Svein:
Same answer that I gave to Steven Nicholes Karels; surely the A.I. can help to design control systems for more complex than simple households applications; for example: if at your home you connect too much load for the power you can get draw the grid, have you not to re-switch on the general switch after all got dark ? This is what happens in every apartment when too many appliances have been connected, isn’t it ?
Warm RFegards,
A.R.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
We must make a distinction between household installations and industrial installations; Dr. Toninelli I suppose was referring to households, because it is obvious that for industrial installatons are necessary control system that depend on the specific situations,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Readres,
Finally, withe help of Grok I’ve figured out most effective way of connecting ECat to existing PV installation.
Instead of mentioning ECat (which might not be understandable), I’ve asked about connecting additional 12V/100W PV panels.
Here is the chat:
I’m looking for a way to connect an additional 4 to a maximum of 6 pieces of 12V/100W PV panels to an existing 4.32 kWp solar installation consisting of 12 PV panels and a Solis RHI-3P4K-HVES-5G hybrid inverter.
Unfortunately, the start-up voltage of my inverter is 160 V, which makes it impossible to connect the mentioned 12V/100W panels directly to its inputs (the maximum voltage I can get from 6 panels is 6 × 12 V = 72 V).
I am currently planning to buy a BetterESS 16 kWh energy storage and I am wondering whether it would be possible to charge the batteries inside it (51.2 V voltage) using a SmartSolar MPPT 150/70 controller?
That is, the batteries in the storage would be charged simultaneously by the Solis inverter from the existing 4.32 kWp solar installation and by the SmartSolar controller from the newly installed 12V/100W panels. Is such a solution possible? Can it be done more efficiently in another way (e.g. using a DC-DC 48V/200V converter)?
How should such a connection be made? Which SmartSolar controller model would work best in this case?
Grok’s answer:
Yes, your proposed solution is completely feasible, safe, and actually one of the cleanest ways to do it.
1. Can the BetterESS battery be charged from two sources at once?
Yes. The BetterESS 16 kWh pack (51.2 V LiFePO4 with built-in BMS) can safely accept charging current from both the Solis hybrid inverter and a separate Victron MPPT controller at the same time.
2. Recommended and most efficient setup
textNew 12V/100W panels (4–6 pcs in SERIES)
↓
Victron SmartSolar MPPT 150/35 (or 150/20)
↓ (battery output)
→→→ BetterESS 16 kWh battery (+ and – terminals)
↑↑↑ (same battery terminals – parallel connection)
Solis RHI-3P4K-HVES-5G battery port
↑
Existing 4.32 kWp panels → Solis MPPT inputs (unchanged)
3. Detailed wiring description
A. New panels
Connect 4–6 panels in series (positive → negative).
Total Voc ≈ 88–132 V, current remains ~5.5–6 A.
B. Victron controller (recommended models)
Best choice: SmartSolar MPPT 150/35 (~272 USD)
Cheaper alternative (4 panels only): SmartSolar MPPT 100/20 (~163 USD)
The 150/70 model you mentioned (~217–326 USD) is oversized and unnecessary.
C. Connections
PV string → PV terminals of Victron MPPT
Victron BAT+ / BAT– → BetterESS battery terminals (use 10–16 mm² cable + 20–30 A fuse or DC breaker)
Solis inverter battery port → same BetterESS terminals (35–50 mm² cable as per Solis manual)
CAN/RS485 communication cable between Solis and BetterESS (usually Pylontech protocol)
D. Existing installation
No changes required.
4. Total additional cost (excluding panels and mounting)
5. Is there a more efficient way (e.g. DC-DC converter)?
No. Using a DC-DC converter to boost the low voltage to 200 V and feed the Solis MPPT inputs is possible, but it adds 10–20 % losses and costs another 136–272 USD. The separate Victron MPPT directly to the battery is more efficient, cheaper, and the new panels will still work even if the Solis inverter is offline.
Conclusion
The cleanest, most efficient, and future-proof solution:
New panels in series → Victron SmartSolar MPPT 150/35 → parallel connection directly to the BetterESS battery terminals together with the Solis inverter.
Total extra cost: approximately 354–381 USD.
C. BetterESS 16 kWh battery:
All charging sources (Solis inverter battery port + Victron MPPT) connect in parallel to the same battery terminals (+ and –).
Use appropriately thick cables (minimum 35 mm² for Solis, 10–16 mm² for Victron).
Connect communication cable (CAN or RS485) between Solis inverter and BetterESS (usually Pylontech protocol – check manual).
D. Existing installation:
No changes – the original 12 panels remain connected to the two MPPT inputs of the Solis inverter exactly as before.
4. Is there a more efficient way (e.g. DC-DC converter 48 V → 200 V)?
Direct charging of the battery via a dedicated MPPT controller is the most efficient and flexible solution (losses <5%).
Using a DC-DC converter to boost voltage to 200 V and feed the Solis MPPT inputs is possible, but it introduces additional losses (10–20 %) and costs, and the panels will not work when the inverter is off. Therefore, it is not recommended in your case.
Summary:
The cleanest, most efficient and future-proof solution is:
New panels (in series) → Victron SmartSolar MPPT 150/35 → parallel connection to BetterESS battery terminals (together with the Solis inverter).
In response to Dott about a temporary overload event, you responded “Yes” to “Must it be manually switched on?” Clarification?
1. In the event of an overload condition to which the NGU device automatically shutdown, under what circumstances will it automatically recover and resume normal operations?
2. If normal operations cannot be resumed, will a reset signal (e.g., contact close across a control input or similar externally provided signal) result in proper operation?
3. If otherwise, what do you mean by manual operation?
Dear Andrea
In connection with your reply to Alessandro Toninelli on November 22, I ask whether the use of AI can prevent Ecats from being overloaded when they are used in connection with an existing household network?
Regards Svein
Dear Dott. Rossi,
a practical question, thinking to the almost imminent possibility of integration of eCats with domestic net:
which are the condition causing the reactivation of an eCat self-disactiveted due to an over maximum power load?
Must it be manually switched on?
as you know, here in Italy the ILVA industries are facing major challenges related to efficiency, environmental impact, and costs, with significant consequences for employment, society, and public health.
To reduce environmental emissions, plans are underway to replace the existing coal-fired blast furnaces with electric arc furnaces.
This transition will require a substantial increase in electricity consumption.
