Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in their structure

Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson,
Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron

Abstract-A heat by product of an oscillation has an exploitable potential as this relates to the efficient use of energy, which is the subject of the first part of this two-part paper.
This second part looks at the implications of that oscillation as it confronts certain assumptions related to current flow.
An oscillation is induced on a circuit that then enables a reversing current flow that exceeds the circuit restrictions to this flow.
This is explained using an extension to Faraday’s model of Lines of Force to include a dual charge in the material property of current flow.
These explanations are nonstandard and form a small part of a magnetic field model that predicted and required these results.
The analysis concludes that energy can be sourced from the inductive and conductive circuit material.

165 comments to Proposed variation to Faraday’s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in their structure

  • Andrea Rossi

    To the Readers of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics: today has been published the interesting paper
    by U.V.S. Seshavatharam (India).

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
    I agree. We are very close to a 1 MW plant with high temperature steam and electric power generation. Another important achievement , we got today: we are able, now, to make the drive with gas instead of electric power. This is extremely important, because now we are able to make thermal energy with thermal energy, and with the thermal energy produced we can make electric power. All this with 1 MW plants.
    Warm Regards,
    Andrea Rossi

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Mr. Rossi: Your post: “The high temperature module is not idle, is ready for production” Great, congratulations! I would suggest you build them as soon as possible. It will be hard for entrepreneurs in our free market system to ignore the advantages of your Hot Cat.

  • Steveta_uk

    There seems much confusion here. The power output is not related to temperature in any simple manner. Consider a simple sparkler (firework) has a tip temperature in excess of 1200C, but is certainly nowhere near 10Kw output!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Larry Jameson:
    Our manufacturing concerns will evolve with the product. The high temperature module is not idle, is ready for production. The economical trend of the products will be similar to the other consolidated technologies and, of course, will be affected by economy scale. Thank you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,

  • Dear Wladimir, Thanks for your explanation and without figures you are quite right. As you are aware every specialized subject has its own specific language/terminology and this again makes communication difficult. I do not fault your theory but am intrigued in the subject by self curiosity. For instance, you refer to gravity flux n(o) does this refer to neutral zero gravity?. I realize that theoretical physicists know exactly what you mean by such reference but for me being a lay physicist I have to guess. Your question – what is the difference between a positive and negative charge?. My brief explanation to this is that life is an active binary system in every way. That is to say it requires two opposites to create a situation and thereby also degrees of. Fission and fusion being the two extremes with regards this reasoning between which are potentials of or you could say there is an absolute positive state and an absolute negative state between which there are potentials of. This could be said to be with regards to one zone. Thereby what could be termed a positive in one zone could become a negative within another. This does not mean to say your spin theory is incorrect. In fact, your magnetic monopole in Quantum Ring Theory I believe can easily be explained as a cause and effect phenomena involving the kinetics of particle charge. I shall attempt to explain. I suspect that when particles move through a field they adjust in accordance with the field so as to maintain the field. For instance when a particle is approaching a maximum point of fusion it has to gain size (size in effect is shrinking down so as to enter a smaller space and size energy always sits within volume energy with regards a reference to position). Size energy represents positivity whereas volume energy represents negativity in retrospect. When size energy e+ enters a more positive zone it sheds partial charge out, into an outer ring because its a binary system and to do this its energy/charges spins out and back into a less dense environment but when the size energy begins moving out of the positive zone it becomes energy of volume e- and its binary system spins forwards, as it were, because volume energy now leads the field whereas in an e+ situation size energy leads the field. This is with regards density and rarelyness both of the binary unit and its binary environment. From what I have been able to deduce all energy is binary that is derived from a repulsive force of separation of the aether. Geometry and maths is able to help explain this phenomena with regards systemic systems and the necessity of transmutation. I realize you are approaching the subject from one direction and me from another but I believe there is a common thread. I could send you the math and geometry for your perusal but I do not have a contact address and I have been adviced not to give mine out. If you do want the information I could e-mail it or send it surface. Best regards Eric Ashworth.

  • Larry Jameson

    Dear Engineer Rossi

    Now that your home heating ecat is on hold while it awaits certification it occurred to me that you must have substantial unused manufacturing capability. I understand that you have a factory in Florida that is complete but for programming instructions for the final assembly of home e-cats. I believe I read that once in full production the Florida plant could build as many as 1 million 10 kw home e-cats a year.

