October E-Cat Presentation to be a ‘Technological Demo’ of ‘1-2’ Hours

Here’s a Q&A from the Journal of Nuclear Physics yesterday:

July 30, 2017 at 10:29 AM
Dr. Andrea Rossi,
The demo you will make in October will be the presentation of the product?

Andrea Rossi
July 30, 2017 at 3:09 PM
No. It will be a technological demo.
Warm Regards,

My interpretation of the difference between a “technological” and “product” demonstration is that Andrea Rossi is not expecting to demonstrate a finished product at the planned presentation. We have learned that he is only now starting to combine his individual 10-20 W E-Cat QX rectors (apparently 20 of them so far) to increase overall output. If he is planning to provide heat to be used on an industrial scale, one would expect that there would need to be thousands of them combined to make plants producing heat in the megawatt range. So it looks like the plan is to show what the E-Cat QX reactors can do, before production of industry-ready plants have started.

Another question regarding the duration of the test was posted today.

Oystein Lande


This begs the question: what part of the test will not be public? I would guess there will be time involved in setup and calibration, but perhaps Rossi is not planning to broadcast that activity.

It makes me wonder what the overall purpose of the presentation is — who will be the audience that Rossi is trying to reach? Obviously the enthusiasts/detractors who have been following the E-Cat for years will be playing close attention, but maybe this is not the primary audience. Rossi has stated that this demonstration is the opening salvo in his business plan, and maybe he is wanting to reach a wider audience — I expect potential customers will be his priority — who might not have the attention span of the old timers who can watch live streaming data for hour upon hour without getting bored.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Railroad CEO: Fossil Fuels are Dead

An article in the Financial Times quotes Hunter Harrison, CEO of CSX, a freight railroad company, that the business of hauling coal by rail is in decline. He stated:

“Fossil fuels are dead, that’s a long-term view. It’s not going to happen overnight. It’s not going to be in two or three years. But it’s going away, in my view.”  He also said that he would not be buying a single new locomotive to haul coal trains, or add any extra tracks for coal freight.

A recent report from the Association of American Railroads states that coal represents 31.6 percent of all tonnage hauled on US Class I railroads, and provided 13.9 percent of rail revenues.

In the US, contrary to most countries, the Trump administration is pushing for a revival of coal, by easing environmental regulations, but it would seem that a lot of the damage to the coal industry has already been done, with more power stations moving to natural gas, and the increased use of wind and solar.

The consequences of a coal’s decline are not limited to the the mining industry only; from Hunter Harrison’s comments, it appears that the rail industry is looking to adjust to a new reality.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Poll: Rossi v. IH Settlement — Who Won?

I noticed a thread on the vortex-l mailing list with the title “Why Rossi ‘Won'”, and it gave me the idea to put a poll up to see what the readers here thought about the outcome of the Rossi v. IH lawsuit, which ended with this settlement.

The options available are: Rossi/Leonardo, IH, Neither (it was a lose-lose result), or Both (a win-win outcome). I decided not to include “attorneys” as an option, as I think that’s pretty obvious in most court cases of this kind. As with many polls, the options available might not be specific enough to reflect your thoughts, so please feel free to explain your thinking in a comment.

The poll is found on the right side of the page.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Rossi: Testing Multiple QuarkX Reactors for Presentation

The recently published Rossi-Gullstroem paper described a mew experiment with only one E-Cat QX reactor hooked up to the control box. Andrea Rossi is now reporting that testing is underway in which multiple QX units are being combined to increase the power output inside the heat exchanger. This would be an important test to make, because Rossi has always said that the overall plan with his QX reactors is to be able to make heating units as small or as large as needed by simply combining his QXs together.

Up to this point, it doesn’t sound like they have tested QX’s in clusters. Here are a few recent comments from the JONP by Rossi on the subject.

July 26, 2017 at 12:21 PM
Dr. Rossi,

I have been following your progress since your public demonstration will Dr. Sergio Focardi. Your progress has been amazing to watch.

You stated earlier: “Today we are making substantial improvements to raise the power of the apparatus that will be presented in the demonstration.”

1. Is this increase in power due to adding more QX reactors to the demonstration setup or due to a changes to the QX and its control system?
2. If due to increase in the quantity of reactors, do you have a ballpark figure for what you are shooting for on the output power?

