Svein:
The Ecat is an independent power source whose generated electricity cannot be sent to the grid. To make such connection is necessary what I already answered in my former answer to yout last comment before this.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thank you for your answer, october 3, 2026 at 8;34 AM. I understand that export to the local grid will have to be carried out in agreement with the grid provider and according to its technological requirements and authorizations.
Since the Ecat is intended for possible grid export in Europe, I assume that its grid interface will have to comply with the applicable European grid-connection requirements, including the RfG requirements for generating units.
Would this also mean that the Ecat’s grid interface is designed to control and limit the active power/current delivered to the grid, so that the grid can never impose a load greater than the Ecat’s available generating capacity?
In other words, can the grid-connected Ecat behave as a controlled power source rather than as a voltage source whose output could be determined by the capacity of the connected grid?
I also understand that ENTSO-E is developing RfG 2.0, with evolving requirements for inverter-based generation, including Grid Forming capability.
Has the Ecat grid interface been designed with this future development in mind?
I would like to understand the functional difference between a non-SSM 12VDC 100w unit and a (successful) SSM 12VDC 100W unit. I understand that the non-SSM 12VDC 100W is less expensive than the SSM unit. If this is true, then there may be certain applications where the non-SSM is a better choice.
1. The output of the non-SSM unit has occasional output dropouts?
2. The output of the non-SSM unit has occasional output voltages above the maximum allowed voltage?
3. The non-SSM must be powered off, then on, before proper operation is restored?
4. The non-SSM must be disconnected from the load, then reconnected, before proper operation is restored?
If #1 is true, what the typical duration of the loss of output power (sub-seconds, seconds, minutes)?
I would like to suggest a systems-engineering approach that might simplify NGU manufacturing and substantially reduce the cost of SSM systems.
You have stated that the standard NGU module is 100 W and that the SSM version costs more because its circuitry is considerably more complex than the non-SSM version.
A 1 MW system based on 100 W modules requires approximately 10,000 NGU modules. Therefore, it seems that the greatest manufacturing advantage would come from making those 10,000 generating modules as simple, identical and inexpensive as possible.
Instead of manufacturing two substantially different NGU versions, could Leonardo concentrate high-speed production on one standardized non-SSM 100 W NGU, and move as much of the additional SSM functionality as possible to a centralized system-level conditioning assembly?
For example, a 10 kW system containing approximately 100 NGUs might have this architecture:
Common regulated 12-VDC operating bus → 100 standard non-SSM NGUs → common output collection bus → centralized energy storage/regulation/conditioning → regulated system output
The centralized assembly would therefore perform two functions. It would provide the required 12-VDC operating power to all of the non-SSM NGUs through a common bus, and it would collect and condition their generated output at the system level.
If the raw output requires energy accumulation and voltage stabilization before it can supply general electrical loads, those common functions might be performed once for the complete system rather than separately inside every NGU.
This could have a major manufacturing advantage. The NGU itself is Leonardo’s specialized technology and would be manufactured in very large quantities. The centralized conditioning equipment could potentially use low-cost, mass-produced, off-the-shelf power-electronics components already available from the solar, EV, battery-storage, industrial-power and inverter industries.
The manufacturing strategy could then become:
One simple standardized NGU manufactured 10,000 times + one centralized system-conditioning architecture
rather than maintaining separate manufacturing requirements for both non-SSM and more complicated SSM NGUs.
The same architecture could scale downward. A 10 kW system would use approximately 100 identical NGUs; larger systems would use more. The conditioning equipment itself could be modular and redundant as power increases, while the basic NGU generating module remains unchanged.
I recognize one important limitation: if some of the additional SSM circuitry must physically operate at each individual NGU to maintain the self-sustaining reaction itself, that function obviously cannot be centralized.
Therefore, my question is:
Has Leonardo separated the SSM functions that absolutely must remain local to each NGU from the common functions—such as the 12-VDC supply, energy accumulation, voltage regulation and output conditioning—that could potentially be performed once at the system level?
If that separation is possible, it could permit Leonardo to concentrate its highest-volume manufacturing on a single simple NGU design, while using comparatively inexpensive conventional power electronics to provide the additional functionality required by the complete system.
In systems-engineering terms, the principle is simple:
Do the specialized function 10,000 times, but do each shareable common function only once.
This might significantly reduce manufacturing cost, simplify high-speed production, reduce inventory and testing requirements, and make both small and large NGU systems easier to manufacture and service.