    You recently stated that your new industrial hot cat is, has been, or is about to be validated and certified and is made smaller than the “old” cat to maintain an output of 10kw per charge. If I understand the math correctly, it would take about 100 of these 10kw charges to power a 1 megawatt reactor. I assume that your idle e-cat factory could just as easily make 10kw hot cat charges as 10kw home e-cat charges. At full capacity this one factory could produce 1 million hot cat charges for use in 10,000 one megawatt industrial reactors per year per factory.

    Your selling price for the home e-cats was estimated around $1000 per unit and presumably included some profit. Assuming $1000 per hot cat charge a 1 MW reactor could be sold for $100,000 (100 x 1000) plus the cost of the reactor body in which to place and manage the charges. I assume that a standardized reactor body to manage the charges for a 1 MW reactor would not cost anywhere near $1 million once mass produced, which could result in a much lower final cost for the 1 MW industrial hot cat and thus produce a much greater incentive for industry big and small to switch to the new technology.

    1. Are you planning to use your new but idle plant to build 10kw hot cat industrial charges and reactors and if so when do you think this might start.
    2. I believe your current 1 megawatt reactors are hand built and priced around 1.5 million dollars. Do you see this price dropping quickly if you start using your mass production capability to produce industrial hot cat charges and reactor bodies en masse.
    3. Do you currently have any operational industrial reactors in the field beyond the first one you sold in Europe
    4. Could the successful validation, certification and sale of industrial reactors result in a patent for your invention through the “Is it useful” criteria.

    Your ardent follower and supporter
    Larry Jameson

  • Hi everyone!

    I just corrected something on Appendix A of my paper (the new version is SEPPv5). Those who are interested as also those who have not see yet my video regarded to Aether Propulsion (see link on my web site: Aether Control Experiment) are welcome to watch it!

    Web Site:

    Ioannis Xydous

    Electronic Engineer


  • Joe


    Thank you for describing the relationship between the charged particles of the aether and their spin. But the question remains, how do you define charge? What is it about an aether particle that makes it either positive or negative? What is the nature of the property that is known as charge?

    All the best,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrtote in August 8th, 2012 at 3:37 PM

    Do you define charge as spin angular momentum?

    No, dear Joe.

    The positive and negative particles of the aether have this property:
    they interact with the gravitational flux n(o) in order that, when the flux crosses into their body (they are rings) their spin are opposite.

    But of course the spin is a fundamental difference between two elementary positive and negative masseless particles of the aether.


  • Supervisor

    Marketing issues:
    If next wave of datas will confirm that only 1 promile to 1 percent of energy creation in so-called “LENR” devices is of nuclear reaction origin and remaining 999 promile is of not known (probably quantum or whatever) origin, it is very important to not terrify to common folks with word “Nuclear”.
    Common folks are associating with word “nuclear” something as Hiroshima, Fukushima, Chernobyl etc. This is very important to invent new word for this class of product.
    For example instead of “LENR” something like “Quantum Generator” or “Quantum Catalyzer” etc. etc. Simply eliminated word “nuclear”.
    It is historically verified, that with new more proper names/words unthinkable matters go forward. For example: until year 1775 was in whole world use name “Khazars” and in year 1775 was invented new word “Jews” and with this new word all common folks accept, that these folks have right to “their land”. Simply: this is functioning.

  • Franco Noviello

    Caro Andrea Rossi

    che tristezza vedere che Martin Fleischmann è stato ignorato dai maggiori media nel mondo e come si continui a ignorare il lavoro che Lei sta facendo. Sono nato in Somalia e mi creda avere una tecnologia come la Sua porterebbe energia, benessere e istruzione anche nei villaggi più sperduti non solo dell’ Africa ma ovunque nel mondo e solo Dio sa quanto ne abbiamo bisogno in questi tempi duri per tutti.
    Stia tranquillo oggi c’è internet… è impossibile affossarla…
    Vedrà che tra non non molto molti cercheranno di salire sul carro dei vincitori…. si ricordi però di non far salire i Serpenti di turno…. lol 😉

    Si ricordi anche di riposarsi, farsi qualche bella partita di tennis….. e sopratutto di… ” to be still alive and kicking…!!! “

  • Joe


    Do you define charge as spin angular momentum? (You said, “…they have opposite spins with regard to the gravity flux n(o), and thanks to such difference there are positive and negative particles in the Universe.”)