Andrea Rossi
July 26, 2017 at 3:41 PM
1- we are putting more modules in parallel
2- between 200 and 500 W
Thank you for your attention and sustain,
Warm Regards,


July 26, 2017 at 9:20 AM
Dear Dr. Rossi

You say that you are increasing the power. Is this be combining multiple E-CAT QX’s together. Could you give an indication of how many you will now show at the demonstration?

Andrea Rossi
July 26, 2017 at 3:46 PM
We are piling up 20 modules.
Today we worked all the day on the apparatus for the demonstration, it is working.
Warm Regards,


Steven N. Karels
July 26, 2017 at 6:43 PM
Dear Andrea,

1. How many in parallel?
2. All controlled by a single controller?
3. Still no phase change?

Andrea Rossi
July 26, 2017 at 8:04 PM
Steven N.Karels:
1- we’ll see. Our module at average, not risky operation, has a power of 10 W, now we are working to pile them up in a tiny space.
2- yes
3- yes, we’ll increase the flow to maintain the T below 100 Celsius degrees, just to make measurements simpler.
Direct current, liquid phase
make the test a simpler case
Warm Regards,

Rossi has recently said that the maximum number of QX reactors that can be powered by a single control unit like the one used in the Gullstroem-Rossi paper is 100. It sounds like Rossi’s team are shooting for a higher output power at the demonstration, but are trying to being careful not to overload the system. Rossi has said that they have had problems in the past with heat from the QX being transmitted back to the control system via conduction along the copper wires, and destroying components, so I am sure that will be a concern with additional heat being generated.

Rossi has refused to say so far how much power is consumed by the control system. I think a more effective demonstration could be made if the output of the combined QXs was higher than the power consumed by the control system, and maybe that is why they are working on raising the output.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Patent Awarded to MagneGas for Systems to Make Molecules more Dense, Company Claims Energy, Transportation and Propulsion Applications

Thanks to Andreas Moraitis for pointing out this press release from MagneGas Corporation about a new patent that has been granted to the corporation by the US Patent and Trademark Office for

Below is the press release; here is the link to the patent which is titled “Method and apparatus for the industrial production of new hydrogen-rich fuels” http://patents.justia.com/patent/9700870

US Patent and Trademark Office Issues MagneGas Corporation Ground Breaking Patent

July 26, 2017
The First Patent Granted Surrounding the Theory of the “MagneCule” has application in Fuel Cells, Space Propulsion and Transportation

TAMPA, Florida, July 26, 2017 /PRNewswire/ —

MagneGas Corporation (“MagneGas” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: “MNGA”), a leading clean technology company in the renewable resources and environmental solutions industries, announced today that following an extended patent application and review process the US Patent and Trademark Office has issued a patent on the theory behind the “MagneCule”. This theory relates to the effect that the patented MagneGas™ systems have under certain conditions and feedstocks and the use of energy in a manner that changes the shape of affected molecules thereby changing their bonding mechanisms from a valence bond to a bond based on the magnetic attraction of nuclei. This in turn allows for a high density of molecules which are packed closer together to provide a greater energy footprint than those same molecules, particularly hydrogen molecules, than when using traditional valence bonds.

Numerous higher density hydrogen applications:

Fuel cells: Current fuel cells have significant range limitation based on the density of conventional hydrogen. The unique hydrogen produced under the MagneCule patent should be able to pack more energy into the same fuel cell. With certain feedstocks the production of our unique hydrogen would allow an increase in the range capability of current fuel cell technology with little or no development in the fuel cells themselves.

Rocket Propulsion: The significant increase in orbital and other rocket launches have limitations based on the space, density and compressibility of hydrogen and oxygen which limit cargo and add significant cost. The ability to pack more hydrogen energy into similar sized rocket modules could extend payloads and reduce the costs of the burgeoning national and private rocket industries.

Transport Industries: Fuel additives in the gasoline and diesel markets have become commonplace in order to improve combustion characteristics and reduce carbonization of combustion chambers. Hydrogen and oxygen treated in the MagneGas process has exhibited qualities that facilitate its addition to fluids which remain in suspension. This would improve combustion efficiency for these key fuels which are under pressure to keep pace with increasingly strict global emission standards.

