NGU as an “energy microprocessor,” developers can mass-produce a single, standardized power block while allowing the automotive industry to independently customize the outer power-delivery electronics.
Axil:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
do the recent developments with the SSM also bring closer the possibility of using E-Cats in electric vehicles, or are there still aspects that need further investigation?
Regards, Giuseppe
Giuseppe Censorio:
EVs so far are not on the tip of our spear, and they will not be until we will have a serious interest from an EV manufacturer, which possibly will come after the global presentation,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
When preparing for the Latina EV demo, Dr. Rossi produced an explosion of a lithium ion battery that almost ended him. The reaction also produced a bad situation internal to the E-cat.
I have an opinion of how and why this happened. If memory serves, Rossi was attempting to overcharge the lithium ion battery simulating EV charging. Why this was dangerous.
A battery generates its strongest “reactive feedback”—observed externally as a sharp, rapid spike in terminal voltage—when it is almost fully charged because the active chemical materials are depleted, creating intense internal resistance to accepting further electrical energy.
To safely manage this powerful electrochemical feedback, modern charging systems rely on a two-part protocol.
1. Depletion of Available Ion Sites
During the charging process, an external current actively forces ions to migrate through the electrolyte and embed themselves inside the host material of the storage electrode (e.g., lithium ions moving into the graphite anode). When the battery is nearly full (above 80–90% State of Charge), the vast majority of these insertion sites are already occupied.
The incoming ions face extreme “crowding.”
This sharply slows down the chemical diffusion coefficient within the host electrode.
2. Spiking Concentration Polarization
Because ions cannot diffuse into the host structure fast enough to keep up with the incoming electrical current, they begin to back up rapidly at the boundary interface where the electrolyte meets the electrode. This uneven accumulation of electrical charge creates a dense localized barrier known as concentration polarization.
3. The Exponential Voltage Rise
According to the Nernst equation, the open-circuit voltage of a cell depends directly on the concentration ratio of oxidized to reduced chemical species at its electrodes. As the ions back up at the boundary layer, this localized concentration differential spikes drastically.
Mathematically, the total terminal voltage of a cell under a charging current increases exponentially past 90% State of Charge (SoC) due to a sharp rise in internal resistance
This rapid, non-linear voltage jump acts as the definitive electrochemical “pushback” against the charger.
How Chargers Respond to the Feedback
To prevent this extreme feedback from causing overheating, electrolyte decomposition, or explosive gas emissions, chargers switch from Constant Current (CC) to Constant Voltage (CV) mode.
The E-Cat most likely did not react appropriately to the overcharging situation and proceeded to generate an explosive chemical condition. The E-Cat at that period in its development did not behave well to reactive feedback by switching from from Constant Current to Constant Voltage mode. This logic change may have been difficult to implement in that past pre Latina design.
Alex, you’re absolutely right. I’ve been trying to convince Rossi for a while that the best solution is a 100W ECAT SSM DC module. By paralleling the necessary number of them, you get the desired power, then, a SINGLE DC-DC or DC-AC converter brings the voltage to the required value. If a single 100W module is damaged, the system doesn’t crash, it just reduces the power. Come on, Andrea, focus on the 100W module.
In analyzing the current NGU situation and the associated solar power ecosystem, it is unlikely that there will be any market for a standalone NGU function since the grid can resolve all home appliance issues at a greatly reduced cost to the electrical power customer.
In the standalone off-grid mode, the NGU system must be sized to support the maximum power demand generated by all the combined appliances in the home or face demand caused shutdown.
In the grid feed mode, the greatly reduced capacity of the NGU can support the average power use of the home.
I fear that Dr. Rossi has made a major strategic marketing mistake that has cost years of lost development time in the delivery of the NGU to the marketplace. All those lost years dealt with making the NGU capable at feeding any home application or combinations of home applications when this ability has little or no market.
Axil:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
As a failback contingency, if the NGU has issues with reactive feedback from home appliances, or unsolvable issues with SSM, these issues can be mitigated much like the resistive version of the NGU by making available a grid tie in version where the only function that the NGU performs is feeding constant VDC current into the grid. In this approach, there is no reactive feedback issues to deal with or SSM difficulties.
Could a lower cost version of the NGU be engineered to greatly simplified the hardware design of the NGU so that interacting with any application under the Sun could be avoided allowing the revised hardware design of the NGU to be greatly simplified such as removing supercapacitors an analog logic which might allow a lower price point to allow a grid payback version hardware simplification.
The value of a grid payback version of the NGU is that its reduced parts nature would allow for a extended operational lifetime and ease of replacement with resultant lower cost upon failure.
Axil:
Thank you for your opinions and suggestions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
In the US, you have to be out of your mind not to take advantage of the grid connection using a 1:1 payback policy.
In the US, roughly 20 to 25 states plus Washington D.C. still maintain true, 1:1 full retail net metering policies.
For exmple, Pennsylvania is widely considered to have one of the most favorable solar policies in the country, it shares this 1:1 retail credit structure with numerous other states.
States with Top-Tier 1:1 Net Metering Policies
The highest-rated 1:1 net metering states do not just offer equal value for sent and received power; they also protect customers from extra solar fees and have stable long-term outlooks:
New Jersey: Often ranked as having the strongest overall policy, offering a 1:1 retail credit with no capacity limits, plus extra performance payouts.
Massachusetts:
Provides full 1:1 billing credits along with a standalone incentive program that pays owners extra for what they produce.
New York:
Uses a favorable 1:1 credit calculation format across its major investor-owned utilities.
Maine:
Features true 1:1 net metering at some of the highest base electrical retail rates in the Northeast, maximizing savings.
Other 1:1 States:
Maryland, Illinois, Colorado, and Minnesota also enforce state mandates requiring full retail rate valuation for residential solar exports.