    All the best,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Jake Di Vita:
    There is a limit due to the fact that nickel melts at 1455 Celsius degrees, but we will have to heat water, so the actual limit will be 600 Celsius when we will go to make steam. At 600 Celsius the efficiency will be around 50%. Wre are working on this, now, with our Friends of Swedish Siemens Friends. When we told them we reached 1 200 Celsius they became lyric.
    Warm Regards,

  • Jake Di Vita

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Is there a theoretical limit in your mind to the potential temperature of the Hot Cat?

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Eric Ashworth
    it’s very hard to understand your theory by reading only short explanations, whitout figures so that to make easier to understand your arguments.

    However, I would like to explain your question:

    Figure 1. Particle e+ has an opposite spin to particle e- is this because it has turned 180% in its circuit of travel?

    The particles e+ and e- have opposite spins ( with regard to the gravity flux n(o) ) because of their different electrical nature: one is positive, and the other is negative.
    Such difference between them is just what makes the difference between positive and negative charges.

    God created these two particles with such difference: they have opposite spins with regard to the gravity flux n(o), and thanks to such difference there are positive and negative particles in the Universe.

    Is there an explanation, according to the standard theories, for this question:
    – what is the difference between a positive and a negative charge ?

    The electron has negative charge. And the positron has positive charge.
    But what is a negative charge? And what is a positive charge ?
    Why the electron is negative, and the positron is positive?


  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Reply by Koen as a comment to my article THE BOSON OF HIGGS AND THE RUPTURE OF THE PHYSICS, in ZPEnergy:

    by Koen on Sunday, July 22, 2012 @ 00:09:33 PDT

    The same is true (experiments are ignored that contradict the standard theory) for the Lorentz force. The Lorentz force does not even satisfy Newton’s third principle of action- and colinear reaction forces, in case two electric wires that carry a constant electric current are not exactly parallel to each other.
    This old problem related to the Maxwell-Lorentz theory was known to Pointcaré, Weber, Von Helmholtz, Walter Ritz and many others, but the problem has been ignored for more than a century, and at least 3 lame excuses have been found that do not solve this problem:
    a) electric currents always run in closed circuits (NOT TRUE)
    b) electric wires with constant current also exchange photons that balance the force such that Newton’s third principle is satsified (NOT TRUE)
    c) relativistic formulation of the Lorentz force satisfies Newton’s third principle (NOT TRUE and DISPROVEN BY WALTER RITZ)

    Because of Newton’s third law of forces, scientists like Ampere and many others have been looking for longitudinal Ampere forces, and more recently scientists are more open to Tesla’s longitudinal electric wave. By defining an extra classical scalar field (remember, the “Higgs” field is also a scalar field), the phenomenon of longitudinal Ampere forces acting on electric currents and longitudinal electric waves in vacuum can be described as a scalar field force and as longitudinal electro-scalar waves.

    It does NOT surprise me at all that so much is wrong with the official nuclear physics theories, thanks Guglinski, for making this clear. And also SR and GR are wrong, since the speed of light DOES vary slightly in vacuum, depending on the presence of gravity. We know that light trajectory is bend by gravitational fields, but we ignore the clear evidence that the speed of light is also influenced by graviational fields (see Dayton Miller’s experiments for instance). This was also the end-conclusion of Michelson (variable light speed), who carried out light speed measurements with Morley and later on did better experiments independently from Morley. The so-called “null result” is the consequence of using measurement equipment with a resolution that is too low.

    The offical standard theory of physics has become a farce.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Mark Saker:
    1- We made a proicess for safety certification as a first step, then we applied for a product certification.
    2- We used different charges, size, shape.
    Warm Regards,

  • Mark Saker

    Dear Andrea,

    just two questions please

    1. I did not understand this sentence from your last post. Could you explain it further (or in a different way) please:

    “This test has been performed in the Product Validation Process that we have asked after the Safety Certification”

    2. Your reply to Hank Mills is still a little confusing. How is a single reactor at 1200degrees outputting 10kW, when the same reactor at 600degrees was also outputting 10kW, or is this confidential information?

    Sorry for the questions, just eager for news :)


    PS: Well done on the very successful tests!

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Hank Mills:
    Correct. We maintain modules of 10 kW to stay on the safe face of the moon.
    Warmest Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Helmut H.:
    We prefer maintain modules of 10 kW each and combine them, for safety reasons and to remain within what has been certified.
    Warm Regards,

  • Dear Wladimir Gluginski, Regards your recent reference to the magnetic monopole in your Quantum Ring Theory. Correct me if I am wrong but your diagram of a bar magnet shows the lines of force running through the body of the magnet by entering at the south pole and emerging out at the north pole. My own investigations of the bar magnet are as follows. I believe that a bar is a respondent of an induced force and that atoms themselves are tiny capsules of an induced force. I therefore reasoned that if this was indeed the case then force could induce a magnetic field but to make the atoms responsive an excess of heat was applied to an iron bar that was then subjected to an amount of centrifugal force and spun until cold (any metal can be magnetised in this way). Upon suspending this bar at its central position in a horizontal plane it was found to be magnetic and highly responsive to both heat and light. This type of magnet I labeled a centroid. What I discovered was entrance of the field was at the north and the exit at the south. The field system was displaced with regards a normal bar magnet because of the induced centrifugal force. Also by integrating four such centroids whereby they cross over at a common central position, mount them on a floating platform and connect using one wire from the south of one centroid to the extreme north of another in the series, rotation and nutation is achieved by light. My theory of the magnet is that its dynamics are achieved because the diameter through which the aether circulates is shorter than the circumference over which the aether travels. Thereby the magnet is permanently at a loss of aether at one end and at the opposite has an over abundance that could equate as a fission/fusion state. The north pole suffers the loss creating a suction effect whereas the south pole suffers a gain and thereby creats the magnetic imbalance. Also this phenomena of force can be applied to spinning a sphere in two directions at once whereupon a ‘black hole’ type situation can be created that will create temperature variance when brought to a sudden stop. Figure 1. Particle e+ has an opposite spin to particle e- is this because it has turned 180% in its circuit of travel?. The way I see it, is the centre of a bar magnet is under maximum pressure with regards flow situation and a line drawn out horizontally between the poles represents degrees of fission on the field as it circulates the physical material of a fused dimension of atomic substance. The horizontal line is, of course a neutral, above on the north side being degrees going into fusion and below degrees going into fission. Thereby maximum fission and maximum fusion represent a potential from inner to outer on the line. The mechanics of the subject are as we know fascinating and I believe require further investigation and collaboration between mechanical/electrical and theoretical engineers. Hope you find this information interesting Best Regards Eric Ashworth.

  • Helmut H.

    Dear Dr. Rossi,
    you write that the hot E-Cat has a power of 10kW. I’m wondering why a hotter E-Cat doesn’t deliver a higher power output?

  • Hank Mills

    Hello Andrea,

    Congratulations on the fantastic test results! Everyone at Leonardo Corporation deserves a big round of applause for making such tremendous progress, repeatedly, in such a short period of time. Basically, your progress is like a turbo charged Ford Mustang being developed only a couple years after the Model T went on the road!

    (I think that Ford Mustang just ran over some venomous rattlesnakes as they slithered across the road….)

    I do have one question I hope you can answer. My understanding is that as the temperature of a black body (object emitting thermal or infrared radiation) increases, the corresponding output increases dramatically. This is because the Stefan–Boltzmann law tells us that the total energy radiated from a black body is proportional to the fourth power of the body’s temperature. So a black body at 1000C would be emitting far more than double the thermal radiation of another object at only 500C. This is of course if both objects have the same surface area.

    Previously, you indicated that the E-Cat (at 600C) produced an output of 10kW. It seems that at 1,200C, the same E-Cat should be producing a greater output than 10kW.

    Is the new “Ultra Hot Cat” smaller, with less surface area than the previous 600C model?

    That is the only way, at this time, I can reconcile the two devices (at different temperatures) having the same total output.


    Hank Mills

  • Andrea Rossi

    To Whom it may interest:
    After the validation of the Hot Cat made on July 16th we made today another Third Party Validation, with the Certificator: the results have been the same of the test made on July 16th. The power of the Hot Cat is 10 kW. The maximum temperature we reached has been 1 200 Celsius. Of this validation will be made an indipendent report which will be published soon. This test has been performed in the Product Validation Process that we have asked after the Safety Certification. This test has been directed by an indipendent Nuclear Engineer who is leading the certification processes of the industrial plants.
    We are extremely enthusiast of the work of today, because is the second time we get a third party validation in a month, getting the same results.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Martin Ankerl:
    The E-Cat technology is not “finished” because it needs to be completed with the requirements that will be issued by the Certificator.
    Warm Regards,

  • Martin Ankerl

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    do you consider the domestic E-Cat as technology “finished”, and are just waiting for the certification? Or does the research on the Hot e-cat bring changes to the lower temperature e-Cats?

  • Dear Bernie Koppenhofer, Regards Aug 6th message. Dear Bernie you are absolutely correct and I suggest people do it but unfortunately as I have experienced the media and politicians are at the behest of those that provide the bulk of their finance so the information falls on ‘deaf ears’ because they too need permission to act. However I found the sites you gave interesting and shall certainly put my 10c worth in. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Koen Vandewalle: Good post. Thank you. For those of you in the US you can do something about it. Contact your Government Representatives:

    With this information:

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear “Supervisor”:
    Not true. The domestic E-Cat will go in the market when the certification for it will be obtained, indipendently from the patent.
    Warm Regards,

  • Supervisor

    Dear Greg, This is simply not possible. E-Cats will not be in market until Leonardo/Mr. Rossi will obtain patent. This may take a few years. Understand or Not?

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    How do you determine the temperature for your “Hot” eCat? I assume you have a thermocouple or similar device at the nickel/inner wall interface. There is probably a heat transfer mechanism between this inner wall and an intermediate wall, And then a different heat transfer material between this intermediate wall and the exterior wall. Do you use water for the exterior heat transfer fluid? Does it change phase? I would assume the mass flow of the outer heat transfer, temperature difference and physical constant of the material establishes the output power. Please enlighten us as you can/choose to reveal. Removing the heat power from a 1000C or 1200C source can be tricky.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Koen Vandewalle:
    Thank you for your important comment.
    What can we do?
    We can manufacture plants which work. If people will need our plants, because they work, all the negative comments will be meaningless noise.
    Warm Regards,

  • Greg Leonard

    Dear AR
    Fantastic news on the 100/1200 deg experiments.
    It does make what I know of the domestic ecat begin to look slightly obsolete.

    I believe it is very important to get the domestic ecat in use at the earliest moment.
    Every single unit will start to save CO2 emissions as soon as it is installed.
    Every single unit will spread the word about this world-saving invention.

    Can I suggest the following marketing strategy:
    The first 100,000 domestic ecats installed will be eligible for a free (or much reduced cost) when the mark 2 domestic ecat becomes available.
    This should ensure a brisk uptake once your robotic factory swings into operation.
    With gratitude,
    Greg Leonard

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Readers of JONP,
    Dear Certificators,
    Dearest Officers and directors of patent offices,
    Dear Skeptics and other admirors and lackeys of controverse,
    Dear Captains of businesses and politics,
    Dear Children of our future,

    In memory of Martin Fleischmann.

    From 1989, 24 years have passed since the great announcement that a new, clean, abundant and safe source of energy was measured. Only three or four phrases in that announcement, especially about the mechanisms, were not complete at that time, but all the rest of the message still stands. Nowadays, the e-cat technology is available for the willing. Please review the announcement of 1989, you’ll find it on the internet.

    Hereafter are listed the actual numbers of the “meltdown” of the largest STABILIZER of our climate: the sea ice on the north pole. Every year that we wasted and burned part of our fossile reserves, this stabilizer gave a part of herself. As if it were to give us, the children of the earth, a little more time to grow up. To give us the time we needed to find a solution. A lot of what we have, now depends on abundant energy. This abundance gave us the possibilities to develop our modern economy, based on technology, mass production, transportation and consumption of all kinds of goods and services (e.g. science and education as catalysers). Without this economy, most of the common people would still live in slavery and medieval circumstances, despite of the knowledge and culture inherited from ancient civilizations.

    It is not because of one man inventing a certain technology, that this technology immediately improves the whole society. One of the most important technologies of our world, the heat-engine, is 300 years old (Newcomen 1712), and is still under developement. It is mostly the economy that enables the developement of the technology. They both need each other.

    An important condition for the integration of a technology in the economy seems to be a patent. Without this certain privilege, it cannot be expected that major manufacturers make investments to develop or mass produce the invention in the industrialized world.
    Certainly not if the invention competes economically not some orders of magnitude better than the already mass produced competitive products. I think that the experiments with subsidized renewable energy actually prove this: break even, or even small gains: nobody buys it.

    Now we are trapped, since so many in our modern society depends on the economy. Therefore, the E-cat technology might integrate very slow. MW per MW. Hand made. Sold by the conventional business-to-business ways. Proposed and defended by ardent sales representatives who visit multiple times their prospects, hoping to convince the chief-buyers and their decision making economic managers, with numbers and arguments that must be explained again and again. With complex contracts with NDA’s. With customers that demand confidentiality and proof, over and over again. Competing with the heat-pumps, and waste recuperators. The latter having already developed their sales networks, but are now fighting with cuttings in their “subsidizing arguments”. Creating hungry competitors for the E-cat.
    E-cat seems also to be competing for the attention with other promising or emerging technologies. This stimulates the idea of controverse.
    This is not a “one click to install, with 30 days free trial” technology. And even that does not work perfect without good references from satisfied customers or enough attention in mass media.

    Andrea Rossi believes in the market. I agree with him, but only when he has a patent, which enables him to develop the full economic potential of this invention on all the economic aspects. If no patents are granted, none of the emerging technologies for abundant energy will be developed on time.

    In the 1989 announcement, the greenhouse effect was mentioned, so therefore:

    The following data represent the remaining sea ice volumes on the north pole in cubic km for every year since 1998 on day 212. This year that was on july 31. The ice is still melting, but the data are not updated daily.

    2012: 5777
    2011: 6507
    2010: 7026
    2009: 9891
    2008: 11255
    2007: 9172
    2006: 11939
    2005: 12253
    2004: 13498
    2003: 13149
    2002: 13984
    2001: 15074
    2000: 14121
    1999: 15237
    1998: 15223
    1997: 16095
    1996: 16380
    1995: 14131
    1994: 16819
    1993: 15167
    1992: 17639
    1991: 16868
    1990: 16491
    1998: 18034


    To the people who doubt about some safety tests, or those who need to do their work about some patent: please hurry !

    The most strange for me is that, even after a couple of days, no mainstream meda have reported (On google I found none) about the death of Martin Fleischmann. I understand that this cannot be reported without referencing to his work, and eventually to the actual state of the technology.

    What can I do ?

    Your sincerely,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Karl- Heinz Braun:
    For now maintain your pre-order: let the Certificators make their job.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Larry Jameson:
    1- correct
    2- we reached with the Hot Cats the temperature of 1 000 Celsius degrees: this makes closer the electric power production. With this temperature we can heat the steam up 600 Celsius, getting high efficiencies. In these very days we are working on it. We got a validation on the Hot Cat : tomorrow we will be working for 24 hours at 1 200 Celsius degrees. Unfortunately I have to invest on this my Summer Holidays…
    Warm Regards,

  • Larry Jameson

    Dear Engineer Rossi

    You recently stated that operational safety statistics on your industrial plants will need to be collected before the certificator will certify the home e-cat.

    Dear Adrian M:
    Good point. I think we will have to accumulate enough operation hours with the industrial planta to allow a safety statistic.
    Warm Regards,

    1. Given that the wide and accepted use of industrial e-cats is still likely a couple of years away can we assume that this means the heat generating home e-cat is still one or two years, not months away from being available, or effectively stillborn.

    2. You stated some months ago that you thought it would be at least two years after the introduction of the heat generating home e-cat before an electrical generating home e-cat would be available. If the heat generating e-cat is now more than a year away would it not make sense to abandon it and focus on the electrical generating version which appears likely to be ready for market before the current heat generating version is permitted onto the market.

    Larry Jameson

  • Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, just taught your readers
    may want to read an email exchange I had with my friend Dibyendu in India.

    Bobby, so E-Cat is reaching to it’s popularity peak ?
    Google has got the Official Website link.
    But how do others come to know about this without any prior information about the technology and the invention name ?
    I believe there should be some other means, and may be media is the main source.
    I am lucky, that I have come to know all about these valuable information. from such a good friend like you.

    Dear Dibyendu, this is a major problem.
    Major Media will not say a word about E-Cat.
    I don’t know why.
    Maybe because E-Cat
    is going to be better then any other energy source
    in the World

    Robert Curto
    FT, Lauderdale, FLORIDA

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I goofed, I meant to use this site as the first site listed in my previous post. Thanks for changing.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Rosemary Ainslie

    the theory you are proposing is similar to what is proposed in the article Ether published in my book Quantum Ring Theory, but I think your theory needs some improvements.

    For instance, I cannnot see how from the magnetic dipoles shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 of your article it is possible to be formed a macroscopic magnetic field of that loadstone (a macroscopic field with two poles N and S).

    In my model, instead of a magnetic dipole, the phenomenon occurs thanks to magnetic monopoles, created by the electric particles of the ether.
    It occurs according to the steps ahead ( see pages 181 and 182 of my book QRT):

    PAGE 181:

    PAGE 182:

    STEP 1- the orbits of the electrons of atoms of the magnetized iron induce a flux of gravitons n(o) – see Fig. 2.2 of the page 181. As the orbit of electrons are aligned in the loadstone, all the flux of gravitons will be alligned too.

    STEP 2- each flux of gravitons captures electric particles of the ether – see Fig. 2.3 of page 181

    STEP 3- the electric particles of the ether capture magnetic particles, which form the micro-magnetic monopole fields – see Fig. 3.3 and 3.4 of page 182

    STEP 4- the micro-magnetic monopoles capture magnetic particles of the ether, and they form the macro-magnetic field with poles N and S in each end of the loadstone.

    See also my article in Peswiki:
    Magnetic monopole – new experiment corroborates Quantum Ring Theory:

    I think you are in the right way. However it’s my oppinion that your model is incomplete


  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Those of us following Mr. Rossi and his technology we have an obligation to help bring the E-Cat into use as fast as possible. With the growing evidence that our planet is in jeopardy by man made warming, we have the knowledge that Mr. Rossi’s technology can stop and maybe reverse this warming if it is deployed as fast as possible. We must balance absolute safety concerns with the benefits of a clean energy source. What can we do? Send information about the technology to all our friends and especially to our government representatives. May I suggest sending these two sites: and

    To contact your elected representatives go to:

  • Karl-Heinz Braun

    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    I am (hopefully) on your list as a cadidate for buying the (original) 10kW-ecat.
    Question: will it ever be produced or is it replaced by the ecat-600 or even the ecat-1000 ?
    What do I have to do if I want to change my reservation?
    Best regards,
    KH Braun

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Adrian M:
    Good point. I think we will have to accumulate enough operation hours with the industrial planta to allow a safety statistic.
    Warm Regards,

  • Adrian M

    Hi Andrea,

    I was reading a reply that you gave to one of the readers about certification of E-cat. You said that “the delay derives from the intrinsic difficulty of this certification regarding the domestic apparatuses: a domestic apparatus has to be sold from any shop to any Customer without further control and without guarantee that instructions are even read.”

    Along these lines, one can conclude that these certification rules can be used to delay indefinitely the E-CAT. I mean, in principle, when do you think that any product is safe “enough” in order to be sold to the public? At some point I think we should know at least how close the certificators are to achieve confidence in E-CAT.
    Is there any way for the public to ask them?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Deare Steven N. Karels:
    I agree that many declinations will derive that now I can’t even imagine.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Enrico Billi:
    The research of Fleischmann and Pons has started my research and also the research of Sergio Focardi.
    Warm Regards,

  • Enrico Billi

    Yesterday Martin Fleischmann died. He is not involved in the development of the e-cat directly, but his first discovery about D+Pd anomaly started the quest of cold fusion or properly LENR.
    I would like to know what was your reaction to the first discovery? And how this discovery inspire you for your research and your later collaboration with Focardi?
    Best Regards
    Enrico Billi

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Another commerical application for your “Hot” eCat might be commercial stovetops. Heavy duty units sell for thousands of dollars, consume 10kW to 30kW each and run for long periods of time (hours or days). While I doubt that you want to compete in the food preparation equipment business, providing eCats as the power/heating units might be profitable.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>