“Following a lengthy process we are proud to announce that MagneGas Corporation has been granted a patent on the MagneCule theory,” commented Ermanno Santilli, CEO of MagneGas. “The theory and process of the MagneCule has been studied for years at MagneGas Corporation and we believe there are numerous applications in the energy, transportation and space industries associated with increasing the energy density of fuels or as an additive to currently used fuels. We believe that as these industries are under pressure to innovate, our newly released patented technology places us in an ideal position to provide value added innovation to numerous applications.”

“Given the magnitude of the opportunity and far reaching applications of this patent MagneGas Corporation will explore low cost proof of concept developments and licensing opportunities which in some case leverage our existing connections in the targeted industries of fuel cell, rocket propulsion and transportation.” commented Scott Mahoney, CFO of MagneGas. “We believe that an approach which is not particularly capital intensive would allow us to penetrate one or all of these industries and leverage our other existing patents in a far faster timeframe and at a lower cost with large, established corporate partners.”

About MagneGas Corporation

MagneGas® Corporation (MNGA) owns a patented process that converts various renewables and liquid wastes into MagneGas fuels. These fuels can be used as an alternative to natural gas or for metal cutting. The Company’s testing has shown that its metal cutting fuel “MagneGas2®” is faster, cleaner and more productive than other alternatives on the market. It is also cost effective and safe to use with little changeover costs. The Company currently sells MagneGas2® into the metal working market as a replacement to acetylene.

The Company also sells equipment for the sterilization of bio-contaminated liquid waste for various industrial and agricultural markets. In addition, the Company is developing a variety of ancillary uses for MagneGas® fuels utilizing its high flame temperature for co-combustion of hydrocarbon fuels and other advanced applications. For more information on MagneGas®, please visit the Company’s website at http://www.MagneGas.com.

The Company distributes MagneGas2® through Independent Distributors in the U.S and through its wholly owned distributor, ESSI (Equipment Sales and Services, Inc). ESSI has four locations in Florida and distributes MagneGas2®, industrial gases and welding supplies. For more information on ESSI, please visit the company’s website at http://www.weldingsupplytampa.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Cold Fusion in KIJK Magazine

The following post has been submitted by Gerard McEk

An article in the popular science Dutch magazine ‘KIJK’ surprised me this week.

About two years ago KIJK published an article about hot fusion and they wrote as small remark in ‘Fusion Missers’ that fusion at room temperature has been proven impossible. Quite a few people made them aware that Cold Fusion (or LENR as it called now) is alive and that a lot of progress is made since Pons and Fleischmann. They promised to write an article about CF in the near future.

That was for me a reason to take a subscription then and I went to the redaction and offered them to help writing it. I got quite sceptical response and they said the article would not be written for the time being, so I cancelled my subscription after a year. To my surprise an CF article was published recently in the July/August issue (Nr. 8/2017). I bought it and decided to write a summary for ECW.

The heading starts with: “Is nuclear power possible at room temperature? THE NUCLEUS OF THE TRUTH”. (The question was already wrong: Of course it is, look to the fission reactors). They continue with another question: “Since the end of the eighties a small group of scientists think that they can initiate nuclear reactions at room temperatures. Many other academics totally ignore them, are they right?”  Mmmm… Promising, I thought.

Then they start to explain what Pons and Fleischmann (P&F) did in 1989. They talk about the need to overcome the repelling Coulomb force and the pressure and temperature you need to fuse hydrogen atoms and make helium and that hot fusionists were not able to do this during the decennia of research. But P&F found excess heat and they concluded that nuclear fusion took place. But in the three month after the publication no lab could find any of the effects P&F reported (like excess heat, gamma radiation and helium).

The article in KIJK also mentions that:

  1. P&F withdraw their article in Nature after feedback of Nature redaction and
  2. that they changed a picture drawn with metering data that had a fault and
  3. That the advocate of Pons would denounce a physicist that would publish that no gamma rays were found.

All quite negative toward P&F, whereas Eugine Mallove is more depicted as a conspiracy freak somewhere in the side-line of the article.