Consequently, this represents another area where your technology could be effectively applied.
God willing, the early deployments of E-Cat will go smoothly. The next big question is: How fast can the manufacturing for E-Cat output can be ramped-up for the planet? How many (and what size) units are projected roll out of the factory in the next 12 or 24 months.
You likely know that our planet’s peak energy (thermal and electric) is 19 terawatts. It’s interesting to estimated a timeline for how long it takes to manufacture enough E-Cat’s to provide all 19 terawatts. However, energy usage will likely increase dramatically with E-Cat – a distributed, modular, low-cost, and safe source.
Michel Moreau:
Please go to https://ecatorders.com
you will see on the right of the top a link called Privacy: click on it.
You will see the text regarding privacy:
privacy-E-Cat_the_new_fire
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Michel Moreau:
The data of the pre-orders are confidential and will not made public.
The subscribers of the pre-orders form will be contacted only by the officers of our Global Licensee when they will be ready for the specific deliveries.
Honestly, I know nothing about the European Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), never heard of them before, but after your today’s important comment I will pass the issue on to our attorneys to have due counsel.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
How does the grid power required for data centers distort the off peak concept of electric power generation on the grid?
How does the partners’ concept of instant demand response unique in the new grid response plan?
Data centers distort the traditional “off-peak” concept by introducing a large, consistent, 24/7 baseline load and rapid demand fluctuations, effectively diminishing the traditional difference between peak and off-peak periods and straining grid infrastructure.
Shift from Variable to Constant Demand
The traditional grid concept assumed a predictable daily fluctuation in energy demand: high during the day (peak) and low at night (off-peak).
Data centers fundamentally change this dynamic in several key ways:
24/7 Operations: Unlike residential or typical industrial consumers, data centers operate continuously, running power-hungry servers and cooling systems around the clock. This creates a high, continuous baseline demand that reduces the “troughs” in the traditional demand curve.
Diminished Off-Peak Windows: The constant, heavy load means there is less surplus generation capacity available during what were once considered off-peak hours. This constant demand puts persistent stress on the grid and reduces the flexibility that grid operators rely on to balance supply and demand.
Strain on Infrastructure: The concentration of data centers in specific geographic areas can significantly strain local substations and transmission lines, requiring costly infrastructure upgrades that are often passed on to all ratepayers.
Unpredictable Fluctuations and Grid Instability
Modern AI and hyperscaler data centers also present a new challenge: volatile and rapid power fluctuations that further disrupt traditional grid management.
”EKG-like” Load Profiles: AI workloads can surge and drop thousands of times a second, creating a demand profile that is anything but a stable baseline. This volatility requires the grid to respond with sub-second speed, which traditional generation sources like coal plants are too slow to provide.
Reliability Risks: Sudden disconnections of large data center loads due to voltage disturbances can cause sharp frequency and voltage spikes across the grid, potentially leading to widespread outages if not managed effectively.
New Solutions and the Future of the Grid
To adapt to this new reality, utilities and data center operators are exploring innovative solutions:
Demand Response Programs: Data centers are encouraged to participate in demand response programs, where they can reduce their consumption during critical peak periods in exchange for financial incentives. They can achieve this by shifting non-time-sensitive tasks (like AI model training) to times of low grid stress.
On-site Generation & Storage: Many data centers are installing on-site power generation (e.g., natural gas generators, fuel cells) and energy storage solutions (large battery systems) to manage their own demand and provide backup power, turning themselves into “grid assets” rather than just a burden.
This power market is well suited to the specs of the partners’ NGU product profile.
Innovative Rate Structures: Utilities are implementing new rate structures that require large consumers like data centers to cover a greater share of the infrastructure costs associated with their high power demands.
Do you believe that your long time followers, who have ordered the smaller units (3 kw or smaller), will receive anything, or even be contacted, this year?
I share your concerns but I doubt NGU power Generators will quickly be adapted to weapons of war… I understand the current NGU Power Generators are specified to work in static or slowly varying applications (e.g., a slow little car slowly around a track). Maybe a military application like a space heater for a fixed tent.
I do not know if a current design NGU could reliably operate in a moving ship, a maneuvering aircraft, or a moving armored vehicle. Also, Military operating temperatures are much more extreme than commercial applications.
Italo R.:
As well as trucks, cars, any kind of vehicle, aeroplanes and any flying object ( manned or not ), knives, dynamite, any kind of electronics…during military service I was tought how to kill an enemy by means of a spoon…luckily, since when I have been born no wars involved directly Italy, and I pray God that all the wars on course be stopped as soon as possible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The problem is that once Ecats will hit the market, no one will stop the military from using them to power war machines, starting with drones and all kinds of autonomous robotic weapons.
Unfortunately, the arms market will surely be a huge user of this technology.
Dr Rossi,
Do you still believe that within this year will be started the Ecat deliveries ? This would mean within a month, considering the Winter holidays…
Jean Paul
Ken Shoulders discovered that Exotic Vacuum Objects (EVOs) can either be bright(white) or black. A black EVO is invisible and does not generate any visible light. Now we know that the EVO is actually a exciton polariton condensate, there is a direct relationship between black EVOs and Dark excitons.
Ken Shoulders described EVOs as micron-sized, high-density charge clusters that could be either “bright” (visible and interacting with light) or “black” (invisible and seemingly transparent to light). This understanding is currently outside the purview of mainstream physics, and the assertion that an EVO is an exciton-polariton condensate is not a scientifically recognized fact but rather a theoretical model or hypothesis proposed by some alternative researchers.
In established condensed matter physics, exciton-polaritons are a mixture of light and matter excitations that can form condensates.
Within this framework: Excitons themselves can be “bright” or “dark” depending on quantum mechanical selection rules related to spin and momentum.
Bright excitons can couple strongly with photons (light) and readily absorb or emit light.
Dark excitons are those whose coupling to light is forbidden or very weak due to their quantum properties (e.g., a required spin-flip or momentum transfer that a photon alone cannot provide).
They can only be observed indirectly, often through coupling with phonons (lattice vibrations) or in the presence of strong magnetic fields.
The speculative connection proposed by some researchers in the alternative physics community is a conceptual parallel:
The “bright” EVO, which interacts with light, is conceptually linked to the “bright” exciton-polariton state.
The “black” or invisible EVO, which does not generate visible light and allows light to pass through it, is conceptually linked to the “dark” exciton state, which is optically inactive.
This proposed relationship is based on an analogy of function (visibility/invisibility) and is part of ongoing theoretical discussions in niche communities, not yet popular in the general physics community. Mainstream science treats EVOs and exciton-polariton condensates as distinct phenomena, the former being a debated experimental anomaly and the latter a well-understood quantum quasiparticle system.
This article explains how when researchers changed the formatting of the optical cavity that produce exciton light to make dark excitons visible they saw the strength of the now visible cavity enhanced dark states to ordinary bright excitons, the numbers were astounding. In one sample, the strongest dark exciton was more than 1,400 times brighter than the bright exciton. In another, it was around 2,700 times brighter.
Scaling these measurements to the size of the nanocubes, the researchers calculated enhancement factors reaching 300,000 times brighter. According to the authors, this is among the highest photoluminescence boosts seen in gold based nanocavities for any light emitting material.
This dark exciton finding points to a future where by modifying the format of its optical cavity the NGU can greatly increase its power potential but still keep its size small and make a chip sized NGU possible.
Also nuclear submarines can be easily spotted by a satellite thanks to all the heat that they radiate.
E-cat powered submarines would be way harder to spot
I would like to expand on a recent post that explains how the light produced by the NGU differs from the light that exists in ordinary everyday life.
https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=901#comment-1704937
In summery, this post explains that the NGU type of light is a type that was generated by electroweak based physics, a type of physics that existed just after the big bang rather than that based on everyday electromagnetic physics of today.
In Dr. Rossi’s SK patent, it states as follows:
”An important application is the combination of this electrical energy generating device with an LED lamp. Experiments have reached 200,000 lumens with 4 watts of electrical energy supplied from the grid to the electrical energy generator. This is very important given the fact that lighting takes 58% of the electrical energy generated worldwide.”
I posit that this type of electroweak light can stabilize unstable radioactive isotopes because the electroweak force is mediated by a dark photon.
Now that the power production of the NGU has been increased to 500 watts, the light produced by its enlarged optical cavity may have reached the power level sufficient to produce electroweak level light.
A new NGU product based on this type of electroweak light might be able to stabilize any radioactive elements in the same fashion as the SAFIRE III reactor currently does.
For example, an electroweak light might be used to remediate high levels of radiation in basements caused by Radon.
Radioactive waste water from oil drilling via fracking might also be stabilized. The same process is applicable to stabilizing radioactive rare earth waste.
Whenever we need to remove uranium or thorium or their daughter products from the environment just illuminate it with NGU light.
It might also be possible to deactivate nuclear devices in their flight paths by electroweak light irradiation.
Problem: the Moon’s gravity is about 1/6 of the Earth’s gravity. NGU Power Generators are rated to operate at Earth gravity, with 45 degrees of vertical.
Solution. A centrifuge with slip rings to route the power to an external load.
Rough computations indicate a 2-foot radius turning at 30 RPM would approach a sensed one g.
Of course, the device would need to be an environmentally controlled shelter.
Dr. Rossi:
You said that your global licensee’s interest is to make the Ecat a global product. I have been wondering if they are only going to make industrial Ecats now.
Question: Are they still committed to produce the Ecats that can currently be preordered on the ecatthenewfire.com website?
“A nuclear submarine’s reactor generates a significant amount of thermal power, often in the range of 100 to 200 MWt, which is then converted into both propulsion and electrical power. This process uses nuclear fission to create heat, which produces steam to drive turbines. While exact figures are classified, a large submarine reactor can produce enough thermal power to generate roughly 20 to 30 MW of electrical power, enough to run the ship’s systems and propel it.”
SDK Power Generators would be a much more efficient and less noisy power source for submarines.
My response to the ULTRA LOW ENERGY [anti]neutrinos (ULEN) – also called Relic or Background Neutrinos hypothesis put forth by Dr. Parkhomov.
For this post, the term exotic vacuum object (EVO) is synonymous with boson electron cluster and exciton polariton condensate referenced in Dr. Rossi’s theory paper.
First of all, the neutrino is not a boson which carries force in the standard model.
Next, neutrinos are fermions because they have an intrinsic spin of 1/2. This property places them in the fermion category, along with particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons, as defined by the Pauli exclusion principle and quantum mechanics which states that no two identical fermions can occupy the same quantum state.
This means that an interaction mediated by a neutrino must act alone no matter how large their field of interaction might be to avoid the exclusion principle.
Next, neutrinos are affected by interaction with metal (and all other forms of matter), but these interactions are extremely rare. The probability of interaction is incredibly low, which is why they can pass through vast amounts of matter, including many light-years of solid lead or the entire Earth, with high probability of not interacting.
Neutrinos are electrically neutral and do not interact via the electromagnetic force or the strong nuclear force. They only interact through the weak nuclear force and gravity.
The weak force has an extremely short range, meaning a neutrino has to pass very close to an atomic nucleus to interact.
The distance a neutrino has to pass to interact via the weak force is approximately 1/1000 of the diameter of a proton. More specifically, the effective range of the weak force is about 10^-18 meters (or 0.001 femtometers), which is significantly smaller than the diameter of a typical atomic nucleus (about 10^-14) to (10^-15 meters). The short range is a result of its carrier particles, the W and Z bosons, being very massive, unlike the massless photon of the electromagnetic force.
Matter, even dense metal, is mostly empty space at the subatomic level. This vast “empty” space, combined with the short range of the weak force, means most neutrinos simply pass through without ever getting close enough to an atom’s components to interact.
The neutrino could never be reflected by a parabolic reflector used in Parhomov’s beta half life experiments.
The LENR weak force force carrier must be a boson with infinite range. Such a particle is currently being search for by science. It is called the dark photon.
The Dark Photon
A dark photon is a hypothetical elementary particle that acts as a force carrier for a potential new force in a “hidden” dark sector of the universe. It is analogous to the ordinary photon of electromagnetism but is predicted to have mass and interact very weakly with regular matter, primarily through a mechanism called kinetic mixing with the standard photon.
Connection to Dark Matter
Dark photons are a leading candidate for the substance that makes up dark matter, which accounts for about 85% of the matter in the universe but has not been directly observed outside of its gravitational effects.
Dark Matter Candidate: If they are massive, dark photons could make up a significant portion of the universe’s dark matter abundance.