The Rest of the Country: Falling Into Three Buckets
Outside of the 1:1 retail states, policies generally fall into three distinct categories across the rest of the country:
Net Billing (Reduced Payouts): In these states, utilities give a “haircut” to the power you export. While you buy power at full retail price, excess solar sent back to the grid is only credited at a lower “avoided-cost” or wholesale rate—usually worth 30% to 70% of retail.
California (under its NEM 3.0 rules), Arizona, Nevada, and Utah operate this way.
Wholesale / Avoided Cost (Minimal Payouts):
These states credit solar exports at the bare-minimum wholesale market rate, often equating to just 2 to 5 cents per kWh.
Kentucky and parts of Texas follow this model.
No State Mandates:
Alabama, South Dakota, and Tennessee have no statewide rules requiring utilities to pay solar customers.
Compensation is left entirely up to the discretion of individual utility companies.
Why Policy Stability Matters Right Now
If you are planning a system, the landscape is changing quickly. Multiple state utility commissions are actively reviewing their net metering structures, with a national trend moving away from 1:1 models toward reduced net billing.
Even within Pennsylvania, utilities like PPL have proposed shifting away from traditional 1:1 billing toward dynamic hourly wholesale pricing.
Because utilities typically grandfather existing systems into current 1:1 rules for 15 to 20 years, completing an installation before local policy updates occur is the best way to secure high payback rates.
The Into presentation should explain how the NGU can cut the cost of grid power by using and example of 24/7 low power grid payback connection and how the strategy pays for the NGU is a few years.
About the 100W Alternating Current (AC) e-cats, this idea in my humble opinion is not practical at all. To merge the output of two or more AC e-Cat units, one will need to synchronize the frequency of the units to keep the frequency in synchronous conditions all the time to avoid serious consequences.
Multiple e-Cats with a DC output are easily merged by connecting all the e-Cats in parallel and feed an inverter of the right capacity according to the number of E-Cats x 100 Watts each. So, if I need to have, let’s say a 10kW AC source, I will connect 11
units x 100W DC output, connect in parallel and feed a 12KVA DC-AC inverter. WEith the very high CoP of the e-Cats, any minimal losses will be irrelevant.
Alex:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Realizing that these factors can change, what is the latest preliminary thinking on the part of the partner to the preview price per watt of the NGU, the guarantee, and the replacement policy.
Axil:
I think this information will be disclosed at the global presentation; I know the price will be strongly competitive,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Yury E. and Ecat Enthusiast
I totally agree with both of you,
Best
Ambrogio
@Ambrogio:
If the SSM Ecat can produce reliable and safe AC electricity 24/7, I think issues like inverters, solar integration and grid connections become very minor. There has never been anything like this before, it would be a fundamental change in how energy is produced and thus revolutionary.
Regards, Ecat Enthusiast
Dear Ambrogio, you are absolutely right. This site is filled with uninteresting and unnecessary discussions related to purely engineering solutions (using inverters, controllers, etc.). These solutions are of no value, as they can be solved by a middling engineer.
Meanwhile, the most fundamental and interesting invention—Rossi’s new ECat energy source—remains on the sidelines and out of discussion.
On Rossi’s site, we have the rare opportunity to personally discuss his most important invention with Rossi. But we are wasting Rossi’s time answering our trivial questions unrelated to ECat.
It would be much more interesting to discuss and converse with Rossi about ECat than to ask him answers to questions that are completely unrelated to ECat.
Best regards,
Yury E.
I find so funny all these comment that criticize the Ecat SSM for minimalities like the inverters, etc: guys, we are talking of SSM: Self Sustained Mode, means that the Ecat ( IF… ) consumes zero W to produce x Watts with x>0, these comments sound to me like to watch Jesus walking on the surface of the water and say: “Hey, watch that guy: 33 years old, yet he doesn’t swim…”
IF the Ecat SSM will work, that’s just miraculous in itself.
Ambrogio
Dr. Rossi,
In terms of your most basic Ecat product, I’d suggest something very simple– for example, something that looks like a battery, with an intrinsic voltage, and a built-in current limiter (i.e., no built-in fuse or circuit breaker, but a current limiter, instead).
“Simple” improves reliability, scalability and manufacturing cost.
Less-basic products, such as A/C power stations, can then be built utilizing the battery-Ecat as a subcomponent(s).
Best wishes,
WaltC
WaltC:
Thank you for the suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea, from what I’ve read on your blog, I understand you’re finally leaning more toward the 100W SSM ECAT certification rather than getting bogged down in MW high voltage systems.
And rightly so, someone has also warned you that adding DC-AC converters, in addition to complicating matters and increment the dimensions of the ECAT, risks running into approval difficulties depending on the countries that have specific requirements for converters. I’ve told you many times that the DC 100W ECAT will change the world. “The simpler the system, the fewer failures there are,” experience confirms.
Just think of the energy-hungry AI centers, if every rack or even every processor had its own generator…..
Neri Accornero:
Thank you for your considerations,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
still hoping to make the global presentation within January 2027 ?
JPR
Jean Paul Renoir:
Based on how tests are proceeding now with the SSM, I’d say I hope so,
Warm Regards
Dear Dr Rossi
I read that you are looking at producing an Ecat that will produce AC electricity directly. Having worked with AC inverters for many years and knowing how hard and expensive it is to get inverters approved in all countries my suggestion for what it is worth is to produce a DC output and use inverters that are already approved in that country that the Ecat is introduced whether it be for domestic or industrial use the required testing, software and cost required to intergrate into a countries grid network is substantial and could take 12-24 months for each country.
So a DC ouput would be a much quicker and cheaper option to get the Ecat out to market from what i can see from what infomation that I can gather from this website and others such as Frank Acland website..
Emmanuel Cilia:
Thank you for the suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
My recent studies of the green ecosystem has informed my opinion that the Chinese have made it difficult for outsiders to break into the solar market in there efforts to standardize solar equipment that complies with all sorts of qualifying complications.