KIJK journalist  Jean-Paul Keulen talked with many scientists: dr. Jean-Paul Biberian (Aix-Marseille Université), prof. Dr. Graham Hubler (SKINR), dr. Roger Jaspers (TU Eindhoven), dr. Hugo de Blank and prof. Dr. Richard v.d.Sanden (both DIFFER) and a considerable list if literature including Edmund Storms’ ‘A student guide to cold fusion’.

Tree ‘important LENR papers, selected by Biberian were studied by some Dutch scientists’. They conclude:

  1. There is not enough detail in it to replicate,
  2. They are not consistent with each other,
  3. They do not refer to other (similar) papers
  4. The pro LENR scientist Graham Hubler confirms this quality problem with LENR papers

Nevertheless, although being sceptical one of the interviewed scientists does think there might be a possibility that there is something. “They can’t be all wrong, can they?”  The nano-cracks theory of Edmund Storms is mentioned, but Hubler thinks that the anomaly must be found in solid state physics and has no nuclear origin.


The article mentions Andrea Rossi a few times. In a small side article called “Secret invention” he is pictured as “for many the most convincing example of cold fusion”. ‘Obviously’ it is mentioned that he was jailed for tax fraud and at another location again his “dim past” is referred briefly. The article confirms that independent researchers have ascertained that the E-cat seems to produce net energy and that the composition of elements changes. “Yet”, they continue, “Most scientist dislike Rossi because he does not want to reveal how his invention works” and “Biberian says: Rossi is a businessman who wants to earn money primarily. If he wants to gain support of the scientific world, he needs to publish all the required details”.

My conclusion: They have tried to write an balanced article, but were unfortunately too sceptical for this. Most people reading this will not become enthusiastic about the subject. A missed chance.

See: www.kijkmagazine.nl/artikel/koude-kernfusie

Gerard McEk

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Circuit Analysis of the E-Cat QX with DC Exitation (Donald Anderson)

The following post has been submitted by Donald Anderson.

A photograph accompanied by much discussion in LENR blogs has been interpreted without regard to electrical circuit theory of voltages around a closed circuit.  The confusion is, I believe, because I believe that the E-Cat QX is an energy-producing device once excited, and that Andrea Rossi will withhold some knowledge until full demonstration and disclosure before the end of this October.

Consider the following statements which have been made by Andrea Rossi regarding the E-Cat QX, either in one of the papers published with he and Gullstrom in Arxiv on July 18,2017 or in response to questions in his blog:

  • The QX can produce a combination of heat (to 2600C), light, and electricity. If the total is say 20 watts (same as watt-hours per hour to the EE), it may include perhaps 10% electrical energy, perhaps 20 or 30 % light, and the rest is available as heat through a heat exchanger surrounding the lamp.
  • In the most recent paper, and as reported earlier, the energy source provided to ignite the “plasma” can be pure and simple dc, for example two 12V batteries.
  • The thermal output, by measuring temperature rise in a heat transfer oil in a heat exchanger surrounding the QX, and hence including absorption of any light, is stated to be 20 watts.
  • This heat transfer appears to be the temperature rise in 1.8 seconds.
  • Start-up occurs in perhaps a minute or so, and shut down can be in seconds.
  • Voltage measured across a one-ohm resistor is 0.105 volts, so the measured current is 0.105 amps or 105 milliamps. NOTE THAT THE SIGN OF THIS MEASURED CURRENT IS NOT OBVIOUS IN THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING TWO VOLTMETERS MEASURING ONLY ACROSS THE ONE OHM.

As an analog, suppose I were to construct a system involving a voltage source of 24 VDC, a one ohm resistor, and a tiny dc motor/generator attached to a tiny gasoline engine.  When used as a starter, if the motor has a very low impedance, nearly 24 volts would start to spin-up the motor.  The current would be limited to 24 amperes, and would decrease as rpm increase.  Given a fuel and spark, in perhaps a minute the current would drop as rpm built until-lo!- the engine starts at say 1000rpm.

Now assume that the engine is governed to idle at say 1100 rpm, and this the “starter”is viewed as a “generator”, producing 24.105 volts DC at that rpm. .  Yes, the one ohm resistor does have a current of 105 milliamps, but it measures the recharge of the battery!