@Sam Wilson
Even a fridge which works with absorption would be a resistiv load. Also a ceramic hob, solid plate hob.
But not a fridge with compression.
Air conditioner or fan would not work with non-ssm, too. Because they are inductive load.
I find the most advantage and energy saving is non-ssm with infrared heaters. No expensive heat pump, no expensive laborer hours, no heating pipes or leaks. All is simple and cheap.
1. electric fan heater with a switch regulator
2. heater with a electronic regulator
3. infrared heater
4. cooking plate with a digital display
5. induction plate
with the non ssm ecat?
Your recent answers concerning the difference between the non-SSM and SSM E-Cat NGU raise an interesting commercial systems-engineering question.
You have explained that the SSM version costs more because its circuitry is much more complex, while the non-SSM version is limited to resistive loads.
For a large installation, however, a systems company might purchase a large number of the less expensive non-SSM units and connect them to a centralized energy-storage, power-conditioning and voltage-regulation system, followed by a commercial inverter.
There could be two important economies of scale.
First, as the number of non-SSM units increases, independent variations in their outputs could partially average together. Any additional stabilization resulting from operating a large number of units together would further reduce the amount of power conditioning required. Instead of duplicating complex conditioning circuitry at every generating unit, this function could be provided at the system level.
Second, such an architecture could potentially have an availability advantage. A large system containing many relatively simple non-SSM generating units could tolerate individual unit failures while continuing to operate at slightly reduced power. The centralized conditioning equipment could also be designed with industrial redundancy and made independently serviceable. By comparison, adding substantially more complex circuitry to every individual SSM unit creates many more complex assemblies whose failures could affect system availability.
I recognize that actual reliability would have to be established from field failure data; I am describing the potential architectural advantage.
If the price difference between the non-SSM and SSM units is substantial, these cost, power-averaging and availability advantages could allow an independent systems company using your non-SSM units to compete commercially with large installations based upon the per-unit SSM architecture.
Would Leonardo Corporation permit a company purchasing non-SSM E-Cat NGUs to develop and commercially sell such a centralized power-conditioning system, even if that systems-level solution competes with Leonardo’s SSM approach for large installations?
I am asking about Leonardo’s commercial policy for independent system integration, not requesting proprietary information concerning the SSM circuitry.
Claudio Varotto:
Thank you for your suggestion.
The description and the maintenance and use instructions of the Ecat will be published in the user manual at the presentation of the product,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Could you specify what the non-SSM E-Cat requires to operate and power a resistive load?
1) Specifically, what type of electrical connection must be set up upstream of the device for startup?
2) What circuit configuration must be maintained during operation?
3) Would the resistive load be powered even in a circuit configuration connected in series with, for example, a 180-volt DC output?
Answers to these questions would enable theoretical assessments regarding the potential use of a string of non-SSM E-Cats to simulate a photovoltaic input for an MPPT charge controller.
Adequate capacitance—provided by electrolytic capacitors—can act as a filter for the ripple introduced by the charge controller’s operation, effectively converting the system into a pseudo-resistive load; this would allow the setup to serve as a foundation for various applications, such as battery charging or feeding energy into the grid via a certified inverter.
Thank you for your attention.
Best regards.
Dear Dr. Rossi!
1) Can you estimate by what percentage the SSM version would be more expensive compared to the non-ssm version? Just approximately.
2) Could I also connect a kettle, infrared heater and an electric boiler to the non-SSM version? Does it have standard Europlugs?
Best regards
Urs Z.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi, when do you think that will be possible for you to decide if the presentation will be made with the Ecat SSM, or with the non-SSM ?
Cheers
Julia
Axil:
Thank you for your suggestions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
1- no
2- no
3- n.a.
4- n.a.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Svein:
The Ecat is an independent power source whose generated electricity cannot be sent to the grid. To make such connection is necessary what I already answered in my former answer to yout last comment before this.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Thank you for your answer, october 3, 2026 at 8;34 AM. I understand that export to the local grid will have to be carried out in agreement with the grid provider and according to its technological requirements and authorizations.
Since the Ecat is intended for possible grid export in Europe, I assume that its grid interface will have to comply with the applicable European grid-connection requirements, including the RfG requirements for generating units.
Would this also mean that the Ecat’s grid interface is designed to control and limit the active power/current delivered to the grid, so that the grid can never impose a load greater than the Ecat’s available generating capacity?
In other words, can the grid-connected Ecat behave as a controlled power source rather than as a voltage source whose output could be determined by the capacity of the connected grid?
I also understand that ENTSO-E is developing RfG 2.0, with evolving requirements for inverter-based generation, including Grid Forming capability.
Has the Ecat grid interface been designed with this future development in mind?
Regards Svein
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I would like to understand the functional difference between a non-SSM 12VDC 100w unit and a (successful) SSM 12VDC 100W unit. I understand that the non-SSM 12VDC 100W is less expensive than the SSM unit. If this is true, then there may be certain applications where the non-SSM is a better choice.
1. The output of the non-SSM unit has occasional output dropouts?
2. The output of the non-SSM unit has occasional output voltages above the maximum allowed voltage?
3. The non-SSM must be powered off, then on, before proper operation is restored?
4. The non-SSM must be disconnected from the load, then reconnected, before proper operation is restored?
If #1 is true, what the typical duration of the loss of output power (sub-seconds, seconds, minutes)?
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I would like to suggest a systems-engineering approach that might simplify NGU manufacturing and substantially reduce the cost of SSM systems.
You have stated that the standard NGU module is 100 W and that the SSM version costs more because its circuitry is considerably more complex than the non-SSM version.
A 1 MW system based on 100 W modules requires approximately 10,000 NGU modules. Therefore, it seems that the greatest manufacturing advantage would come from making those 10,000 generating modules as simple, identical and inexpensive as possible.
Instead of manufacturing two substantially different NGU versions, could Leonardo concentrate high-speed production on one standardized non-SSM 100 W NGU, and move as much of the additional SSM functionality as possible to a centralized system-level conditioning assembly?
For example, a 10 kW system containing approximately 100 NGUs might have this architecture:
Common regulated 12-VDC operating bus → 100 standard non-SSM NGUs → common output collection bus → centralized energy storage/regulation/conditioning → regulated system output
The centralized assembly would therefore perform two functions. It would provide the required 12-VDC operating power to all of the non-SSM NGUs through a common bus, and it would collect and condition their generated output at the system level.
If the raw output requires energy accumulation and voltage stabilization before it can supply general electrical loads, those common functions might be performed once for the complete system rather than separately inside every NGU.
This could have a major manufacturing advantage. The NGU itself is Leonardo’s specialized technology and would be manufactured in very large quantities. The centralized conditioning equipment could potentially use low-cost, mass-produced, off-the-shelf power-electronics components already available from the solar, EV, battery-storage, industrial-power and inverter industries.
The manufacturing strategy could then become:
One simple standardized NGU manufactured 10,000 times + one centralized system-conditioning architecture
rather than maintaining separate manufacturing requirements for both non-SSM and more complicated SSM NGUs.
The same architecture could scale downward. A 10 kW system would use approximately 100 identical NGUs; larger systems would use more. The conditioning equipment itself could be modular and redundant as power increases, while the basic NGU generating module remains unchanged.
I recognize one important limitation: if some of the additional SSM circuitry must physically operate at each individual NGU to maintain the self-sustaining reaction itself, that function obviously cannot be centralized.
Therefore, my question is:
Has Leonardo separated the SSM functions that absolutely must remain local to each NGU from the common functions—such as the 12-VDC supply, energy accumulation, voltage regulation and output conditioning—that could potentially be performed once at the system level?
If that separation is possible, it could permit Leonardo to concentrate its highest-volume manufacturing on a single simple NGU design, while using comparatively inexpensive conventional power electronics to provide the additional functionality required by the complete system.
In systems-engineering terms, the principle is simple:
Do the specialized function 10,000 times, but do each shareable common function only once.
This might significantly reduce manufacturing cost, simplify high-speed production, reduce inventory and testing requirements, and make both small and large NGU systems easier to manufacture and service.
Warm Regards,
Axil
@Sam Wilson
Even a fridge which works with absorption would be a resistiv load. Also a ceramic hob, solid plate hob.
But not a fridge with compression.
Air conditioner or fan would not work with non-ssm, too. Because they are inductive load.
I find the most advantage and energy saving is non-ssm with infrared heaters. No expensive heat pump, no expensive laborer hours, no heating pipes or leaks. All is simple and cheap.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Is it possible to use a
1. electric fan heater with a switch regulator
2. heater with a electronic regulator
3. infrared heater
4. cooking plate with a digital display
5. induction plate
with the non ssm ecat?
Best regards, Richard
Dr Rossi:
I read all the website http://www.drandrearossi.com
Magnificent
Cheers
Tony
Sam Wilson:
Any resistive load,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Axil:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steve D:
0- wrong
1- yes
2- the module , yes
3- both the modules od SSM and non-SSM have the same power limit of 100 W, so far
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
0)The non SSM 100W will output 12VDC.
1) Will there be a SSM (“IF”) version to also output 12VDC?
The difference being?
2) non SSM delivers 100W continuous power?
3) SSM delivers any power up to 100W?
2026-10-03 05:46 Steven Nicholes Karels
1. Will NGU non-SSM 100W 12VDC units be available, even if SSM is successful? A.R. Yes
Thank You
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Your recent answers concerning the difference between the non-SSM and SSM E-Cat NGU raise an interesting commercial systems-engineering question.
You have explained that the SSM version costs more because its circuitry is much more complex, while the non-SSM version is limited to resistive loads.
For a large installation, however, a systems company might purchase a large number of the less expensive non-SSM units and connect them to a centralized energy-storage, power-conditioning and voltage-regulation system, followed by a commercial inverter.
There could be two important economies of scale.
First, as the number of non-SSM units increases, independent variations in their outputs could partially average together. Any additional stabilization resulting from operating a large number of units together would further reduce the amount of power conditioning required. Instead of duplicating complex conditioning circuitry at every generating unit, this function could be provided at the system level.
Second, such an architecture could potentially have an availability advantage. A large system containing many relatively simple non-SSM generating units could tolerate individual unit failures while continuing to operate at slightly reduced power. The centralized conditioning equipment could also be designed with industrial redundancy and made independently serviceable. By comparison, adding substantially more complex circuitry to every individual SSM unit creates many more complex assemblies whose failures could affect system availability.
I recognize that actual reliability would have to be established from field failure data; I am describing the potential architectural advantage.
If the price difference between the non-SSM and SSM units is substantial, these cost, power-averaging and availability advantages could allow an independent systems company using your non-SSM units to compete commercially with large installations based upon the per-unit SSM architecture.
Would Leonardo Corporation permit a company purchasing non-SSM E-Cat NGUs to develop and commercially sell such a centralized power-conditioning system, even if that systems-level solution competes with Leonardo’s SSM approach for large installations?
I am asking about Leonardo’s commercial policy for independent system integration, not requesting proprietary information concerning the SSM circuitry.
Warm Regards,
Axil
Can we connect any off-the-shelf resistive load to the non-SSM E-Cat? Or does it need to be made specifically for the non-SSM E-Cat?
Thanks.
Claudio Varotto:
Thank you for your suggestion.
The description and the maintenance and use instructions of the Ecat will be published in the user manual at the presentation of the product,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Julia:
End of November,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Urs Z.:
1. No
2. Any resistive load
3. Yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jean Paul Renoir:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Could you specify what the non-SSM E-Cat requires to operate and power a resistive load?
1) Specifically, what type of electrical connection must be set up upstream of the device for startup?
2) What circuit configuration must be maintained during operation?
3) Would the resistive load be powered even in a circuit configuration connected in series with, for example, a 180-volt DC output?
Answers to these questions would enable theoretical assessments regarding the potential use of a string of non-SSM E-Cats to simulate a photovoltaic input for an MPPT charge controller.
Adequate capacitance—provided by electrolytic capacitors—can act as a filter for the ripple introduced by the charge controller’s operation, effectively converting the system into a pseudo-resistive load; this would allow the setup to serve as a foundation for various applications, such as battery charging or feeding energy into the grid via a certified inverter.
Thank you for your attention.
Best regards.
Dr Rossi,
Still possible to hope that the presentation will be made within February 2026 ?
JPR
Dear Dr. Rossi!
1) Can you estimate by what percentage the SSM version would be more expensive compared to the non-ssm version? Just approximately.
2) Could I also connect a kettle, infrared heater and an electric boiler to the non-SSM version? Does it have standard Europlugs?
Best regards
Urs Z.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi, when do you think that will be possible for you to decide if the presentation will be made with the Ecat SSM, or with the non-SSM ?
Cheers
Julia
Anonymous:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Axil:
No, the certified module is only the one with a power of 100 W
Warm Regards,
A.R.