In particular, China has made it exceptionally difficult for outsiders like the partner to break into the solar market. However, this barrier is driven less by arbitrary compliance complications and more by China’s hyper-scale ecosystem, unmatched cost structures, and strategic industrial standardization. While international regulations and trade barriers are actually tightening against China, China’s internal consolidation and technological gatekeeping have cemented its control over 80% of the global solar supply chain.
Extreme Cost and Scale Dominance
Foreign firms struggle to compete primarily because Chinese manufacturing operates at an unbeatable scale.
The Price Floor:
Intensive government backing and subsequent domestic overcapacity have caused global solar panel prices to collapse. This has forced multiple foreign competitors out of business and pushed domestic Chinese firms into consolidation.
Manufacturing Disadvantage:
According to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), production costs in China are 10% lower than in India, 20% lower than in the US, and 35% lower than in Europe.
Standardization as a Weaponized Moat
China’s standardization strategy serves as a dual-layer barrier for outsiders trying to enter the market:
Controlling Next-Gen Tech Standards:
China dictates the standards for high-efficiency emerging technologies. It has rapidly phased out older PERC technology to mandate high-efficiency N-type (TOPCon and HJT) cells. Because Chinese firms write the technical specifications for these modules, foreign entrants must constantly chase moving, capital-intensive technical targets.
Weaponized Supply Chokepoints:
China is moving to codify its dominance by standardizing what can leave the country. The Chinese government has actively weighed export curbs on advanced solar manufacturing equipment. If a foreign company wants to build a factory to break into the market, they are often blocked from buying the precise, standardized Chinese machinery required to make panels efficiently.
The Regulatory Complication
ParadoxIronically, the most complex “qualifying complications” are currently being built by Western governments trying to shield themselves from China. However, these rules often backfire on local startups:
The “China-Linked” Trap:
U.S. laws like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act block tax credits for any factory with Chinese ties. Because China standardizes and controls the upstream supply chain (ingots, wafers, and polysilicon), new Western market entrants find it nearly impossible to source completely “clean,” non-Chinese components to qualify for local subsidies.
Grid and Inverter Restrictions:
The EU and U.S. have placed heavy restrictions on Chinese-made solar inverters due to cyber security and grid-disruption concerns. Navigating these changing compliance structures adds massive legal and engineering costs to non-Chinese solar projects.
Axil:
Thank you for your studies,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Great news is your update about the progress with the SSM mode, although it is still close, but not there, as you repeated here.
I have one question: IF the SSM will be the subject of the next global presentation will we be able to power any kind of load by mweans of the Ecat ?
Best,
Yuri
Yuri:
IF… yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
congratulations on the results achieved with the SSM. Does this bring us closer to a future where consumer appliances with “E-Cat Inside” become available? In other words, could I one day buy, for example, a refrigerator with an embedded E-Cat and no longer have to worry about its power supply?
Regards, Giuseppe
Giuseppe Censorio:
We will answer your question when the global presentation of the Ecat will be made,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
There is an entire multi-billion dollar commercial industry dedicated to products that enable a dumb external power sources to connect to the utility grid. These devices are globally known as Grid-Tie Inverters or Utility-Interactive Inverters.
Because modern power grids have strict regulations to prevent blackouts and protect electrical workers, you cannot simply wire a raw solar panel, wind turbine, NGU or battery directly to a wall outlet. You must use an intermediate commercial device that safely synchronizes your power source with the grid’s voltage and frequency.
Crucial Legal and Safety Standards
Before buying any commercial grid-tie device, ensure it bears specific regulatory stamps. In North America, electric utility companies will legally refuse to let you connect a device unless it is certified under UL 1741 (specifically the UL 1741 SB revision).
This standard guarantees that the product has mandatory “anti-islanding” safety systems, meaning if the utility power grid shuts down due to an accident, the inverter will automatically disconnect your power source within milliseconds to prevent electrocuting utility repair workers.
Common Commercial Form Factors
Microinverters (Small Scale / DIY-Friendly)Microinverters are small, weatherized boxes meant to handle one or two power sources at a time. They are widely popular because they output standard household AC voltage directly from the unit.
How they work: You plug a DC source (like a solar panel) or NGU into one side, and the other side plugs directly into a standard household circuit.
Commercial Examples: Microinverters from companies like Enphase Energy or Northern Electric Power (NEP) are highly rated and fully certified.
For instance, the NEP 600W/700W series is a popular plug-and-play choice for small entry-level setups.
String Inverters (Medium to Large Scale)
If you have a large array of solar panels or a high-voltage DC source, a string inverter is used. These are large boxes typically mounted on a garage wall or the side of a building.
How they work:
They combine massive amounts of DC power from multiple sources into a high-voltage line, convert it to AC power, and feed it directly into your main electrical breaker panel.
Commercial Examples:
Brands like Growatt, SMA Solar, and Solis dominate this market. You can find models ranging from residential sizes, like the Growatt 11.4kW Grid-Tie Inverter sold at Signature Solar, up to massive industrial options like the Solis 75kW Three Phase Inverter found at Green Vista Living.
Hybrid / Storage Inverters (For Battery Systems)If your power source is a battery bank, a standard solar grid-tie inverter will not work because it does not know how to manage battery state-of-charge. You need a Hybrid Inverter.
How they work:
They act as a two-way traffic controller. They can pull power from the grid to charge your battery, or pull power from your battery to feed your home and push excess back to the utility grid.
Commercial Examples:
The OutBack Power Vented Grid-Hybrid Inverter available via EcoDirect.com is a highly reliable commercial option built specifically for managing 48V battery systems while remaining fully compliant with utility grid rules.
In summary, a standard DC power source like the NGU does not need to actively react, communicate, or change its behavior to transfer power to a basic grid-tie inverter.
From the perspective of the DC power source, it can remain completely passive. The grid-tie inverter does 100% of the active work required to pull power out of the source and push it onto the utility grid.