I offer thus a possible explanation in accord with all released information for the E-Cat QX  listed above:  The QX is like a fluorescent lamp or arc lamp which cold-starts in a time of the order of minutes when excited at 24VDC, with a maximum current perhaps approaching 24 amps given the ballast resistor limit.  When producing energy once “ignited”, it produces 24.105 volts and recharges the battery.  Just as an automobile draws very large starting current, the generator replaces that energy in the battery.

Compare this to the purported argument presented by Rossi that the energy from the battery continues to be V^2/R or I^2 x R, about 11 milliwatts.  This suggests a COP, or thermal output of 20 watts divided by at 11 milliwatts, of over 1800.  Rather, once ignited, the QX has a net negative energy input and is in the self-sustaining mode (SSM).

Donald Anderson

Details of Rossi Industrial Heat Settlement Available

Swedish Journalist Mats Lewan has uncovered some of the details of the settlement Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat (IH) made to end their lawsuit. Those details are available at Lewin’s Impossible Invention blog. Lewin also posted a new interview with Rossi who explained some of the details of the suit and the settlement. Rossi told [...]

MFMP Video on ECCO Reactor Design

Thanks to Bob Greenyer for posting a link to a new video he has filmed during his and George Egeley’s last day in India visiting inventor Suhas.

The MFMP team did not get a chance to test Suhas’ technology (Bob has explained in previous posts and videos that the lab with all the equipment in had been locked by the bank in a foreclosure process), but Suhas has committed to continue to work together with the MFMP in the future to help them replicate his technology.

In this video Bob shows the design of the ECCO reactor.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Interview with Andrea Rossi on Current and Future Developments of the E-Cat

I had a meeting over Skype with Andrea Rossi on July 20th 2017 in which I conducted an interview. Mats Lewan published an earlier interview with Rossi here which focused primarily on issues surrounding the recent litigation with Industrial Heat and the subsequent settlement which was done so well, that I felt it was not necessary to cover the same ground.

Below is a transcription of the interview.

As you look back over the last four-and-a-half years in which you were in partnership with Industrial Heat, what are you thoughts?

I have good memories of things I made positively with them, as well as, unfortunately also bad memories. It has been a very important, huge, rich experience, scientifically speaking.

What will be the effect of the settlement on your work going forward?

It affects a lot because, first of all, since we worked together beside Industrial Heat I made only a research and development work, because based on the agreement we had, they had the burden of the management of the business.

Now the situation is completely different for me because now I return to be, for all the world, not only the chief scientist of research and development, but also the chief executive officer of what will be the development of this technology in terms of its application in the industrial environment.

So my responsibility is changed completely. Also my freedom of movement. Now I am completely free to move around. Before the litigation I had a restricted area of behavior that was limited to my operation of a scientific and technological character. Now I have wider responsibilities – I think I am prepared for this.

Running a business and running a science and research program, for most companies, it’s not the same person doing that, right?

Well it is true, once they are already developed and consolidated, but in the beginning it is not true, because you think of the model of Microsoft. Mr. Bill Gates, at the beginning, I would say that he covered all the four bases, and was the pitcher and the batter, too.

To do what you want to do, which is to disseminate this technology worldwide is going to take huge resources, financially, would you agree?


You’re a very small company at this point, as far as I can tell. So how do you get from where you are now, to where you need to be, as far as a business plan, or commercial partnerships are concerned?

My friend, does a general explain his strategy before the beginning of a battle? I am perfectly aware of my limits, and am perfectly aware of the fact that we need to move in a system, and I am working to find the right system to move in. I cannot tell you the strategy, but I can tell you the first move.

Our first move will be the presentation of the E-Cat QX that will be made around the end of October. That will be our first official, I think, strong move. And then the rest will come. I have a precise strategy; as with every strategy, it forsees many that things will change on the battlefield in the course of  operations, like when you play chess. You know the theme you are going to play, but you still don’t know where the music will lead you.

Let’s move to the E-Cat QX – What is the difference between the E-Cat QX and the early E-Cats?

I cannot tell you this now, because to answer properly to your intelligent question I would have to give an intelligent answer, and not a reticent one.  And I prefer to delay the description of the E-Cat QX to when we make the presentation.