Vector Portal: They could provide a “vector portal,” or a non-gravitational window, into the dark sector, allowing for potential interactions between dark matter particles and the Standard Model of particle physics.
Astrophysical Anomalies: The existence of dark photons could explain certain astrophysical anomalies, such as the observed temperature of intergalactic filaments in the cosmic web, which is hotter than predicted by standard models.
It could also explain the astrophysical observations of weak force based variations of isotope half life based on positions of celestial bodies.
Properties
Hypothetical: The dark photon is a theoretical extension to the Standard Model of particle physics and has not yet been definitively detected.
Massive: Unlike the standard photon, which is massless, dark photons are generally predicted to have a non-zero mass, allowing them to interact over short distances or exist as a cold dark matter component.
Weak Interaction: Their primary interaction with ordinary matter would be an extremely weak “kinetic mixing” with the regular photon, a coupling constant that experimenters are actively trying to measure.
Hidden States: In some interpretations of quantum mechanics, “dark” states of photons, invisible to detectors, are proposed to explain phenomena like the interference patterns in the double-slit experiment, without relying on the wave nature of light.
Experimental Searches
Physicists are conducting numerous experiments to search for dark photons across a wide range of possible masses and interaction strengths.
Accelerator Searches: Experiments at facilities like the Large Hadron Collider (LHCb, CMS) and Jefferson Lab’s Heavy Photon Search (HPS) look for an excess of electron-positron pairs produced from dark photon decays.
Direct Detection Experiments: Haloscope experiments, such as MADMAX, use sensitive receivers and strong magnetic fields to search for the conversion of dark photons into detectable microwave photons at metal surfaces.
Astrophysical and Cosmological Constraints: Data from space telescopes like Hubble and COBE/FIRAS is used to set limits on the properties of dark photons by analyzing effects on the cosmic radiation background and structure formation in the early universe.
Despite ongoing searches and increasingly stringent limits on their properties, no conclusive evidence for the dark photon has been found, pushing the limits on where this elusive particle might exist in the parameter space of theoretical models.
How the EVO produces Dark Photons.
The EVO stores huge amounts of magnetic energy which allows it to not only transmute matter via quark gluon plasma processes, but also these high energy states make possible unification of the electroweak force as occurred in the early universe.
In the very early universe, at temperatures above approximately 159.5 GeV (before the electroweak symmetry breaking event), the W and Z force bosons were massless. During this period, the electromagnetic force and the weak force were unified into a single electroweak force. The energy required io product electroweak unification is 150 to 200 GeV. If the EVO can transmute matter, it can also exist under electroweak unification.
The force carriers (bosons) of this unified force are all massless and behaved similarly to the photon (which remains massless today). Key aspects of their state were: Mass: The W and Z bosons had no mass, in contrast to their current state where they are among the heaviest known particles.
Range: Because they were massless, the weak interaction they mediated was a long-range force, similar in range to the electromagnetic force.
Unification: The distinction between the weak force and the electromagnetic force did not exist. There were four massless bosons associated with the combined electroweak field.
Symmetry: The universe was in a high-temperature, symmetric state where the underlying symmetry of the electroweak theory was manifest. As the universe cooled and its temperature fell below the critical threshold (around a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang), the electroweak symmetry spontaneously broke due to the Higgs mechanism. This event caused the W and Z bosons to acquire mass by interacting with the Higgs field, which in turn limited the range of the weak force to subatomic scales, creating the weak and electromagnetic forces as we know them today.
Electroweak unification inside the EVO is why no unstable isotopes are produced by transmutation.
These Dark mode electroweak photons can exit the EVO through its domain wall in the same way that huge amounts of light are produced by active EVOs.
You have 15 prototype 500W power units. Are they all performing consistently with one another. Are there “weak sisters” or are they essentially identical in performance?
Dear Andrea,
Congratulations for the achievements obtained so far.
I am really afraid about the behavior of the licensee.
What if the licensee will never make available your device for houses, rather keeping for himelf the technology and selling the energy ?
I am afraid people will not be free to produce their own energy and still will depend on them.
Did you had an agreement about how to make your invention really available for everybody? Are you afraid of this issue?
Thank you in advance for your answer
On Nov 7, 2025, you posted that you had 15 500W prototypes in your possession. Questions:
1. Has the number of 500W units increased, and, if so, how many are now in your possession?
2. What it the power output variance between units at maximum power?
3. Generally, are the 500W units performing in a similar manner to the 100W units?
4. At this time, do you believe the 500W units are a viable design?
5. At this time, do you foresee the 500W units going into large scale production?
Hello Dr. Rossi,
Ecat as a power supply offers lower savings for households and businesses if the electricity is only fed into the grid.
Take Germany as an example: prices on the electricity exchange have been 8.7 ct/kWh so far this year. Using only ecat, which feeds electricity into the grid at around 3 ct/kWh, this would only result in savings of 5-6 ct/kWh plus slightly lower taxes.
However, if the ecat is delivered directly to consumers, the savings are many times higher. Households currently pay 30-40 ct/kWh, which is 10 times more than they would pay with the ecat.
The demand of ecat would also be significantly higher and production facilities could be expanded more quickly and on a larger scale – in every country around the world.
Kind regards
M.Reinhold
Santogo:
No,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Svein:
Same answer that I gave to Steven Nicholes Karels; surely the A.I. can help to design control systems for more complex than simple households applications; for example: if at your home you connect too much load for the power you can get draw the grid, have you not to re-switch on the general switch after all got dark ? This is what happens in every apartment when too many appliances have been connected, isn’t it ?
Warm RFegards,
A.R.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
We must make a distinction between household installations and industrial installations; Dr. Toninelli I suppose was referring to households, because it is obvious that for industrial installatons are necessary control system that depend on the specific situations,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Readres,
Finally, withe help of Grok I’ve figured out most effective way of connecting ECat to existing PV installation.
Instead of mentioning ECat (which might not be understandable), I’ve asked about connecting additional 12V/100W PV panels.
Here is the chat:
I’m looking for a way to connect an additional 4 to a maximum of 6 pieces of 12V/100W PV panels to an existing 4.32 kWp solar installation consisting of 12 PV panels and a Solis RHI-3P4K-HVES-5G hybrid inverter.
Unfortunately, the start-up voltage of my inverter is 160 V, which makes it impossible to connect the mentioned 12V/100W panels directly to its inputs (the maximum voltage I can get from 6 panels is 6 × 12 V = 72 V).
I am currently planning to buy a BetterESS 16 kWh energy storage and I am wondering whether it would be possible to charge the batteries inside it (51.2 V voltage) using a SmartSolar MPPT 150/70 controller?
That is, the batteries in the storage would be charged simultaneously by the Solis inverter from the existing 4.32 kWp solar installation and by the SmartSolar controller from the newly installed 12V/100W panels. Is such a solution possible? Can it be done more efficiently in another way (e.g. using a DC-DC 48V/200V converter)?
How should such a connection be made? Which SmartSolar controller model would work best in this case?
Grok’s answer:
Yes, your proposed solution is completely feasible, safe, and actually one of the cleanest ways to do it.
1. Can the BetterESS battery be charged from two sources at once?
Yes. The BetterESS 16 kWh pack (51.2 V LiFePO4 with built-in BMS) can safely accept charging current from both the Solis hybrid inverter and a separate Victron MPPT controller at the same time.
2. Recommended and most efficient setup
textNew 12V/100W panels (4–6 pcs in SERIES)
↓
Victron SmartSolar MPPT 150/35 (or 150/20)
↓ (battery output)
→→→ BetterESS 16 kWh battery (+ and – terminals)
↑↑↑ (same battery terminals – parallel connection)
Solis RHI-3P4K-HVES-5G battery port
↑
Existing 4.32 kWp panels → Solis MPPT inputs (unchanged)
3. Detailed wiring description
A. New panels
Connect 4–6 panels in series (positive → negative).
Total Voc ≈ 88–132 V, current remains ~5.5–6 A.
B. Victron controller (recommended models)
Best choice: SmartSolar MPPT 150/35 (~272 USD)
Cheaper alternative (4 panels only): SmartSolar MPPT 100/20 (~163 USD)
The 150/70 model you mentioned (~217–326 USD) is oversized and unnecessary.
C. Connections
PV string → PV terminals of Victron MPPT
Victron BAT+ / BAT– → BetterESS battery terminals (use 10–16 mm² cable + 20–30 A fuse or DC breaker)
Solis inverter battery port → same BetterESS terminals (35–50 mm² cable as per Solis manual)
CAN/RS485 communication cable between Solis and BetterESS (usually Pylontech protocol)
D. Existing installation
No changes required.
4. Total additional cost (excluding panels and mounting)
Item USD (approx.)
Victron SmartSolar MPPT 150/35272 USD
Cables, fuses, breakers 82 USD
Total 354–381 USD
5. Is there a more efficient way (e.g. DC-DC converter)?
No. Using a DC-DC converter to boost the low voltage to 200 V and feed the Solis MPPT inputs is possible, but it adds 10–20 % losses and costs another 136–272 USD. The separate Victron MPPT directly to the battery is more efficient, cheaper, and the new panels will still work even if the Solis inverter is offline.
Conclusion
The cleanest, most efficient, and future-proof solution:
New panels in series → Victron SmartSolar MPPT 150/35 → parallel connection directly to the BetterESS battery terminals together with the Solis inverter.
Total extra cost: approximately 354–381 USD.
C. BetterESS 16 kWh battery:
All charging sources (Solis inverter battery port + Victron MPPT) connect in parallel to the same battery terminals (+ and –).
Use appropriately thick cables (minimum 35 mm² for Solis, 10–16 mm² for Victron).
Connect communication cable (CAN or RS485) between Solis inverter and BetterESS (usually Pylontech protocol – check manual).
D. Existing installation:
No changes – the original 12 panels remain connected to the two MPPT inputs of the Solis inverter exactly as before.
4. Is there a more efficient way (e.g. DC-DC converter 48 V → 200 V)?
Direct charging of the battery via a dedicated MPPT controller is the most efficient and flexible solution (losses <5%).
Using a DC-DC converter to boost voltage to 200 V and feed the Solis MPPT inputs is possible, but it introduces additional losses (10–20 %) and costs, and the panels will not work when the inverter is off. Therefore, it is not recommended in your case.
Summary:
The cleanest, most efficient and future-proof solution is:
New panels (in series) → Victron SmartSolar MPPT 150/35 → parallel connection to BetterESS battery terminals (together with the Solis inverter).
Dear Andrea Rossi,
In response to Dott about a temporary overload event, you responded “Yes” to “Must it be manually switched on?” Clarification?
1. In the event of an overload condition to which the NGU device automatically shutdown, under what circumstances will it automatically recover and resume normal operations?
2. If normal operations cannot be resumed, will a reset signal (e.g., contact close across a control input or similar externally provided signal) result in proper operation?
3. If otherwise, what do you mean by manual operation?
Dear Andrea
In connection with your reply to Alessandro Toninelli on November 22, I ask whether the use of AI can prevent Ecats from being overloaded when they are used in connection with an existing household network?
Regards Svein
Dr Rossi:
Have your global licensees the intention to extend to the electric vehicles the application of the Ecat ?
Dott. Alessandro Toninelli:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dott. Rossi,
a practical question, thinking to the almost imminent possibility of integration of eCats with domestic net:
which are the condition causing the reactivation of an eCat self-disactiveted due to an over maximum power load?
Must it be manually switched on?
Best regards.
Italo R.:
Thank you for the information and the suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
All I can say is that the tests are continuing,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
as you know, here in Italy the ILVA industries are facing major challenges related to efficiency, environmental impact, and costs, with significant consequences for employment, society, and public health.
To reduce environmental emissions, plans are underway to replace the existing coal-fired blast furnaces with electric arc furnaces.
This transition will require a substantial increase in electricity consumption.
Consequently, this represents another area where your technology could be effectively applied.
Kind Regards,
Italo R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Can you share any update of testing of the prototype 500W NGU units?
greg smith:
I am not able to give an answer so far, but I know efforts are being made to proceed as fast as possible,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
This link is about the negative impact on data centers on the state of Nebraska in the US.
https://x.com/JohnRust_IN/status/1962584738851406122?t=zHVQGqGwRF61oipxjUD_OA&s=19
God willing, the early deployments of E-Cat will go smoothly. The next big question is: How fast can the manufacturing for E-Cat output can be ramped-up for the planet? How many (and what size) units are projected roll out of the factory in the next 12 or 24 months.
You likely know that our planet’s peak energy (thermal and electric) is 19 terawatts. It’s interesting to estimated a timeline for how long it takes to manufacture enough E-Cat’s to provide all 19 terawatts. However, energy usage will likely increase dramatically with E-Cat – a distributed, modular, low-cost, and safe source.
Greg
Dr Rossi:
Well done your answer to Michel Moreau,
Best
Ambrogio
Michel Moreau:
Please go to
https://ecatorders.com
you will see on the right of the top a link called Privacy: click on it.
You will see the text regarding privacy:
privacy-E-Cat_the_new_fire
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Sam Wilson:
We will communicate when the deliveries will start,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
axil:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Michel Moreau:
The data of the pre-orders are confidential and will not made public.
The subscribers of the pre-orders form will be contacted only by the officers of our Global Licensee when they will be ready for the specific deliveries.
Honestly, I know nothing about the European Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), never heard of them before, but after your today’s important comment I will pass the issue on to our attorneys to have due counsel.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
How does the grid power required for data centers distort the off peak concept of electric power generation on the grid?
How does the partners’ concept of instant demand response unique in the new grid response plan?
Data centers distort the traditional “off-peak” concept by introducing a large, consistent, 24/7 baseline load and rapid demand fluctuations, effectively diminishing the traditional difference between peak and off-peak periods and straining grid infrastructure.
Shift from Variable to Constant Demand
The traditional grid concept assumed a predictable daily fluctuation in energy demand: high during the day (peak) and low at night (off-peak).
Data centers fundamentally change this dynamic in several key ways:
24/7 Operations: Unlike residential or typical industrial consumers, data centers operate continuously, running power-hungry servers and cooling systems around the clock. This creates a high, continuous baseline demand that reduces the “troughs” in the traditional demand curve.
Diminished Off-Peak Windows: The constant, heavy load means there is less surplus generation capacity available during what were once considered off-peak hours. This constant demand puts persistent stress on the grid and reduces the flexibility that grid operators rely on to balance supply and demand.
Strain on Infrastructure: The concentration of data centers in specific geographic areas can significantly strain local substations and transmission lines, requiring costly infrastructure upgrades that are often passed on to all ratepayers.
Unpredictable Fluctuations and Grid Instability
Modern AI and hyperscaler data centers also present a new challenge: volatile and rapid power fluctuations that further disrupt traditional grid management.
”EKG-like” Load Profiles: AI workloads can surge and drop thousands of times a second, creating a demand profile that is anything but a stable baseline. This volatility requires the grid to respond with sub-second speed, which traditional generation sources like coal plants are too slow to provide.
Reliability Risks: Sudden disconnections of large data center loads due to voltage disturbances can cause sharp frequency and voltage spikes across the grid, potentially leading to widespread outages if not managed effectively.
New Solutions and the Future of the Grid
To adapt to this new reality, utilities and data center operators are exploring innovative solutions:
Demand Response Programs: Data centers are encouraged to participate in demand response programs, where they can reduce their consumption during critical peak periods in exchange for financial incentives. They can achieve this by shifting non-time-sensitive tasks (like AI model training) to times of low grid stress.
On-site Generation & Storage: Many data centers are installing on-site power generation (e.g., natural gas generators, fuel cells) and energy storage solutions (large battery systems) to manage their own demand and provide backup power, turning themselves into “grid assets” rather than just a burden.
This power market is well suited to the specs of the partners’ NGU product profile.
Innovative Rate Structures: Utilities are implementing new rate structures that require large consumers like data centers to cover a greater share of the infrastructure costs associated with their high power demands.
Dr. Rossi,
Do you believe that your long time followers, who have ordered the smaller units (3 kw or smaller), will receive anything, or even be contacted, this year?
Thanks — Sam
Italo R.
I share your concerns but I doubt NGU power Generators will quickly be adapted to weapons of war… I understand the current NGU Power Generators are specified to work in static or slowly varying applications (e.g., a slow little car slowly around a track). Maybe a military application like a space heater for a fixed tent.
I do not know if a current design NGU could reliably operate in a moving ship, a maneuvering aircraft, or a moving armored vehicle. Also, Military operating temperatures are much more extreme than commercial applications.
Jean Paul Renoir:
Yes I do,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Italo R.:
As well as trucks, cars, any kind of vehicle, aeroplanes and any flying object ( manned or not ), knives, dynamite, any kind of electronics…during military service I was tought how to kill an enemy by means of a spoon…luckily, since when I have been born no wars involved directly Italy, and I pray God that all the wars on course be stopped as soon as possible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The problem is that once Ecats will hit the market, no one will stop the military from using them to power war machines, starting with drones and all kinds of autonomous robotic weapons.
Unfortunately, the arms market will surely be a huge user of this technology.
Italo R.
Dr Rossi,
Do you still believe that within this year will be started the Ecat deliveries ? This would mean within a month, considering the Winter holidays…
Jean Paul
Ambrogio:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Dr Rossi,
I totally agree with your answer to Anonymous,
Best
Ambrogio
Anonymous:
Peace,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Which result of the current wars you think would be the best for the diffusion of the Ecat ?
Ken Shoulders discovered that Exotic Vacuum Objects (EVOs) can either be bright(white) or black. A black EVO is invisible and does not generate any visible light. Now we know that the EVO is actually a exciton polariton condensate, there is a direct relationship between black EVOs and Dark excitons.
Ken Shoulders described EVOs as micron-sized, high-density charge clusters that could be either “bright” (visible and interacting with light) or “black” (invisible and seemingly transparent to light). This understanding is currently outside the purview of mainstream physics, and the assertion that an EVO is an exciton-polariton condensate is not a scientifically recognized fact but rather a theoretical model or hypothesis proposed by some alternative researchers.
In established condensed matter physics, exciton-polaritons are a mixture of light and matter excitations that can form condensates.
Within this framework: Excitons themselves can be “bright” or “dark” depending on quantum mechanical selection rules related to spin and momentum.
Bright excitons can couple strongly with photons (light) and readily absorb or emit light.
Dark excitons are those whose coupling to light is forbidden or very weak due to their quantum properties (e.g., a required spin-flip or momentum transfer that a photon alone cannot provide).
They can only be observed indirectly, often through coupling with phonons (lattice vibrations) or in the presence of strong magnetic fields.
The speculative connection proposed by some researchers in the alternative physics community is a conceptual parallel:
The “bright” EVO, which interacts with light, is conceptually linked to the “bright” exciton-polariton state.
The “black” or invisible EVO, which does not generate visible light and allows light to pass through it, is conceptually linked to the “dark” exciton state, which is optically inactive.
This proposed relationship is based on an analogy of function (visibility/invisibility) and is part of ongoing theoretical discussions in niche communities, not yet popular in the general physics community. Mainstream science treats EVOs and exciton-polariton condensates as distinct phenomena, the former being a debated experimental anomaly and the latter a well-understood quantum quasiparticle system.
Now Dr. Rossi could improve the power density of his NGU system by making black EVOs visible. Current research described here:
https://www.thebrighterside.news/post/dark-excitons-scientists-make-previously-hidden-states-of-light-shine-300000-times-brighter/?utm_source=flipboard&utm_content=brighter_news/magazine/The+Brighter+Side+of+World+News
This article explains how when researchers changed the formatting of the optical cavity that produce exciton light to make dark excitons visible they saw the strength of the now visible cavity enhanced dark states to ordinary bright excitons, the numbers were astounding. In one sample, the strongest dark exciton was more than 1,400 times brighter than the bright exciton. In another, it was around 2,700 times brighter.
Scaling these measurements to the size of the nanocubes, the researchers calculated enhancement factors reaching 300,000 times brighter. According to the authors, this is among the highest photoluminescence boosts seen in gold based nanocavities for any light emitting material.
This dark exciton finding points to a future where by modifying the format of its optical cavity the NGU can greatly increase its power potential but still keep its size small and make a chip sized NGU possible.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Also nuclear submarines can be easily spotted by a satellite thanks to all the heat that they radiate.
E-cat powered submarines would be way harder to spot
I would like to expand on a recent post that explains how the light produced by the NGU differs from the light that exists in ordinary everyday life.
https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=901#comment-1704937
In summery, this post explains that the NGU type of light is a type that was generated by electroweak based physics, a type of physics that existed just after the big bang rather than that based on everyday electromagnetic physics of today.
In Dr. Rossi’s SK patent, it states as follows:
”An important application is the combination of this electrical energy generating device with an LED lamp. Experiments have reached 200,000 lumens with 4 watts of electrical energy supplied from the grid to the electrical energy generator. This is very important given the fact that lighting takes 58% of the electrical energy generated worldwide.”
I posit that this type of electroweak light can stabilize unstable radioactive isotopes because the electroweak force is mediated by a dark photon.
Now that the power production of the NGU has been increased to 500 watts, the light produced by its enlarged optical cavity may have reached the power level sufficient to produce electroweak level light.
A new NGU product based on this type of electroweak light might be able to stabilize any radioactive elements in the same fashion as the SAFIRE III reactor currently does.
For example, an electroweak light might be used to remediate high levels of radiation in basements caused by Radon.
Radioactive waste water from oil drilling via fracking might also be stabilized. The same process is applicable to stabilizing radioactive rare earth waste.
Whenever we need to remove uranium or thorium or their daughter products from the environment just illuminate it with NGU light.
It might also be possible to deactivate nuclear devices in their flight paths by electroweak light irradiation.
Ecat Enthusiast:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
How to use NGU Power Generators on the Moon.
Problem: the Moon’s gravity is about 1/6 of the Earth’s gravity. NGU Power Generators are rated to operate at Earth gravity, with 45 degrees of vertical.
Solution. A centrifuge with slip rings to route the power to an external load.
Rough computations indicate a 2-foot radius turning at 30 RPM would approach a sensed one g.
Of course, the device would need to be an environmentally controlled shelter.
Thoughts?
Dr. Rossi:
You said that your global licensee’s interest is to make the Ecat a global product. I have been wondering if they are only going to make industrial Ecats now.
Question: Are they still committed to produce the Ecats that can currently be preordered on the ecatthenewfire.com website?
Thank you and regards, Ecat Enthusiast
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
“A nuclear submarine’s reactor generates a significant amount of thermal power, often in the range of 100 to 200 MWt, which is then converted into both propulsion and electrical power. This process uses nuclear fission to create heat, which produces steam to drive turbines. While exact figures are classified, a large submarine reactor can produce enough thermal power to generate roughly 20 to 30 MW of electrical power, enough to run the ship’s systems and propel it.”
SDK Power Generators would be a much more efficient and less noisy power source for submarines.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Within their margins of performance they are equal,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
P.S.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY !
https://remoteview.substack.com/p/responding-to-comment-on-17-may-2019
My response to the ULTRA LOW ENERGY [anti]neutrinos (ULEN) – also called Relic or Background Neutrinos hypothesis put forth by Dr. Parkhomov.
For this post, the term exotic vacuum object (EVO) is synonymous with boson electron cluster and exciton polariton condensate referenced in Dr. Rossi’s theory paper.
First of all, the neutrino is not a boson which carries force in the standard model.
Next, neutrinos are fermions because they have an intrinsic spin of 1/2. This property places them in the fermion category, along with particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons, as defined by the Pauli exclusion principle and quantum mechanics which states that no two identical fermions can occupy the same quantum state.
This means that an interaction mediated by a neutrino must act alone no matter how large their field of interaction might be to avoid the exclusion principle.
Next, neutrinos are affected by interaction with metal (and all other forms of matter), but these interactions are extremely rare. The probability of interaction is incredibly low, which is why they can pass through vast amounts of matter, including many light-years of solid lead or the entire Earth, with high probability of not interacting.
Neutrinos are electrically neutral and do not interact via the electromagnetic force or the strong nuclear force. They only interact through the weak nuclear force and gravity.
The weak force has an extremely short range, meaning a neutrino has to pass very close to an atomic nucleus to interact.
The distance a neutrino has to pass to interact via the weak force is approximately 1/1000 of the diameter of a proton. More specifically, the effective range of the weak force is about 10^-18 meters (or 0.001 femtometers), which is significantly smaller than the diameter of a typical atomic nucleus (about 10^-14) to (10^-15 meters). The short range is a result of its carrier particles, the W and Z bosons, being very massive, unlike the massless photon of the electromagnetic force.
Matter, even dense metal, is mostly empty space at the subatomic level. This vast “empty” space, combined with the short range of the weak force, means most neutrinos simply pass through without ever getting close enough to an atom’s components to interact.
The neutrino could never be reflected by a parabolic reflector used in Parhomov’s beta half life experiments.
The LENR weak force force carrier must be a boson with infinite range. Such a particle is currently being search for by science. It is called the dark photon.
The Dark Photon
A dark photon is a hypothetical elementary particle that acts as a force carrier for a potential new force in a “hidden” dark sector of the universe. It is analogous to the ordinary photon of electromagnetism but is predicted to have mass and interact very weakly with regular matter, primarily through a mechanism called kinetic mixing with the standard photon.
Connection to Dark Matter
Dark photons are a leading candidate for the substance that makes up dark matter, which accounts for about 85% of the matter in the universe but has not been directly observed outside of its gravitational effects.
Dark Matter Candidate: If they are massive, dark photons could make up a significant portion of the universe’s dark matter abundance.
Vector Portal: They could provide a “vector portal,” or a non-gravitational window, into the dark sector, allowing for potential interactions between dark matter particles and the Standard Model of particle physics.
Astrophysical Anomalies: The existence of dark photons could explain certain astrophysical anomalies, such as the observed temperature of intergalactic filaments in the cosmic web, which is hotter than predicted by standard models.
It could also explain the astrophysical observations of weak force based variations of isotope half life based on positions of celestial bodies.
Properties
Hypothetical: The dark photon is a theoretical extension to the Standard Model of particle physics and has not yet been definitively detected.
Massive: Unlike the standard photon, which is massless, dark photons are generally predicted to have a non-zero mass, allowing them to interact over short distances or exist as a cold dark matter component.
Weak Interaction: Their primary interaction with ordinary matter would be an extremely weak “kinetic mixing” with the regular photon, a coupling constant that experimenters are actively trying to measure.
Hidden States: In some interpretations of quantum mechanics, “dark” states of photons, invisible to detectors, are proposed to explain phenomena like the interference patterns in the double-slit experiment, without relying on the wave nature of light.
Experimental Searches
Physicists are conducting numerous experiments to search for dark photons across a wide range of possible masses and interaction strengths.
Accelerator Searches: Experiments at facilities like the Large Hadron Collider (LHCb, CMS) and Jefferson Lab’s Heavy Photon Search (HPS) look for an excess of electron-positron pairs produced from dark photon decays.
Direct Detection Experiments: Haloscope experiments, such as MADMAX, use sensitive receivers and strong magnetic fields to search for the conversion of dark photons into detectable microwave photons at metal surfaces.
Astrophysical and Cosmological Constraints: Data from space telescopes like Hubble and COBE/FIRAS is used to set limits on the properties of dark photons by analyzing effects on the cosmic radiation background and structure formation in the early universe.
Despite ongoing searches and increasingly stringent limits on their properties, no conclusive evidence for the dark photon has been found, pushing the limits on where this elusive particle might exist in the parameter space of theoretical models.
How the EVO produces Dark Photons.
The EVO stores huge amounts of magnetic energy which allows it to not only transmute matter via quark gluon plasma processes, but also these high energy states make possible unification of the electroweak force as occurred in the early universe.
In the very early universe, at temperatures above approximately 159.5 GeV (before the electroweak symmetry breaking event), the W and Z force bosons were massless. During this period, the electromagnetic force and the weak force were unified into a single electroweak force. The energy required io product electroweak unification is 150 to 200 GeV. If the EVO can transmute matter, it can also exist under electroweak unification.
The force carriers (bosons) of this unified force are all massless and behaved similarly to the photon (which remains massless today). Key aspects of their state were: Mass: The W and Z bosons had no mass, in contrast to their current state where they are among the heaviest known particles.
Range: Because they were massless, the weak interaction they mediated was a long-range force, similar in range to the electromagnetic force.
Unification: The distinction between the weak force and the electromagnetic force did not exist. There were four massless bosons associated with the combined electroweak field.
Symmetry: The universe was in a high-temperature, symmetric state where the underlying symmetry of the electroweak theory was manifest. As the universe cooled and its temperature fell below the critical threshold (around a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang), the electroweak symmetry spontaneously broke due to the Higgs mechanism. This event caused the W and Z bosons to acquire mass by interacting with the Higgs field, which in turn limited the range of the weak force to subatomic scales, creating the weak and electromagnetic forces as we know them today.
Electroweak unification inside the EVO is why no unstable isotopes are produced by transmutation.
These Dark mode electroweak photons can exit the EVO through its domain wall in the same way that huge amounts of light are produced by active EVOs.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You have 15 prototype 500W power units. Are they all performing consistently with one another. Are there “weak sisters” or are they essentially identical in performance?
M. Reinhold:
Thank you for your insight and your suggestions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
1. no
2. I do not understand exactly your question: please rephrase
3. yes
4. not yet
5. not yet
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Stefano:
The interest of our Global Licensee is to make the Ecat become a global product,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Congratulations for the achievements obtained so far.
I am really afraid about the behavior of the licensee.
What if the licensee will never make available your device for houses, rather keeping for himelf the technology and selling the energy ?
I am afraid people will not be free to produce their own energy and still will depend on them.
Did you had an agreement about how to make your invention really available for everybody? Are you afraid of this issue?
Thank you in advance for your answer
Stefano
Dear Andrea Rossi,
On Nov 7, 2025, you posted that you had 15 500W prototypes in your possession. Questions:
1. Has the number of 500W units increased, and, if so, how many are now in your possession?
2. What it the power output variance between units at maximum power?
3. Generally, are the 500W units performing in a similar manner to the 100W units?
4. At this time, do you believe the 500W units are a viable design?
5. At this time, do you foresee the 500W units going into large scale production?
Hello Dr. Rossi,
Ecat as a power supply offers lower savings for households and businesses if the electricity is only fed into the grid.
Take Germany as an example: prices on the electricity exchange have been 8.7 ct/kWh so far this year. Using only ecat, which feeds electricity into the grid at around 3 ct/kWh, this would only result in savings of 5-6 ct/kWh plus slightly lower taxes.
However, if the ecat is delivered directly to consumers, the savings are many times higher. Households currently pay 30-40 ct/kWh, which is 10 times more than they would pay with the ecat.
The demand of ecat would also be significantly higher and production facilities could be expanded more quickly and on a larger scale – in every country around the world.
Kind regards
M.Reinhold
Rodney Nicholson:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.