How Power Transfer Works Passively
If you connect a “dumb,” unmanaged VDC source like the NGU—the inverter will successfully drain power from it using two main techniques:
• Current Sucking (MPPT): Solar grid-tie inverters feature a system called Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT). The inverter deliberately acts like an adjustable electrical load. It slowly sweeps its own internal resistance to “suck” more current out of your DC source. Your power source doesn’t “push” energy; the inverter forcefully extracts it based on whatever voltage and current the source naturally makes available.
• Voltage Following: As long as the VDC source supplies a raw voltage that falls within the inverter’s acceptable physical operating window (e.g., between 150V and 500V DC), the inverter’s internal electronics will accept it. The source just sits there providing raw DC potential.
The Crucial Exception: Battery-Specific Hybrid Inverters
While raw VDC sources don’t need to react, commercial hybrid inverters designed for batteries introduce a massive caveat. If you buy a product specifically labeled as a “Battery Storage Inverter” or “Hybrid Inverter,” the inverter will legally and digitally refuse to pull power from the VDC source unless the source “talks back.”
As established previously, modern smart battery systems require a digital Battery Management System (BMS) handshake. If the VDC source cannot “react” to the inverter’s digital queries by broadcasting its State of Charge (SOC) and safety limits over a CAN bus or RS485 connection, the hybrid inverter will open its internal safety relays and block all power transfer.
Axil:
Thank you for the information,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Thank for your response.
1. I assume when multiple parallel units are connected, there is a mechanism included to phase align the AC voltages so that a single frequency of AC power is produced?
2. Given that such a phase and frequency alignment occurs, the combined AC output could be fed in the Generator input of a solar inverter system so safely provide power to either Off Grid or Grid Tied systems.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Same answer I already gave you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The NGU is not capable of connecting to a smart inverter because it is a dumb box that is not directed by a microprocessor. The NGU cannot simulate the Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) test that identifies it as a solar panel.
But maybe a simulated battery interface?
No. The NGU is too dumb for that; here is why…
To trick a “smart” hybrid or storage inverter into recognizing a Variable DC (VDC) power source as a functional battery, the VDC source must replicate both the electrical behavior and the communication protocols of a real chemical battery.
If you hook up a standard, one-way bench power supply, the smart inverter will likely throw a fault code (such as “Battery Voltage Abnormal” or “BMS Communication Failure”) and refuse to operate.
The VDC source (NGU) must simulate the following conditions to be recognized:
Two-Quadrant “Bidirectional” Current FlowA standard VDC power supply can only push power out (source current). A battery must be capable of absorbing power (sinking current) during charging cycles.
The Requirement: The VDC source must be bidirectional. When the smart inverter tries to charge the “battery,” the VDC source must gracefully sink that current without tripping over-voltage protection (OVP) or shutting down. Specialized regenerative DC power supplies are typically used for this in laboratory testing.
Digital BMS Communication (The Handshake)Modern smart inverters rarely rely on voltage alone; they require a digital handshake with a Battery Management System (BMS) over a communication bus, usually via CAN bus or RS485 (Modbus).
The Requirement: You must use a simulator or micro-controller (like an Arduino or Raspberry Pi) to spoof the CAN/RS485 data packets.
The Payload: The smart inverter will refuse to close its internal relays unless the VDC source sends continuous data streams indicating:
State of Charge (SOC) (e.g., reporting 50%).
State of Health (SOH) (e.g., reporting 100%).Maximum
Allowable Charge/Discharge Current (dynamic limits based on simulated temperature).
No Fault Status (reporting that individual cell voltages and temperatures are perfectly balanced and safe).
Internal Resistance (Rᵢ) and Voltage SagReal batteries possess internal resistance. When an inverter suddenly draws 50 Amps, a real battery’s voltage will instantly drop slightly.
The Requirement: Smart inverters monitor the relationship between current draw and voltage stability to verify a battery is attached. If an inverter draws massive current and the voltage remains perfectly frozen (as it would on a cheap regulated power supply), the inverter’s safety algorithms may flag it as an unstable or artificial source. The VDC source must actively adjust its voltage dynamically based on current output to mimic this internal resistance curve.
Realistic State of Charge (SOC) Voltage CurvesBatteries do not maintain a completely flat voltage. A lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) or lithium-ion battery follows a strict curve where voltage slowly drops as it empties and rises as it fills.
The Requirement: The VDC source must dynamically float its voltage output according to how much energy (Amp-hours) the inverter has pushed into it or pulled out of it. If the inverter feeds 2 kWh of power into the “battery,” the VDC source must slowly raise its voltage level to simulate a charging profile.
High Capacitance and Fast Transient ResponseInverters pull power in high-frequency pulses rather than a perfectly smooth line.
The Requirement: A battery naturally absorbs these fast ripples due to its immense chemical capacitance. A standard power supply has sluggish control loops and might lag, causing the inverter’s DC ripple detection mechanics to trip. The VDC source must feature a fast transient response to adjust to rapid load shifts within milliseconds.
Axil:
Thank you for your opinion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Regarding the AC output variants of the NGU units:
1. What unit power will be made available to the Public: 10W; 100W; 1kW; 2kW; 5kW; and/or 10kW or other power values?
2. Can AC output units be paralleled – increasing the current while retaining the Voltage?
3. Are these AC output units only units only to be used in Off Grid applications? Grid-Tie?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
1. 100 W modules and combined assemblies
2. yes
3. we grant only independent connections; for external connections the Clients will be responsible for authorizations and connections that will have to be made by certified experts of the art,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
2026-06-14 18:31 paul dodgshun
Thank you for the suggestion!
I have already contact with some solarinveter companies which are suitable,safe and certified for swedish grid applications.
Thank you anyway!
Regards,
Mats Heijkenskjold
Mats Heijkenskjold:
OK
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Intelligent inverters perform strict physical and digital validation to determine if a connected DC input is “qualified” before accepting power.
Connecting a raw, unverified DC source to an inverter can destroy the power electronics or cause a battery thermal event. The microprocessor inside a smart inverter acts as a strict digital gatekeeper, using a multi-step sequence to validate the input.
1. Electrical “Qualifications” the Inverter Checks
Before the inverter closes its internal physical relays to let power flow, its microprocessor continuously samples the DC input terminals to verify several precise parameters:
Voltage Window Validation:
Every inverter has a hard-coded input voltage range (e.g., a residential solar inverter might require between 150V and 600V DC). If the voltage is too low, the microprocessor stays in sleep mode. If the voltage is even a single volt too high, it locks out the system to prevent overvoltage arcs from blowing the internal transistors.
Polarity Verification: If a technician accidentally wires the positive DC cable to the negative terminal, the microprocessor detects the reversed voltage vector via internal sensing diodes and blocks operation instantly, protecting the system from a dead short circuit.
Insulation Resistance Testing (Ground Fault Check): Before drawing power, the inverter injects a microscopic test signal into the DC lines to measure the electrical isolation between the DC conductors and the physical earth ground. If it detects a breakdown in cable insulation (a “ground fault”), it marks the input as disqualified and triggers an alarm.
2. Identifying the Type of Input (Solar vs. Battery)
Advanced “hybrid” inverters are designed to accept both solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and chemical batteries on their DC inputs. They validate and distinguish between these two sources automatically using specific testing methods:
The Voltage-Sag Test: When an inverter begins to draw current from a Solar Panel Array, the voltage will naturally sag or fluctuate depending on the sun’s intensity. The inverter identifies this behavior and immediately boots its Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) software. The MPPT continuously sweeps the voltage up and down to find the optimal curve for solar extraction.
The Rigid-Rail Test: When an inverter draws current from a Battery Bank, the voltage remains rigidly flat and stable, showing almost no drop as current increases. If the inverter sees a zero-sag rigid voltage rail, it realizes a battery is attached. It immediately disables the MPPT software (as sweeping a battery’s voltage would destroy it) and switches to constant-current or constant-voltage battery management mode.
3. The Digital Handshake (The Highest Tier of Validation)
For the high-power applications discussed earlier—such as an Electric Vehicle connected to a Level 3 DC Fast Charger or a Smart Home Battery System—the inverter relies on more than just reading raw electrical values. It requires a formal digital handshake to qualify the input:
[Vehicle/Battery BMS] ──( Can I have 412V @ 200A? ) ──> [Inverter Microprocessor]
[Vehicle/Battery BMS] <──( ISO 15118 / CAN Bus)────── [Inverter Microprocessor]
The Protocol: The inverter communicates directly with the battery's internal Battery Management System (BMS) using high-speed industrial data networks like a CAN bus or Power-Line Communication (PLC) protocols (such as ISO 15118).
The Validation: The battery sends encrypted digital packets containing its real-time state-of-charge, internal cell temperatures, and maximum instantaneous voltage limits.
The Qualification: If the data connection drops for even a fraction of a second, or if the battery reports an internal temperature error, the inverter flags the DC input as disqualified and opens its safety contactors within milliseconds to cut off power completely.
———————————–
Home solar batteries qualify their input types, but the exact mechanism depends entirely on whether the system is "DC-coupled" or "AC-coupled".
A standalone chemical battery cell cannot think; it relies fully on the Battery Management System (BMS) and the associated charging circuitry to actively analyze, qualify, and accept or reject the incoming power.
DC-Coupled Battery Systems (Direct Solar Input)
In a DC-coupled architecture, solar panels feed raw DC power directly into a hybrid inverter/charger, which routes it straight to the battery without converting it to AC first. Examples include the Tesla Powerwall 3 (which features an integrated solar inverter) or hybrid systems like SolarEdge.
These systems qualify the input using precise physical checks:
The Voltage and Current Profile: Solar panels behave as a variable "current source" rather than a steady voltage rail. The battery system checks the open-circuit voltage. For example, a Tesla Powerwall 3 validates that the incoming DC voltage sits between 60V and 550V DC. Anything outside this window is disqualified.
The MPPT Scan: To qualify the input as functional solar, the system runs a Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) sweep. If it sweeps the voltage and the current responds in a predictable curve matching solar physics, it qualifies the source and begins charging.
Polarity Check: If the positive and negative strings are reversed, the input hardware detects a negative voltage vector and locks out the system before closing the charging circuits.
2. AC-Coupled Battery Systems (Grid/Microinverter Input)
In an AC-coupled architecture—such as the Enphase IQ Battery 5P—the battery unit houses its own built-in bidirectional microinverters. It does not connect directly to solar panels; it plugs straight into your home's main AC breaker panel.
Instead of checking DC panel voltage, these batteries qualify their inputs digitally:
Grid Qualification Phase:
When the battery boots up, it monitors the home's AC wiring for up to 5 minutes. It will only qualify the input if the voltage sits tightly around 240VAC and the grid frequency rests exactly at 60 Hz (or 50 Hz). If a nearby generator is producing "dirty" power with fluctuating frequencies, the battery disqualifies the input and refuses to charge.
Frequency Droop Sensing:
If the home goes off-grid during a blackout, the battery has to manage other grid-tied solar microinverters on the roof. It qualifies the safety of the system by manipulating the AC frequency. If the battery is full and needs the rooftop solar to stop sending power, it artificially spikes the home's AC frequency (e.g., from 60 Hz to 62 Hz). The rooftop solar inverters recognize this shift, disqualify their own environment, and safely shut down.
3. Smart Communications (BMS Qualification)
If you attempt to plug an unapproved, third-party battery expansion pack into a smart solar battery, it will fail validation.
Modern solar batteries rely on an encrypted CAN bus or proprietary wireless handshake to communicate with expansion cabinets. For example, a Powerwall 3 Expansion unit communicates directly via a dedicated data harness. If the master battery cannot read the authorized digital signature, firmware version, and cell health metrics from the connected input device, it flags the input type as generic or uncertified and opens its internal safety relays.
———————————
In summery, many NGU retail customers will be surprised when their plans to integrated a NGU system into the current power equipment configuration. Because the NGU is not yet controlled by a microprocessor (as far as I know), it is incapable of interacting via protocols to pass validation required by existing customer equipment's.
Axil:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@2026-06-14 05:03 Mats Heijkenskjold
Should meet your needs.
Plenty of Advanced Safety & Protection Features which I like.
https://www.solar-hub.co.uk/products/sunsynk-acure-8-0kw-single-phase-hybrid-inverter?variant=53787634893141&country=GB¤cy=GBP
Sunsynk Acure 8.0kW Hybrid Inverter & Smart Energy Management System
Take full control of your energy with the Sunsynk Acure Hybrid Inverter — a next-generation hybrid inverter and intelligent energy management system designed for advanced power optimisation, seamless connectivity, and enhanced system protection.
Built for both residential and commercial installations, the Sunsynk Acure combines smart load management, wireless integration, and advanced safety features into one powerful, installer-friendly platform.
Key Features
Intelligent energy management system
Integrated 40A smart switch
Connect up to 10 programmable wireless smart switches
Built-in Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, LAN (Ethernet) & LoRa connectivity
Real-time monitoring and system analytics
Automatic load shedding functionality
New intuitive user interface
Multi-colour LED system status display
Rapid shutdown capability
Generator compatibility with dry contact start
IP65 rated for indoor & outdoor installation
Suitable Applications
The Sunsynk Acure is designed for a wide range of smart energy applications including:
Solar PV systems
Battery storage installations
EV charging integration
Wind turbine systems
Hot water tank control
Backup and off-grid power solutions
Residential smart energy management
Commercial load optimisation
Designed for Faster Installation
Engineered with installers in mind, the Acure platform helps simplify installation and improve overall system aesthetics.
Installer Benefits
Wireless CT coil reduces cabling requirements
Hinged terminal cover for quicker access
Clean and discreet cable routing
Compact, professional appearance
Indoor and outdoor installation capability
Advanced Safety & Protection
Safety is at the core of the Sunsynk Acure system, with integrated protection features designed to maximise reliability and minimise risk.
Integrated Protection Features
Arc Fault Detection (AFCI)
Solar panel theft detection
DC reverse polarity protection
AC overcurrent protection
AC overvoltage protection
Short circuit protection
Thermal protection
Ground fault detection
Earth fault monitoring
Residual current (RCD) monitoring
Surge protection
Anti-islanding protection
DC insulation monitoring
✔ G98 / G99 Compliant
Sunsynk Connect Pro
Unlock complete system visibility and remote control through Sunsynk Connect Pro.
Features Include
Real-time energy monitoring
Remote system control via app
Installer commissioning and diagnostics
Firmware updates over-the-air
Multi-site commercial monitoring
Performance tracking and analytics
Why Choose the Sunsynk Acure?
All-in-one hybrid inverter and energy management platform
Advanced smart load control functionality
Faster installation with wireless integration
Scalable for residential and commercial projects
Advanced safety and monitoring features
Compatible with modern smart energy ecosystems
Paul Dodgshun:
Thank you for your suggestions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
An ACV EV charger inherently produces both problematic reactive feedback and harmonic distortion. Because an electric vehicle battery can only store Direct Current (DC), the charger must act as a massive power electronics converter to bridge the gap from the grid’s Alternating Current (AC). Without a micro processor capability, This interface will be difficult. The best way to meet the EV charger requirement is to offer a direct DCV power station solution as explained below.
The partner should offer a direct DC input DCV EV charger interface as a future option.
Residential Infrastructure: Emerging “DC-Coupled” Home Chargers
Standard Level 1 and Level 2 home chargers are technically not “chargers” at all—they are just smart extension cords (EVSE) that pass raw AC power directly to the car’s built-in onboard converter.
However, specialized Direct DC-to-DC home chargers do exist for advanced off-grid and solar applications:
Solar-Direct EV Charging: Companies like Sigenergy and SolarEdge design bidirectional, DC-coupled home energy ecosystems. For those who have rooftop solar panels, they generate DC electricity. Instead of converting that solar power to AC (via a home inverter) and then converting it back to DC (via the car’s onboard converter), these specialized systems route the high-voltage DC electricity directly from the solar panels/home battery into the car’s battery pack.
Low-Power Wall Superchargers: Boutique manufacturers like EV Bandit offer compact, residential-grade 21 kW to 28 kW DC Home Superchargers. These units plug into standard 240V residential AC panels but contain internal power electronics to perform the DC conversion on your garage wall, allowing you to bypass the car’s slower onboard charger limits.
The Partner could partner with a direct DCV EV charger provider to offer a DC EV charger option.
EV cars allow for a direct DC charging interface.
Using the Public Infrastructure Interface: Standard DC Fast Chargers (Level 3) Every commercial DC Fast Charger (such as Electrify America towers, Blink Charging pedestals, or Tesla Superchargers) is a direct DC charger.
The Architecture: The massive enclosure on the sidewalk houses the grid-tie rectifiers and liquid-cooled power electronics. It takes high-voltage AC from the utility company, converts it to DC internally, and dumps that DC electricity directly into the car’s battery pack through heavy pins in the CCS or NACS plug. The new NGU DCV EV supercharger can do the same in a future product release using the 22 kV grid power product as a base energy generation system.
On average, a Level 3 DC Fast Charger takes 15 to 30 minutes to charge a low EV battery (at 10% capacity) up to 80%.
The Power Tier Spectrum
Low-Power Tiers (24 kW – 50 kW): These are compact, urban DC chargers found at car dealerships, local grocery stores, or small fleet depots. They require less intense grid upgrades and deliver a full charge in roughly 45 to 90 minutes.
Mid-Power Tiers (60 kW – 150 kW): Standard highway corridor chargers and shopping mall hubs utilize this range. They can take a typical 400V EV battery from 10% to 80% in about 30 to 40 minutes.
High-Power Tiers (150 kW – 350+ kW): Designed for rapid highway travel, systems like Electrify America or Tesla V4 Superchargers push 250 kW to 350 kW (and up to 500 kW in elite configurations). They can add 100 miles of range in under 10 minutes to compatible 800V vehicles.
New Bissiness that the NGU large systems could quailify and should be addressed in the upcoming presentation.
1. Heavy-Duty Corridor Projects (The 1 MW+ Monster Hubs)
The most technologically aggressive projects being let involve the commercialization of Megawatt Charging Systems (MCS) for long-haul freight.
• The Tesla & Pilot Flying J Mega-Network: Tesla announced a major commercial partnership with Pilot Flying J to deploy massive 1.2 Megawatt (MW) Megachargers at major truck stops. They are aggressively breaking ground on a targeted corridor of 46 high-power operational truck sites.
• The BP Pulse International Ashford Hub: BP Pulse is letting contracts and initiating construction on its massive Ashford International Truckstop. This project features cutting-edge 1 MW MCS dispensers with a site master plan scalable up to 20 megawatt-class charging bays.
• European MCS Corridor Rollouts: Large utilities are letting bids across the EU’s TEN-T network regulation corridors (which mandates 350kW+ hubs every 60km). Companies like Iberdrola are letting out their first 1 MW commercial charger sites in Spain, while Kempower and Ekoenergetyka are executing high-power truck hub deliveries across Scandinavia.
2. Next-Gen Passenger Mega-Hubs (500 kW – 600 kW Architectures)
For passenger and light-commercial vehicles, hardware vendors are rolling out new “Express Grid” architectures that double the power of older 300 kW dispensers.
ChargePoint & Eaton Express Grid Project: ChargePoint has partnered with global energy giant Eaton to let out a radically downsized, ultra-efficient modular architecture. This initiative introduces 600 kW charging stations across flagship “Express Grid” locations. This system is designed to deliver a full 10-to-80% recharge in just 10 minutes for next-generation vehicle battery architectures.
IONNA Network Deployment: Backed by a joint venture of major automakers (including Mercedes-Benz, BMW, GM, and Honda), IONNA is actively letting real estate, engineering, and construction bids. The mega-project aims to construct over 30,000 ultra-fast DC fast-charging ports across North America by 2030, leveraging high-power tiers to establish premium “Rechargery” rest centers.
3. Government & Utility-Funded “Make-Ready” Programs
A massive volume of these high-tier projects are being let via public-private partnerships funded by massive economic injection loans.
The EVgo $1.25 Billion Grid Expansion: Backed by a massive conditional loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy, EVgo is currently executing a multi-year project to build 7,500 new high-power 350 kW fast-charging stalls across states like California, Texas, New York, and Florida.
• Utility “Make-Ready” Infrastructure Bids: Because building a 4-stall 350 kW hub or a Megawatt truck station requires over 1.4 Megawatts of grid capacity, local utilities are letting out massive engineering contracts for dedicated substations, energy storage integration, and industrial 480V three-phase switchgear to support these sites.
________________________________________
Axil:
Thank you for your insights,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
An ACV EV charger inherently produces both problematic reactive feedback and harmonic distortion. Because an electric vehicle battery can only store Direct Current (DC), the charger must act as a massive power electronics converter to bridge the gap from the grid’s Alternating Current (AC). Without a micro processor capability, This interface will be difficult. The best way to meet the EV charger requirement is to offer a direct DCV power station solution as explained below.
The partner should offer a direct DC input DCV EV charger interface as a future option.
Residential Infrastructure: Emerging “DC-Coupled” Home Chargers
Standard Level 1 and Level 2 home chargers are technically not “chargers” at all—they are just smart extension cords (EVSE) that pass raw AC power directly to the car’s built-in onboard converter.
However, specialized Direct DC-to-DC home chargers do exist for advanced off-grid and solar applications:
Solar-Direct EV Charging: Companies like Sigenergy and SolarEdge design bidirectional, DC-coupled home energy ecosystems. For those who have rooftop solar panels, they generate DC electricity. Instead of converting that solar power to AC (via a home inverter) and then converting it back to DC (via the car’s onboard converter), these specialized systems route the high-voltage DC electricity directly from the solar panels/home battery into the car’s battery pack.
Low-Power Wall Superchargers: Boutique manufacturers like EV Bandit offer compact, residential-grade 21 kW to 28 kW DC Home Superchargers. These units plug into standard 240V residential AC panels but contain internal power electronics to perform the DC conversion on your garage wall, allowing you to bypass the car’s slower onboard charger limits.
The Partner could partner with a direct DCV EV charger provider to offer a DC EV charger option.
EV cars allow for a direct DC charging interface.
Using the Public Infrastructure Interface: Standard DC Fast Chargers (Level 3) Every commercial DC Fast Charger (such as Electrify America towers, Blink Charging pedestals, or Tesla Superchargers) is a direct DC charger.
The Architecture: The massive enclosure on the sidewalk houses the grid-tie rectifiers and liquid-cooled power electronics. It takes high-voltage AC from the utility company, converts it to DC internally, and dumps that DC electricity directly into the car’s battery pack through heavy pins in the CCS or NACS plug. The new NGU DCV EV supercharger can do the same in a future product release using the 22 kV grid power product as a base energy generation system.
On average, a Level 3 DC Fast Charger takes 15 to 30 minutes to charge a low EV battery (at 10% capacity) up to 80%.
The Power Tier Spectrum
Low-Power Tiers (24 kW – 50 kW): These are compact, urban DC chargers found at car dealerships, local grocery stores, or small fleet depots. They require less intense grid upgrades and deliver a full charge in roughly 45 to 90 minutes.
Mid-Power Tiers (60 kW – 150 kW): Standard highway corridor chargers and shopping mall hubs utilize this range. They can take a typical 400V EV battery from 10% to 80% in about 30 to 40 minutes.
High-Power Tiers (150 kW – 350+ kW): Designed for rapid highway travel, systems like Electrify America or Tesla V4 Superchargers push 250 kW to 350 kW (and up to 500 kW in elite configurations). They can add 100 miles of range in under 10 minutes to compatible 800V vehicles.
One of the prominent issues that the partner’s customer service departments will attempt to deal with is NGU failure. Without informed feedback from the customer, the service rep will not have any idea about the cause of the failure. It is standard practice among appliance providers to generate an error code to allow the customer to productively inform the service rep about the cause of the failure.
To implement an effective error-coding system for an NGU failure, you need a framework that translates complex technical faults into simple, readable codes for the customer. This ensures the customer service representative can immediately identify the root cause and dispatch the correct solution.
Steps to make the error code system functional for both the user and the representative, embed these deployment steps into the appliance design:
Visual Accessibility: Flash the alphanumeric code directly on the unit’s primary LED/LCD interface, or use a distinct sequence of blinking status lights if a screen is absent.
Granular Diagnostics: Ensure the internal firmware and/ir circuitry isolates the exact point of failure (e.g., distinguishing between a temporary short circuit and a permanent hardware failure).
Simplified Customer Scripting: Provide the user with a single “Status” or “Info” button on the physical unit that displays the active fault code when pressed.
Database Mapping: Equip customer service agents with an internal lookup tool that maps the code directly to a clear, non-technical explanation and an actionable script.
Sample Representative Script
When a customer calls regarding an NGU failure, the agent should follow a direct, high-utility script:
Locate: “Please look at the front display panel of your unit. Do you see a flashing light or a code starting with the letter ‘E’?” Verify:
”I see code E204 logged on your account. That tells us the power store has been exceeded and the NGU has terminated.
“Before we schedule a technician to upgrade the power store at your option is dispatched, please restart the NGU and do not use the AC outlets”.
Mats Heijkenskenkjold:
We do not get liabilities for any direct or indirect application to the grid. To make this kind of connections you must be authorized by the grid provider and the connections must be done by certified experts of the matter, not only for technical, but also for safety reasons.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Any home appliance that contains electromagnetic coils (inductors) or electronic power supplies (capacitors) will send reactive power back to the power source (aka NGU).
In alternating current (AC) grids, reactive power is not “consumed” like real power; instead, it is temporarily stored in an appliance’s internal fields and then spit back down the power line twice per AC cycle (120 times per second on a standard 60 Hz grid).
These are appliances driven by heavy electric motors, compressors, or transformers. They draw current to build a magnetic field, and when the AC voltage waveform flips polarity, that magnetic field collapses, forcing a wave of reverse current back to the source. This creates a lagging power factor.
Refrigerators and Freezers:
The heavy induction motor driving the cooling compressor continuously bounces reactive power back onto your lines.
Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps:
Central HVAC systems and window A/C units are the largest source of residential inductive reactive power due to their massive compressor motors.
Washing Machines and Dryers:
The electric motors that spin the drums create highly reactive loads. (Note: The heating element in a dryer is purely resistive, but the motor is highly inductive).
Ceiling Fans and Vacuum Cleaners:
Standard fan motors use simple electromagnetic coils that constantly reject energy back to the plug.
Microwave Ovens: Traditional microwaves use massive, heavy high-voltage step-up transformers that are intensely inductive.
Modern digital electronics do not use heavy transformers.
Instead, they use Switched-Mode Power Supplies (SMPS) or digital drivers that utilize internal capacitors to smooth out electricity. They store energy in an electric field and push it back, causing a leading power factor:
LED and Fluorescent Lighting:
Low-quality LED bulb drivers and old fluorescent tube ballasts return significant capacitive reactive power.
Computers and Laptops:
The power bricks charging your desktop or laptop contain large capacitor banks that continuously cycle reactive energy back into the wall outlet.
Smartphones and Wi-Fi Routers:
Even small phone chargers and networked equipment act as minor capacitive endpoints, feeding tiny amounts of reactive power back onto the home circuit.
Flat-Screen Televisions:
Large LED/OLED televisions utilize complex non-linear digital power supplies that create notable phase-displacement.
For Off-Grid Systems:
If you are running your home on a battery bank and an inverter onside NGU, that reactive power cannot escape to the utility grid. It bounces back directly into your internal inverter. As detailed earlier, a “dumb” inverter will convert that returning energy into harsh heat but not in the NGU. The NGU will store that reactive power in its internal capacitor bank where it also stores the energy harvested from the vacuum.
The reactive power return is random in its power feedback. Random feedback means that the NGU will fail if the power store becomes full.
Under the assumption that the more powerful a NGU system that you buy implies that your power store will be larger. This lager store on an oversized NGU system will reduce the likelihood that the NGU will fail.
Overloading a low powered NGU relative to your appliances increases the likelihood that your NGU will fail at random times.
Maybe Dr. Rossi can sell a power store option to increase the power store capacity of a NGU system if there is excessive NGU failures due to a too small power store provided in the default configuration. Or a resistor outside of the NGU system could dissipate the overload excess power if it occurs.
A possible solution is to use a smart inverter in preference to the internal dumb one inside the NGU to protect against reactive power overload.
Intelligent Electronic Software Processing:
As established with smart inverters, a microprocessor can use advanced high-speed software algorithms to dynamically shift the timing of its transistors. This allows the inverter to active-absorb the out-of-phase current, smooth it out, and blend it safely back into its internal circuits.
Axil:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Ref: Your answer, June 13, 2026 at 8:48 AM.
I understand completely your statements.
If I rectify the AC voltage from the ecatSSM and use it as input to the solar inverter (which is a legally certified by grid owner) could not that work? If not please explain!
Best regards,
Mats Heijkenskjold
Dr Rossi,
so IF the SSM will be born any kind of electric load or series of loads will be powerable by the Ecat, provided their combined power does not exceed the Ecat’s power ?
Anonymous:
IF, yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.