I would say that the patent that we have covers the essentials of it, but there are substantial differences. The COP is higher, the efficiency is higher, and I am very proud of the work that my team has made on this issue. A proper description will be made when we make the presentation. A main difference is the dimension. The dimension of the E-Cat QX is extremely smaller, so the density of energy is very, very high which I think will lead to applications in fields like jet engines. But this is field of research and development that has to be developed.

If you are commercializing the E-Cat, you have to start somewhere. Which applications do you think it will be easiest to start with?

Production of heat for industrial applications. The industrial applications are necessary because it is where we have the certification. For the domestic applications we still do not have the necessary certification.  But, the production of heat in all industries where heat is basic for their production. For example: cement works, oil refineries, food industries, heating of the buildings of industries – simple heating – because in half the world you have to heat where you work for at least four or five months of the year. The most immediate product that we make is just heat. We can heat air, we can heat water, we can heat oil, we can heat whatever and we can also gain very high temperatures because the E-Cat QX reaches in its core very high temperatures. So basically, when you heat something you cannot overcome the temperature of the primary, we have a primary that has a pretty high temperature. We can have a primary of over 1000 degrees Celcius.

A heat exchanger has a primary and a secondary. The primary is where you have the heater. For example in a boiler you have a burner, and the smoke of the burner is the primary. The secondary is the water which is outside of the cylinder where the burning of the fuel happens. In our case we have the primary temperature of the burner, because a normal burner has a temperature of about 1500 degrees Celcius in the core of the flame, and we reach that temperature in our reactor.

A lot of people talk about the ability to generate electricity with the E-Cat because of concerns about carbon emissions and so forth. Does your technology have the ability to replace fossil fuels for the generation of electricity?

I hate the term “replace” because the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear “replace” is people who remain without jobs. So I would be very cautious about using this term. But I believe that it is opportune that all the energy sources integrate in time, intelligently. And for sure, the primary temperature that we reach in the E-Cat, we can heat the steam up to the 550 degrees Celsius that are necessary to have efficiencies of around 35-38 per cent with the Carnot cycle. So yes, we can be an intelligent source, without replacing anything. The planet will become always more and more thirsty for energy, so without burning jobs we can just implement our capacity to produce energy in an environmentally friendly way. Now the best available technologies for the burning of coal can allow for the burning of coal without pollution, and without creating desperation sites in places like certain towns in Pennsylvania that risk to become like ghost towns. I don’t think this is an intelligent way to do things.

You have said in the past that one of your goals, in addition to creating a new form of energy, is to create jobs.


In what areas do you see your technology providing employment opportunities for people?

Apart from the manufacturing  of E-Cat, that will be robotized — robots make  low level work, but robots create high level jobs for young people that will have to reach a high level of instruction to have a job (I don’t think this is bad, I think this is good) – and if energy becomes more competitive, this automatically generates a cascade of jobs in every sector where energy is consumed.

So you are thinking about indirect employment as well as direct employment?


You have mentioned in the past “robotized factories” – how advanced are your plans or progress towards robotized production of your E-Cat QX reactors?

It is very advanced. I have made a study with ABB, and we are very advanced with that, and when the industrialization will be made it will be made necessarily with robotized construction lines because the QuarkX can be conceived only with a robotized production line, because the QuarkX is a very small module, it is a module of between 10 and 20 Watts. So you need to be able to assemble many of them; it is unthinkable to do this job only with manual work. The basic assembly must necessarily be made with robots. I have also seen already a factory that has the kind of robots in operation to do other things, and you can see tens of thousands of pieces coming out. And also, and this has been a big pleasure, I have seen in this factory there are many guys working, guys that have to improve themselves, because now, instead of making a fatiguing work with risk also to their health, they make a work which is smart.

Can you tell me how much the materials would cost to make a Quark – just materials?

I would say, just raw materials, 1-2 cents per Watt.

This afternoon was the first time that I had become aware of a new paper that you have written with Carl-Oscar Gullström, that has been published on Arxiv.org.

It is an update that a paper that Oscar and I made several months ago, March if I remember correctly, because we gave that work to some peer reviewers who asked us to upgrade many points, and we worked again on it. Carl-Oscar Gullstrom is a very intelligent physicist, he is very young, and we will work with him. He is very strong, he is very intelligent, theoretically very prepared. He comes from a Swedish school of physics – I like him very much, I like to work with him.

The physics in the paper is very complicated, I do not understand much of it, honestly, but does what he describe match your understanding of what is happening in the E-Cat?

We have much more work to do for what concerns the theoretical issues. I think that path can bring to a theoretical explication, but as you have seen we consider this just the beginning of a long path because we are still distant to have reached a point where we can say we have found the theoretical explication of this effect.

In the past you have worked with Dr. Norman Cook

Yes, the work of Norman Cook is perfectly reconcilable with ours. Now, in this period, my friend Norman Cook, my supposition is that this litigation has kind of created in many persons a fear of making some mistake sustaining one or the other party, so many people decided to stay out of the ring and let the two boxers exchange punches of every kind, see the blood spit out, and say “let them fight, and we will go in the ring when all will have been finished”.  So my sense is that now the litigation is finished it will be easier for me to work with my friend Norman Cook.

I am sure you were aware that in the paper that was published this week was included a picture of your QX reactors. So now it’s not so much of a mystery what they look like. I noticed that two different ones were show, right? One with a heat exchanger, and one without.

The one without the heat exchanger is not an E-Cat QX. The E-Cat QX is the green one.

What is the other one?

The other one is a tool that I use to make experiments.

I see, so that is not what a QX will look like.

No, the QX will be smaller than bigger things like the green box you have seen.

There was a technical question regarding the measurement of the input power for the QX. You have a 1 Ohm resistor with .105 V input. Is that the only resistance that is measured – is there resistance in the reactor?

No. We have measured only that resistance [the 1 Ohm resistor] because that is the only resistance we have in the circuit. If the E-Cat has a resistance, that makes our calculations more conservative, because, as you well know, the resistance goes in the denominator when you make the calculus of the amps. You have volts as the numerator, and the resistance as the denominator. So the bigger the resistance, the smaller is the amount of amps.

To be conservative, since the datum of the resistance of the E-Cat QX is confidential, we just do not consider the resistance. Because correctly we should have to make the sum of the resistance of the resistor that has been put in the circuit, and the resistance of the E-Cat. So we should have amps = volts/R1 (the resistor)+R2 (the resistance of the E-Cat). But we do not consider the resistance of the E-Cat, we consider it as if it is a perfect conductor, and we only consider the one 1 Ohm to make the calculation of the amps.

To make the measurement very easy is the fact that the electricity is direct current; we use only direct current, so there are not all the complications connected with frequencies, etc.

Also in the photograph are shown two meters. What is each measuring?

We use two voltmeters to make a double check. The difference of the measurement is the margin of error of two different voltmeters ( several mV )

You talk about your presentation being your opening shot. You have said in the past that you can run the E-Cat QX from a battery producing direct current.

Yes, yes, we can run it with a battery – we need 24 Volts. So basically we can put two car batteries in series.

Well for the purpose of the presentation, myself and many other people think you need to use batteries to make things simpler than using AC from a mains source.


Would that be easy to do?

Yes, absolutely. I am using batteries in my laboratory now. Luckily, the trial is finished — luckily it is finished, because it is not just the trial, it is the preparation of the hearings – 8, 10, 12 hours with the attorneys to do something that has nothing to do with my work. It was a pain. So now I am in my factory every day, and among the many things that I do is also do experiments with batteries. There is no difference at all, we can use batteries.

Okay, well I would recommend that because I think it would make a lot of people feel more comfortable.

No problem.

I have just one question about the settlement document. There was a section in there that talked about the fuel formula. It was restricted information for just a few people.


In there it said there parts (a) and (b) for the fuel formula . (A) was hydrogen, lithium aluminum hydride, lithium and nickel (or other element in column 10 of the periodic table) — which are described in your Fluid Heater patent. And then there was b) which was an “Additional Element”, and there was no mention of this in the patent.  So what does this mean for your patent if you do not include that Additional Element?

Because a patent is valid when an expert of the art is able to reproduce an effect with the information given in the patent. Now there are many people who are expert in the art who have reproduced the effect using information in the patent. So my patent is valid, it has been validated practically in all the world for this reason, because replications have been made. And some very important replication, I suppose, is going soon to be disclosed. But also very important replications have been made from people who have just read my patent and reproduced. Obviously, this Additional Element increases the efficiency. In fact, all the replications that have been made started from Lugano had a COP that is between 2 and 3. The Additional Element makes the efficiency much higher. So this is a difference between a patent and the know-how.

So would you consider the Additional Element as a trade secret?

Yes. This is why we demanded that the settlement agreement had to be written so that all that must remain a secret.

What is the size of Leonardo Corporation, as far as the number of employees these days?

In these days employees of Leonardo are actually six persons. The dimensions of our factor at Doral are approximately 7000 square feet, there is another laboratory that is out of there – for now this is our dimension.

Let me say this, because I am proud to say this.  We are working pretty much on the 1 MW plant that has worked for one year, because probably you know that after the 16th of February 2016, the plant has been sealed by the parties, and it was in a land of nobody, like the land between the two Koreas. Basically nobody could enter there. We put our locks, they put their locks, and to enter, as in the safes of the banks, you needed two keys, etc., etc. So, it was tragicomic.

Now, I got my key, their keys also had been given back to me, I have opened everything, and now we are dismounting everything, opening all the reactors. The big ones that worked pretty well, and the small ones that never worked, because at the beginning they had many problems. Now we are going to open all of them to study. It will be very interesting, the analysis. Also the isotopic analysis of the powders of the four reactors that worked, and also the degradation that happened in one year. So now we will have precise data about how the powder became through one year, etc. In the small ones it will be very interesting to understand now why the heck they did not work, as if in some of them there was simply no charge. Because they were connected in a way that was necessary for coordination. So now I am disassembling the plant in thousands of small pieces to be analyzed because this is technology, this is how technology is made.

Ok, a change of subject. Do you have commercial interest – people who are aware of what you are doing, and interested in your work?

Yes, I do.

Let’s say I am an oil refiner and I learn about your technology from the presentation, and I think this is something that could make my process much more efficient. How do I incorporate it in my system – what’s the process?

Well the process is pretty simple. You buy the plant and the plant becomes yours, and you use it. We will put some conditions like parts that cannot be removed. Like sometimes the car makers make prototypes of cars where they put the seals in the box of the engine so that you cannot open it and they give it to you and say you go, and they give the car to you for very cheap.  So you go, and now and then you have to bring the car to them so they can test what happened inside the engine, etc., etc. We will make something like that. So basically our plant will be partially sealed where the charges are, for example, where only we will be able to put hands, and you use the plant, and we assist you.

By the way, probably you have some kind of magic capacity in your mind, some psychic capacity emanating from your brain, because the day after tomorrow I meet an oil refiner. So I don’t know you are some sort of (inaudible)

No, you mentioned it [oil refining] earlier in the interview.

Ah, that’s why you know!

Ok, what if you are a manufacturer, a technologist, and you wanted to manufacture products that incorporated your technology. Is it going to be possible for people to license this technology and pay you a royalty?

What do you mean, license the technology?

I mean you give them the formula and they go ahead and make their own products, and pay you a royalty.

I got it. Everything is possible, it depends on the agreement. You know we have just exited from an experience with a license, and we have learned the hard way how important it is to make proper agreements. Everything is possible, anybody can license anything – good contracts are necessary.  Now we have also a strong legal team, because in any case in this war we have selected a very good legal team, so now we have a legal team that is pretty much experienced in the field, and so the contracts that we are going to make will be less naïve than the agreement that I signed in 2012.

So would you say that you are open to cooperating with other industries in cooperative ways?


I know that during the one year test and after that, you mentioned a few times that it had had an effect on your health. How is your health now?

Perfect. I had problems. I had problems for many reasons. Also consider that for one year I worked from 5:00 p.m. to 10:30 a.m. the next day, sleeping from 11:00 a.m. – you sleep a few hours, you have also to read, you have to make some sport, so you sleep 3-4 hours each day. For one year and with many other factors, yes I had something serious, but I am completely healed. The last analysis had shown that there is nothing left.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged