Steven Nicholes Karels:
1. So far only with assemblies of 100 W modules
2. Not directly by us, please see my answers to Svein on July 5
3. 20
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Can you provide updates on:
1. Any development on 500W or large NGU reactors?
2. The commercial generation of electrical Grid power by NGU units?
3. The current number of updated eCats undergoing SSM testing?
How any more delays in the release of the NGU for public use can jeopardize the energy security of the southwest of the U.S.A.
Any further delays in deploying a NGU framework as a replacement power source will severely jeopardize the energy and water security of the U.S. Southwest. This vulnerability stems directly from an impending “hydropower cliff” at major Colorado River reservoirs scheduled to collide with peak regional demand between late 2026 and early 2027.
This post breaks down exactly how continuous delays in launching the NGU directly threaten the southwestern grid and the survival of core metropolitan areas like the Las Vegas metro area.
Loss of Baseline “Black Start” and Peaking Capacity
Hydropower from the Hoover and Glen Canyon dams does not just provide cheap energy; it supplies critical grid stability services.
Massive reductions in hydroelectric power production from Colorado River reservoirs are expected to hit as early as late 2026. The Hoover Dam on Lake Mead faces a potential 70% to 80% reduction in generating capacity by fall 2026 due to declining water levels.
Key Power Generation Risks (As of Summer 2026) Hoover Dam (Lake Mead):
Imminent Threat:
Projections indicate Lake Mead could drop below 1,035 feet in the coming months, which would necessitate shutting off 12 of its 17 turbines, resulting in a 70–80% reduction in power output.
Immediate Capacity Shortfalls:
Shutting down 12 of Hoover Dam’s 17 turbines by fall 2026 removes 70% to 80% of its operating capacity from the grid.
Complete System Failure:
If Lake Powell drops below 3,490 feet by December 2026, turbine generation at Glen Canyon ceases entirely.
Grid Vulnerability:
Hydropower acts as a “black start” resource—the power used to spin up other power plants during a total blackout. Delaying the NGU leaves the Southwest grid without its primary defense mechanism against regional blackouts.
2026 Critical Factors
Persistent Drought:
A combination of high temperatures and low precipitation, often referred to as “hot drought,” is accelerating the decline.
Reduced Releases:
To prevent Glen Canyon Dam from hitting “dead pool” (3,370 feet), operators are reducing water releases, which in turn accelerates the decline of Lake Mead.
Replacement Costs:
As hydropower is cheap, the reduction in generation is expected to increase electricity costs for users who must rely on other sources which should be the NGU.
The survival of Las Vegas is at stake.
Cascading Failures for Las Vegas might only be a few short months away
The Las Vegas metropolitan area faces a compounding existential threat if the NGU is delayed.
The Pumping Power Crisis:
Las Vegas relies on Lake Mead for roughly 90% of its water supply.
Submersible pumps require immense amounts of electricity to pull water out of the reservoir and push it uphill to the city.
The Feedback Loop:
If Hoover Dam’s power output collapses and an alternative NGU infrastructure is not online to pick up the load, the city faces a simultaneous power and water delivery failure.
The urgency of this current situation is completely valid, as the timeline presented leaves virtually zero margin for error. Relying entirely on a single technology like the NGU to stabilize the Southwest grid means that deployment speed and operational readiness are now the absolute highest stakes for the region.
Because the “hydropower cliff” is arriving rapidly, any friction in rolling out the NGU creates immediate, catastrophic vulnerabilities for all the states that receive water and power from the Colorado river system.
In order to avert a national disaster, priority NGU deliveries to the US southwest should be considered.
Regarding: “Svein July 4, 2026 at 5:09 PM: “May private Ecat SSMs function with deliveries to the regular electricity grid and be quickly switched to an emergency power generator at the owner’s site in the event of a network failure?”
This feature is possible, but financially impractical (not intelligent) because of the reactive power requirements to interface with your local applications. It will take 10 times more money to handle reactive power locally rather than letting the grid handle it for you.
See post: 2026-06-21 16:57 Axil: https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=934#comment-1707060
Regarding: 2026-07-05 04:32 Andrea Rossi: “about one million of years ago ( the age of the “homo erectus” ): to understand exactly the scientific know-how of it about one million of years had to be spent, albeit I think we will be faster than that with the “Ecat the new fire”…”
The science behind vacuum energy extraction is already well formed and mature enough to totally explain how the extraction of vacuum energy works in detail.
Over some years now, I have fed all my vacuum energy extraction theory posts into the AI supported by GOOGLE. This AI seems to have absorbed this theory and in addition has added detail that expands that theory based on its training in multiple other fields of science.
All my AI mediated theory posts are available on the Rossi blog that can provide additional user vacuum energy harvesting research support if a user desires.
https://share.google/aimode/Nf2cyfVoMoB7JufAK
Dr. Rossi has all the major reaction theory points correct as recorded in his theory paper, but how these points are derived is subject to assumptions that are based in LENR theory assuming energy generation derived through nuclear energy extraction.
This AI has also been trained with all of Dr. Giorgio Vassallo’s geometric and electromagnetic framework. Dr. Vassallo does not accept vacuum energy extraction in preference for LENR nuclear based theory.
The AI can also explain how this geometric and electromagnetic framework contravenes the posits of accepted science relative to Dr. Rossi’s theory paper.
To gain background into vacuum energy extraction, understanding condensed matter science is central. The AI can teach this as an example:
https://share.google/aimode/vwKjE7kkbCMQzK4Ow
As typical another teaching example, to ask for and expansion of a detail of the theory based on accepted science as follows:
explain how ultra dense hydrogen (UDH) provides the seed upon which the vacuum energy extraction forms where exciton polaritons form in the electron cloud of the hole superconductive core of the UDH
https://share.google/aimode/RkbxHSJgJneh4YSAJ
If a google link fails, loading that link into your command line seems to work as and alterative access method.
I thank you for your clarifying answers to my 10 questions and your tacit acceptance of my comments.
My assumptions were confirmed!
I wish you and your partners good luck with a demanding final sprint to achieve a stable SSM.
Like the rest of your followers, I look forward to the global presentation.
In the meantime, I will probably come back with more input and look forward to the same attention.
Neri Accornero:
Thank you for your support; to be precise, I did not say that we already achieved a stable SSM, I said we are close, but not there yet.
You are right about the chronology: the most paradigmatic example is the invention of the control and use of the fire: about one million of years ago ( the age of the “homo erectus” ): to understand exactly the scientific know-how of it about one million of years had to be spent, albeit I think we will be faster than that with the “Ecat the new fire”…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea, I was pleased to see your latest interview with Ackland, and I am very happy that you have achieved a stable SSM, and, above all, that you are focusing on the 100W DC system without worrying about high AC voltage or high-amperage modules; leave those arduous (and, in my opinion, pointless) tasks to others. On-site energy is the future, thanks to you, not power grids.
Regarding your valid doubts about the operating hypotheses for the E-Cat, I can tell you that almost all revolutionary inventions, from the mastery of fire onwards, originated as “technology,” and it was only after many (sometimes very many) years that an hypothesis of scientific explanation was formulated, often undergoing continuous revision. TECHNOLOGY races ahead while SCIENCE plays catch-up, and doesn’t always succeed!
Keep it up, Andrea.
Neri
Svein:
1- To do this connection are necessary authorizations with the grid provider, without our liabilities
2- 3- 4: same as in 1
5- EV applications can be done only by the EV manufacturers
6- I do not know
7- yes
8- yes
9- no, our forecast is based only upon simulations
10- no
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I refer to the Interview with Frank Aukland on July 4th.
I have some comments and questions related to the effect that society will be able to utilize IF SSM is successful and the various nations allow Ecat to be used in the contexts mentioned here.
Electricity is basically a “fresh commodity” that should preferably be delivered to a network at the same time and in the same quantity as the varying consumption from there requires.
Alternatively, very expensive “canning” in the form of battery storage must be used to avoid unfortunate voltage variations.
Ecat SSM seems to be able to open up fantastic opportunities that have not previously existed.
This is because any Ecat owner may be able to deliver energy, extracted from ZPE, to their local electricity grid and get paid for the delivery in the same way that solar cell owners are currently paid for delivered electricity extracted from sunshine.
In this regard, I have several questions, intended for simple yes/no or indicative answers:
1. May private Ecat SSMs function with deliveries to the regular electricity grid and be quickly switched to an emergency power generator at the owner’s site in the event of a network failure?
2. Will an electricity grid be able to “communicate” with the connected Ecat SSMs and regulate the energy delivery from them as needed?
3. Can the connected Ecat units be regulated so that there is a maximum balance between the inputs and the simultaneous withdrawals from all parts of the grid?
4. May this regulation process be automated so that the network itself seeks to maintain the most efficient/loss-free energy balance possible?
5. May EVs powered by Ecat SSM also be connected to the local network for energy delivery there, when they are not operating in traffic?
(EVs will then completely change from an expensive energy consumer to a very valuable energy supplier.)
6. Will this then mean that the local consumer networks, in the future, will receive a significant surplus of environmentally friendly electrical energy?
7. May this energy surplus be offered to industry that is currently based on energy technologies that are far more expensive and also environmentally harmful?
8. Will Ecat SSM be easily used, with the necessary load considerations and/or interruption delays, also where networks do not exist?
9. Are there tests that show to what extent the necessary physical elements in the “apparatus” that convert ZPE into electricity have a real duration in relation to the expected 100,000 hours?
10. Will a guarantee/insurance be offered if the given operating time is not achieved?
Here, it is probably the conditions in points 5, 6 and 7 that will be the most revolutionary.
This could mean that such a private EV, excluding the time used for transportation, will be able to supply the grid with over 1 million kWh during its lifetime.
This will have great economic and practical significance in any society.
I assume that you and the partners have deliberately wanted to hold this relationship back until the technological possibilities are sufficiently clarified. The final answer will probably come at the global presentation.
Since EVs based on Ecat SSM will have a much lower weight than today’s versions with battery banks, this also entails several other and significant environmental advantages.
Thank you the interview with Frank. With Ecat reactors delivering HV spikes it is understandable that inductive drive is an issue. Where multiple Ecat reactors are connected in parallel this presents an opportunity to achieve an improved DC output. Each Ecat is driven with a frequency (range) Ecat F. A master clock generates at 5 x Ecat F and is fed to a count to 5 divider. Each counter output stage drives one reactor at 1 x Ecat F and the 5 reactor outputs are paralleled to present 5 x Ecat F to the output stage. A 5 times improvement of energy distribution etc.
Beste Axil ,
Ik denk dat er weinig forum lezers zitten te wachten op uw pagina lange uiteenzettingen gegenereerd door AI en die weinig te maken hebben met de ECAT / NGU voor huishoudelijk gebruik !
ENGLISH SYNOPSIS
Thank you for your theories; we hope anyway to grasp an Ecat soon !
Accepted science views electric charge not as an object an electron “owns,” and generates local to itself, but as the measure of how strongly the electron couples to the electromagnetic field. In quantum electrodynamics (QED), this interaction strength is expressed by the Fine-structure constant, a fundamental QED number.
The Mechanics of Coupling
In the Standard Model, elementary particles like the electron exist as localized excitations of their respective quantum fields.
The Electromagnetic Field – An all-pervasive field.
The Interaction:
The electron interacts with the electromagnetic field by emitting and absorbing virtual photons (the carrier particles of the electromagnetic force).
Charge as a coupling property:
”Charge” is simply the numerical value assigned to the degree of this interaction. It determines the probability that an electron will interact with a photon.
The Fine-Structure Constant
The strength of this coupling is defined by the dimensionless Fine-structure constant:
What it means:
The value quantifies the fundamental probability of a single electron coupling with an electromagnetic field vertex (i.e., emitting or absorbing a single photon).
”Weakly coupled”:
Because ‘alpha’ is significantly less than 1 quantum physics describes this as a “weak coupling”. This relatively small value ensures that atoms remain stable and do not collapse instantly.
Bare vs. Dressed Charge
Because the electron interacts with its own field and the fluctuating quantum vacuum, physicists draw a distinction between “bare” and “dressed” charge:
Bare Charge: The intrinsic strength of the electron isolated from the vacuum.
Dressed Charge:
The measured physical charge observed in experiments. The vacuum polarizes around the bare charge, shielding it and resulting in the exact e we measure (roughly \(1.602 \times 10^-19) Coulombs).The exact numerical values of this coupling, and why it is calibrated to 1/137}, remain fundamental free parameters in the Standard Model that must be input from experimental measurement, rather than derived from scratch.
But what is the so called running of the coupling?
The running of the coupling is the physical phenomenon where the strength of a fundamental force (the coupling constant) is not actually constant, but changes depending on the energy scale or distance at which the interaction is measured.
In quantum field theory, what we traditionally call a “charge” or a “force constant” is merely a value fixed at a specific low-energy limit.
The Core Mechanism: Vacuum Polarization
The running of a coupling constant is driven entirely by vacuum polarization and the presence of virtual particles. According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum is not empty space; it is a boiling sea of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that constantly pop into existence and annihilate over incredibly short timeframes.When an elementary particle (like an electron or a quark) is placed into this vacuum, it polarizes the surrounding virtual pairs. These virtual particles arrange themselves in a way that shields or screens the original particle, physically altering the force field around it.
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED): Charge Screening
In Quantum Electrodynamics (the theory of electromagnetism), the running of the coupling constant ‘alpha’ behaves as follows:
At Long Distances (Low Energy):
A bare electron is surrounded by a cloud of virtual electron-positron pairs. The virtual positrons are electrostatically attracted to the electron and orient themselves closer to it, while the virtual electrons are repelled outward. This creates a screening cloud that partially masks the electron’s true charge. As a result, far away from the electron, we measure the standard fine-structure constant value: ‘alpha’ approx 1/137.
At Short Distances (High Energy): If an incoming particle has immense kinetic energy, it can pierce through this virtual screening cloud. By probing closer to the “bare” core of the electron, it experiences less screening and encounters a stronger effective positive or negative charge concentration.
The Result:
The electromagnetic coupling constant increases (runs upward) as the energy scale increases. At the scale of the Z boson ((91.2 GeV) alpha increases to approximately 1/128.
Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD):
Asymptotic Freedom
In Quantum Chromodynamics (the theory of the strong force between quarks), the running of the coupling constant ‘alpha’ acts in the exact opposite direction due to the unique properties of gluons:
The Anti-Screening Effect:
Quarks are surrounded by virtual quark-antiquark pairs (which screen charge, just like in QED). However, because gluons themselves carry color charge, the virtual gluons in the vacuum create a massive anti-screening effect that outweighs the quark screening.
At Short Distances (High Energy):
When quarks are pushed incredibly close together, the anti-screening cloud is left behind. The strong force coupling constant decreases (runs downward) toward zero. This phenomenon is known as asymptotic freedom. Inside a proton, quarks behave almost like free, non-interacting particles.
At Long Distances (Low Energy):
As quarks are pulled apart, the anti-screening gluon field grows stronger, causing ‘alpha’ to increase rapidly. This leads to color confinement, making it impossible to isolate a single quark.
Mathematical Modeling: The Beta Function
The mathematical framework that dictates exactly how a coupling constant ‘g’ changes (“runs”) with respect to the energy scale is governed by the Renormalization Group Equation Where beta(g) is the Beta Function of the specific quantum field theory:
If beta(g) > 0 (like in QED), the coupling strength increases with higher energy.
If beta(g) < 0 (like in QCD), the coupling strength decreases with higher energy.
Restatement of the Concept
The running of the coupling is the dynamic variation of a force's strength caused by quantum vacuum shielding, meaning that forces become stronger or weaker depending on how closely particles interact.
How Giorgio Vassallo's geometric model struggles to reconcile a charge that changes value based purely on collision energy.
The running of the coupling is a fundamental cornerstone of Quantum Field Theory (QFT). It proves that values like the fine-structure constant 'alpha' are not fixed, but change dynamically based on the energy scale of a collision.
Giorgio Vassallo’s geometric and electromagnetic framework—which relies on Space-Time Algebra (STA) to model elementary charges as localized, deterministic toroidal currents moving at the speed of light—struggles significantly to reconcile this phenomenon. His architecture faces five major theoretical obstacles when attempting to explain why a charge changes value based purely on collision energy:
1. Structural Rigidity vs. Dynamic Scaling – Vassallo's View:
In his model, the charge e, mass m, and spin of an electron or proton are simultaneous, rigid geometric consequences of a single point-like charge tracing a localized, closed toroidal loop at the speed of light. The loop's geometry is directly constrained by the fundamental magnetic flux quantum.
The Struggle:
Because the charge in this model is a hard-coded topological boundary condition of the spacetime loop itself, it is structurally rigid. If the coupling constant "runs" (meaning the effective charge increases during a high-energy smash), Vassallo’s model has no native geometric mechanism to allow the charge value to fluidly and reversibly scale up or down. Changing the charge value would mathematically break the quantization of the loops that keep his particles stable.
2. The Rejection of Virtual Particles and the Quantum Vacuum
Standard QFT Explanation: The running of the coupling is physically caused by vacuum polarization. A bare charge is screened by a boiling sea of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that constantly pop in and out of existence in the quantum vacuum. High-energy collisions pierce this screening cloud to reveal a stronger effective charge.
Vassallo's Struggle:
Vassallo’s framework is deeply rooted in Occam’s Razor and classical relativistic electrodynamics. It actively avoids the standard QFT picture of an infinite sea of virtual particles and perturbative Feynman diagrams. Without a fluctuating quantum vacuum to create a dynamic screening cloud, Vassallo’s model lacks the very physical mechanism that standard physics uses to explain why a particle looks different at close distances.
3. The Localized "Zitterbewegung" Limitation
Vassallo's View: Vassallo's model uses a deterministic interpretation of Zitterbewegung (trembling motion), where the particle's internal, localized oscillation creates its properties.
The Struggle:
The running of the coupling constant is fundamentally a non-local, multi-body field effect governed by the Renormalization Group (RG) equations. It is not a property of the isolated particle itself, but an emergent trait born from the particle's interaction with the entire surrounding quantum field continuum. Vassallo's strictly localized single-particle equations are mathematically unequipped to generate an emergent scaling flow (like the Beta function) that depends on external collision energy rather than internal loop mechanics.
4. Over-Determined Kinematics – The Conflict:
In standard physics, a particle's rest mass is fixed, but its effective coupling strength varies with energy scale.
Vassallo's Struggle: In an integrated geometric model where mass, spin, and charge are all tightly locked variables derived from the same rotational frequency and radius, you cannot change one variable without altering the others. If high collision energy changes the effective charge, it would geometrically force a massive re-scaling of the particle’s internal radius, mass, and spin track. Vassallo’s model cannot decouple the running of a force's strength from the fundamental internal kinematics of the particle itself.
5. Inability to Account for Asymptotic Freedom (QCD)
The Conflict:
In the strong force, the coupling constant does the exact opposite of electromagnetism—it decreases at high energies (asymptotic freedom) due to the anti-screening effects of gluons.
Vassallo's Struggle:
Vassallo models the proton using pure electromagnetic and geometric currents rather than the standard three-quark gluon model. While one might try to visually map an electromagnetic screening cloud onto an aether-like geometry, it is mathematically impossible to cleanly derive asymptotic freedom (a negative Beta function) using purely classical, local electromagnetic current loops. Without the non-Abelian gauge fields of QFT, a geometric model cannot inherently explain why a force would completely vanish at ultra-short distances.
Summary of the Conflict
Vassallo’s geometric model struggles because it treats charge as an indivisible, structural trait of a localized spacetime loop, whereas the running of the coupling proves that charge is an emergent, variable property dictated by the global, fluctuating environment of a quantum field.
Under the quantum mechanical posit that an electron can be in two or more places at once, how is its charge reckoned?
To reconcile the charge of an electron when it is “in two or more places at once,” physics relies on the concept of quantum superposition and the framework of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).The short answer is that the electron’s charge does not split into fractional pieces. Instead, it is the probability of interacting with the full, undivided charge that is distributed across those locations.
Here is exactly how this is reconciled across different physical frameworks:
The Wavefunction and Charge Density
In standard quantum mechanics, an electron in multiple places is described by a single wavefunction.
The Reality:
The mathematical charge density acts like a smooth, delocalized cloud. For example, in a hydrogen atom, the electron is superposed all around the nucleus simultaneously. This smooth cloud is what produces the molecule’s electrostatic fields and chemical bonds
The Measurement Postulate (Wavefunction Collapse)
While the charge behaves like a delocalized cloud before you look at it, it changes completely the moment an observation occurs.
If you place two highly sensitive particle detectors at the two locations where the electron is superposed, you will never find half an electron in each.
Instead, one detector will register 100% of the electron’s charge -e, and the other detector will register 0%. The act of measurement forces the superposed wavefunction to “collapse” into a single, localized point. What is factionalized is the probability of finding the charge detected in any given detector.
The QED View:
Quantized Field Excitations
In Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), particles are not tiny billiard balls; they are localized ripples (excitations) in an underlying, all-permeating electron-positron field. Charge is how the EMF cupules with the electron and other charge particles.
The total charge operator of this universe-wide field is strictly quantized in integer units of -e.
When an electron is in a superposition, the excitation of the field is spread out. However, because the field itself is governed by strict quantum rules, it is physically impossible for the field to transfer a fraction of a charge to an instrument. The field transfers energy and charge in indivisible packets (quanta).
How this Challenges Giorgio Vassallo’s Framework
This exact scenario highlights why purely localized, geometric models like Giorgio Vassallo’s Spacetime Algebra (STA) face severe theoretical hurdles:
The Conflict:
Vassallo models the electron as a single, physical, localized toroidal current track (a point-like charge zipping around a doughnut-shaped path at the speed of light).
The Problem:
If an electron is physically real and confined to a single local geometric loop, it cannot be in two macroscopic places at once.
To explain a double-slit experiment or a split wavefunction, Vassallo’s model must either reject the literal interpretation of superposition or rely on non-local aether waves to guide the single, localized loop. It cannot naturally reconcile a single geometric track existing in two distinct spatial regions simultaneously.
Jean Beaumont:
Without the help I obtained in the USA starting from the year 1996 on, the Ecat would never have been born.
In the USA my life has been saved.
See http://www.drandrearossi.com
Warm Regards,
A.R.
“Which reading would you suggest in matter of nuclear physics related to anomalous reactions like, for example, the ones that happens in the Ecat ?”
The vacuum reaction is NOT a LENR – nuclear reaction as posited by Giorgio Vassallo. Vassallo does not accept virtual particle theory and modern quantum mechanics. He attempts to explain what Dr. Rossi’s system is doing as a nuclear reaction thus LENR. Dr. Rossi has stated recently “The E-cat, in its actual version, is not a LENR system”.
The NGU is a optical system related to lasor technology.
Stopped Light: How Physicists Halted a Beam Inside Atoms.
The key to the vacuum reaction is stopped light. In a Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC) light is captured by coherent atoms and the nature of the light is recorded. The BEC involved is what Ultra Dense Hydrogen (UDH) creates. This ability to combine with light makes UDH the seed by which light is captured. In the BEC, light can be recreated and continue its path when the BEC is stimulated by other light. This recreated light can move forward but it can also move back in the direction that it first entered the BEC. This is called negative photon momentum. This negative energy is what produces the Dynamic Casimir Cavity that makes virtual vacuum photons into real ones.
The AI validates this theory here
https://share.google/aimode/jejxWu1z3Ka3UopDd
These real photons harvested from the vacuum is where the extra optical power comes from that produces energy gain.
Daniel Kaufmann:
Please find what I think could be a theoretical explication of the Ecat process in my publication “Ecat SK and Long Range Particle Interactions” now published on the Journal of Nuclear Physics http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
The theoretical hypothesis has gone through substantial evolution based on the experimental discoveries all along my research from the year 1995 through the year 2026 ( more than 30 years…).
Truth to be said: I am not 100% sure my theoretical hypothesis is correct, albeit I am convinced of the reality of the work of the Ecat ( probably in SSM regime ).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I strongly recommend that the science interpretation of Giorgio Vassallo et Al not be referenced in any patent application covering the NGU system.
Giorgio Vassallo version of science does not comport with the accepted version of vacuum energy science that has supported prior art in associated patents on the extraction of energy from the vacuum. I checked with the AI on this issue to gain insight about the stance of the patent office based on their past actions as follows:
AI prompt:
List all prior patents claiming extraction of power from the vacuum, then compare the science of Giorgio Vassallo against the prior art these sucessful theories expressed in the other patents claiming vacuum exergy extraction, then provide an analysis of these differences between these theories as detracting from the Rossi patent application.
In order to be safe and preserve Dr. Rossi’s IP claims, it is prudent to avoid any science claims associated with LENR theory in his patent applications.
I have been following your work since your collaboration with Prof. Sergio Focardi. I am particularly interested in the research methodology behind your product rather than just its technical specifications.
Could you share whether the E-Cat technology is an entirely new discovery—akin to the discovery of electricity—or is it based on an existing phenomenon that simply hasn’t received enough attention?
If it is a completely new paradigm: How does your research process look? Do your existing theories guide your experiments, or do you formulate new theories based on the outcomes of your trials?
Thank you for your time and dedication.
Zoltan:
The Ecat is an energy generator: it will be bought and used from anybody that needs energy. Once the Ecat is for sale around the world, anybody can buy it and use the energy generated
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Roberto:
The text I studied with more attention lately is “Unified Field Theory and Occam’s Razor”, by Giorgio Vassallo et Al.
It is published by World Scientific Publishing Europe Ltd. and distributed by Amazon,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Which reading would you suggest in matter of nuclear physics related to anomalous reactions like, for example, the ones that happens in the Ecat ?
Cheers
Roberto
Axil:
With or without the SSM I think that the global presentation will be made within January 2027, this implying no residual issues,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Has the Partner solved the issues of self regulation that has existed with the NGU product line. If not, what are the prospects of these issues being resolved by time of the introductory demo.
It is claimed that the Ecat SSM is the most important invention that has come about in recent centuries.
A recognition of this would be of great importance to AR and his partners.
This must be argued for, in a clear and simple way, when the global presentation comes.
This is then a challenge to contribute from those JoNP followers who agree with the aforementioned conclusion.
I myself believe that the most decentralized energy access possible, also with reversible power supply, is both cost-, safety- and especially environmentally favorable.
This will be very conflict-free for most nations, groups and people. It will therefore be of crucial importance for both individuals and nations.
I believe that humanity, in terms of energy, undoubtedly needs:
1. An energy availability that is highly decentralized.
2. To safeguard all the benefits that local and global environmentally safe resource use can provide.
3. A device that can utilize ZPE seems to be able to provide the best opportunity here.
Good morning, Dr. Rossi. A quick question requiring a brief answer: can you confirm that the 100-watt NGU E-Cats will also be marketed in a version with a 12-volt DC output?
Thank you, and I wish you every success with your project.
Regarding Question 3 about the location of the SSM control, I’m afraid I didn’t express myself clearly enough: Specifically, whether the SSM control is technically located within each individual base module, or whether it is located separately outside a base module (or outside the aggregation of multiple base modules).
I interpret your answer—that “SSM modules should conserve SSM even if aggregated”—to mean that the SSM control is always an integral part of every base module.
This applies equally to Ecat NGUs as well as Solar PV and any other reverse power devices.
Sent to the UK government who have made a mistake:
The UK government publicity claims the cost of a Balcony Plug-in Solar system will be about £400; you need to double that to allow for fitting RCBOs before(and not after) you allow burning to start.
There is a clear risk of house fires. I am not sure how far the damaged wiring behind the CU(Consumer Unit) extended but the potential for causing a short circuit and the fire extending, even to a house fire, is clear. The danger is made clear by Article 24/3/2026 in the ‘I’ newspaper[2:].
This is not a manufacturer’s problem. They already market BI-DIRECTIONAL RCBOs. What is needed is the correct Regulation in the G98 distribution code and BS7671 which I have just found [3:]. I agree with everything it says, but what about the 25 million homes without bi-directional protective devices who might buy a plug-in solar system? Updating the Regulations will not reach them and plug-in solar is, dangerously, marketed as not requiring an electrician.
[1:] The dangers of balcony PV Systems, ‘reverse power’ flows, and lack of a trained electrician
The highest level of electrical protection is achieved by fitting BI-DIRECTIONAL RCBOs in the correct places. Do NOT fit reverse current devices to switchboard circuits that lack bi-directional protection. I am the proud owner of a burnt-out protection module and wiring, which is why I know about this.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Niglon-40amp-Bi-Directional-SSAX2-16Amp/dp/B0FH2P6MBP?s=diy
Product description
… This model includes BI-DIRECTIONAL fault detection, ESSENTIAL for SOLAR PV installations [I would add batteries, car chargers, NGUs[ https://ecatthenewfire.com/pre-order-the-ecat-sklep/ ] and any other reverse power devices] where power can flow in either direction. Unlike conventional RCBOs, which only protect against faults in one direction, this device ensures continuous protection regardless of energy flow making it an excellent choice for PV-ready consumer units.
In addition, it offers Type A RCD protection and switched line and neutral, simplifying maintenance and improving safety throughout the installation. These RCBO’s are the latest Bi-Directional Switched Neutral Space saver compact size ones. Each RCBO is brand new and manufacturer boxed.
[2:] Article 24/3/2026 in the ‘I’ newspaper:
‘The government will work with ENA, DO and OFGEM to update the Regulations. Specifically, it will update the G98 distribution code and wiring regulations BS 7671 to allow households to connect 800W plug-in solar panels to domestic[13amp] sockets without the need for an electrician.
!! SolarPV needs BI-DIRECTIONAL RCBOs fitted by a qualified electrician !!
The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) has issued an urgent 3rd amendment to BS 7671, which will be open for public comment from May 8th onwards.
The key change introduced by the 3rd Amendment is the requirement for BI-DIRECTIONAL protective devices on all generating sets including SOLAR PV, battery storage, and electric vehicles capable of supplying power back to the charger (vehicle-to-grid).
This new requirement aims to ensure safe and reliable electrical installations for the growing number of renewable energy sources and bi-directional power flow scenarios.
After a one-month consultation period, this amendment will become part of the BS 7671 regulations, effective immediately.
LENR-Wiki:
Thank you for your attention to our work.
Answers:
1a. Work in progress
1b. Not yet
2a. Yes
2b. I don’t think so, for the time being
3. SSM modules should conserve SSM even if aggregated
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I was pleased to read that you have made significant progress toward solving the SSM problem, and that this progress warrants a separate report, which will be published on July 4 [2026]. Since no further updates are expected to be released before then, I would like to raise three additional topics whose current status may be of general interest:
1a. What is the status of the completion of the first production facility(ies)?
1b. Is Computational Engineering already playing a role in this?
2. It has already been reported in JoNP that the 100-watt base modules currently serve as the standard for all aggregations.
(a) Is work continuing on the development of the 500-watt base modules?
(b) Will the 10-watt base modules continue to be part of the portfolio (as announced a few months ago)?
3. Will the SSM solution be part of the base modules or always part of the aggregation (1…n)?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
1. So far only with assemblies of 100 W modules
2. Not directly by us, please see my answers to Svein on July 5
3. 20
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Can you provide updates on:
1. Any development on 500W or large NGU reactors?
2. The commercial generation of electrical Grid power by NGU units?
3. The current number of updated eCats undergoing SSM testing?
Axil:
Thank you for your insights
Warm Regards,
A.R.
How any more delays in the release of the NGU for public use can jeopardize the energy security of the southwest of the U.S.A.
Any further delays in deploying a NGU framework as a replacement power source will severely jeopardize the energy and water security of the U.S. Southwest. This vulnerability stems directly from an impending “hydropower cliff” at major Colorado River reservoirs scheduled to collide with peak regional demand between late 2026 and early 2027.
This post breaks down exactly how continuous delays in launching the NGU directly threaten the southwestern grid and the survival of core metropolitan areas like the Las Vegas metro area.
Loss of Baseline “Black Start” and Peaking Capacity
Hydropower from the Hoover and Glen Canyon dams does not just provide cheap energy; it supplies critical grid stability services.
Massive reductions in hydroelectric power production from Colorado River reservoirs are expected to hit as early as late 2026. The Hoover Dam on Lake Mead faces a potential 70% to 80% reduction in generating capacity by fall 2026 due to declining water levels.
Key Power Generation Risks (As of Summer 2026) Hoover Dam (Lake Mead):
Imminent Threat:
Projections indicate Lake Mead could drop below 1,035 feet in the coming months, which would necessitate shutting off 12 of its 17 turbines, resulting in a 70–80% reduction in power output.
Immediate Capacity Shortfalls:
Shutting down 12 of Hoover Dam’s 17 turbines by fall 2026 removes 70% to 80% of its operating capacity from the grid.
Complete System Failure:
If Lake Powell drops below 3,490 feet by December 2026, turbine generation at Glen Canyon ceases entirely.
Grid Vulnerability:
Hydropower acts as a “black start” resource—the power used to spin up other power plants during a total blackout. Delaying the NGU leaves the Southwest grid without its primary defense mechanism against regional blackouts.
2026 Critical Factors
Persistent Drought:
A combination of high temperatures and low precipitation, often referred to as “hot drought,” is accelerating the decline.
Reduced Releases:
To prevent Glen Canyon Dam from hitting “dead pool” (3,370 feet), operators are reducing water releases, which in turn accelerates the decline of Lake Mead.
Replacement Costs:
As hydropower is cheap, the reduction in generation is expected to increase electricity costs for users who must rely on other sources which should be the NGU.
The survival of Las Vegas is at stake.
Cascading Failures for Las Vegas might only be a few short months away
The Las Vegas metropolitan area faces a compounding existential threat if the NGU is delayed.
The Pumping Power Crisis:
Las Vegas relies on Lake Mead for roughly 90% of its water supply.
Submersible pumps require immense amounts of electricity to pull water out of the reservoir and push it uphill to the city.
The Feedback Loop:
If Hoover Dam’s power output collapses and an alternative NGU infrastructure is not online to pick up the load, the city faces a simultaneous power and water delivery failure.
The urgency of this current situation is completely valid, as the timeline presented leaves virtually zero margin for error. Relying entirely on a single technology like the NGU to stabilize the Southwest grid means that deployment speed and operational readiness are now the absolute highest stakes for the region.
Because the “hydropower cliff” is arriving rapidly, any friction in rolling out the NGU creates immediate, catastrophic vulnerabilities for all the states that receive water and power from the Colorado river system.
In order to avert a national disaster, priority NGU deliveries to the US southwest should be considered.
Regarding: “Svein July 4, 2026 at 5:09 PM: “May private Ecat SSMs function with deliveries to the regular electricity grid and be quickly switched to an emergency power generator at the owner’s site in the event of a network failure?”
This feature is possible, but financially impractical (not intelligent) because of the reactive power requirements to interface with your local applications. It will take 10 times more money to handle reactive power locally rather than letting the grid handle it for you.
See post: 2026-06-21 16:57 Axil: https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=934#comment-1707060
Regarding: 2026-07-05 04:32 Andrea Rossi: “about one million of years ago ( the age of the “homo erectus” ): to understand exactly the scientific know-how of it about one million of years had to be spent, albeit I think we will be faster than that with the “Ecat the new fire”…”
The science behind vacuum energy extraction is already well formed and mature enough to totally explain how the extraction of vacuum energy works in detail.
Over some years now, I have fed all my vacuum energy extraction theory posts into the AI supported by GOOGLE. This AI seems to have absorbed this theory and in addition has added detail that expands that theory based on its training in multiple other fields of science.
All my AI mediated theory posts are available on the Rossi blog that can provide additional user vacuum energy harvesting research support if a user desires.
https://share.google/aimode/Nf2cyfVoMoB7JufAK
Dr. Rossi has all the major reaction theory points correct as recorded in his theory paper, but how these points are derived is subject to assumptions that are based in LENR theory assuming energy generation derived through nuclear energy extraction.
This AI has also been trained with all of Dr. Giorgio Vassallo’s geometric and electromagnetic framework. Dr. Vassallo does not accept vacuum energy extraction in preference for LENR nuclear based theory.
The AI can also explain how this geometric and electromagnetic framework contravenes the posits of accepted science relative to Dr. Rossi’s theory paper.
To gain background into vacuum energy extraction, understanding condensed matter science is central. The AI can teach this as an example:
https://share.google/aimode/vwKjE7kkbCMQzK4Ow
As typical another teaching example, to ask for and expansion of a detail of the theory based on accepted science as follows:
explain how ultra dense hydrogen (UDH) provides the seed upon which the vacuum energy extraction forms where exciton polaritons form in the electron cloud of the hole superconductive core of the UDH
https://share.google/aimode/RkbxHSJgJneh4YSAJ
If a google link fails, loading that link into your command line seems to work as and alterative access method.
Svein:
Thank you for your support,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
I thank you for your clarifying answers to my 10 questions and your tacit acceptance of my comments.
My assumptions were confirmed!
I wish you and your partners good luck with a demanding final sprint to achieve a stable SSM.
Like the rest of your followers, I look forward to the global presentation.
In the meantime, I will probably come back with more input and look forward to the same attention.
Regards Svein
Neri Accornero:
Thank you for your support; to be precise, I did not say that we already achieved a stable SSM, I said we are close, but not there yet.
You are right about the chronology: the most paradigmatic example is the invention of the control and use of the fire: about one million of years ago ( the age of the “homo erectus” ): to understand exactly the scientific know-how of it about one million of years had to be spent, albeit I think we will be faster than that with the “Ecat the new fire”…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea, I was pleased to see your latest interview with Ackland, and I am very happy that you have achieved a stable SSM, and, above all, that you are focusing on the 100W DC system without worrying about high AC voltage or high-amperage modules; leave those arduous (and, in my opinion, pointless) tasks to others. On-site energy is the future, thanks to you, not power grids.
Regarding your valid doubts about the operating hypotheses for the E-Cat, I can tell you that almost all revolutionary inventions, from the mastery of fire onwards, originated as “technology,” and it was only after many (sometimes very many) years that an hypothesis of scientific explanation was formulated, often undergoing continuous revision. TECHNOLOGY races ahead while SCIENCE plays catch-up, and doesn’t always succeed!
Keep it up, Andrea.
Neri
Svein:
1- To do this connection are necessary authorizations with the grid provider, without our liabilities
2- 3- 4: same as in 1
5- EV applications can be done only by the EV manufacturers
6- I do not know
7- yes
8- yes
9- no, our forecast is based only upon simulations
10- no
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steve D:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bob Belovich:
Thank you for listening,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi (and Frank Ackland)
Thank you for the marvelous interview today!
Bob Belovich
Dear Andrea
I refer to the Interview with Frank Aukland on July 4th.
I have some comments and questions related to the effect that society will be able to utilize IF SSM is successful and the various nations allow Ecat to be used in the contexts mentioned here.
Electricity is basically a “fresh commodity” that should preferably be delivered to a network at the same time and in the same quantity as the varying consumption from there requires.
Alternatively, very expensive “canning” in the form of battery storage must be used to avoid unfortunate voltage variations.
Ecat SSM seems to be able to open up fantastic opportunities that have not previously existed.
This is because any Ecat owner may be able to deliver energy, extracted from ZPE, to their local electricity grid and get paid for the delivery in the same way that solar cell owners are currently paid for delivered electricity extracted from sunshine.
In this regard, I have several questions, intended for simple yes/no or indicative answers:
1. May private Ecat SSMs function with deliveries to the regular electricity grid and be quickly switched to an emergency power generator at the owner’s site in the event of a network failure?
2. Will an electricity grid be able to “communicate” with the connected Ecat SSMs and regulate the energy delivery from them as needed?
3. Can the connected Ecat units be regulated so that there is a maximum balance between the inputs and the simultaneous withdrawals from all parts of the grid?
4. May this regulation process be automated so that the network itself seeks to maintain the most efficient/loss-free energy balance possible?
5. May EVs powered by Ecat SSM also be connected to the local network for energy delivery there, when they are not operating in traffic?
(EVs will then completely change from an expensive energy consumer to a very valuable energy supplier.)
6. Will this then mean that the local consumer networks, in the future, will receive a significant surplus of environmentally friendly electrical energy?
7. May this energy surplus be offered to industry that is currently based on energy technologies that are far more expensive and also environmentally harmful?
8. Will Ecat SSM be easily used, with the necessary load considerations and/or interruption delays, also where networks do not exist?
9. Are there tests that show to what extent the necessary physical elements in the “apparatus” that convert ZPE into electricity have a real duration in relation to the expected 100,000 hours?
10. Will a guarantee/insurance be offered if the given operating time is not achieved?
Here, it is probably the conditions in points 5, 6 and 7 that will be the most revolutionary.
This could mean that such a private EV, excluding the time used for transportation, will be able to supply the grid with over 1 million kWh during its lifetime.
This will have great economic and practical significance in any society.
I assume that you and the partners have deliberately wanted to hold this relationship back until the technological possibilities are sufficiently clarified. The final answer will probably come at the global presentation.
Since EVs based on Ecat SSM will have a much lower weight than today’s versions with battery banks, this also entails several other and significant environmental advantages.
Regards Svein
Dear Andrea Rossi
Thank you the interview with Frank. With Ecat reactors delivering HV spikes it is understandable that inductive drive is an issue. Where multiple Ecat reactors are connected in parallel this presents an opportunity to achieve an improved DC output. Each Ecat is driven with a frequency (range) Ecat F. A master clock generates at 5 x Ecat F and is fed to a count to 5 divider. Each counter output stage drives one reactor at 1 x Ecat F and the 5 reactor outputs are paralleled to present 5 x Ecat F to the output stage. A 5 times improvement of energy distribution etc.
Frank Acland:
Thank you for the July 4th interview. Important date, important engagement, important new website,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for the interview today, here is a link to it on YouTube: https://youtu.be/ZiMPC-klsTQ?si=rqj9bVossLoI0GYT
Regarding your new website http://www.drandrearossi.com, is it true that the E-Cat was invented in the USA?
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Beste Axil ,
Ik denk dat er weinig forum lezers zitten te wachten op uw pagina lange uiteenzettingen gegenereerd door AI en die weinig te maken hebben met de ECAT / NGU voor huishoudelijk gebruik !
ENGLISH SYNOPSIS
Thank you for your theories; we hope anyway to grasp an Ecat soon !
Axil:
Thank you for your today’s second insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Accepted science views electric charge not as an object an electron “owns,” and generates local to itself, but as the measure of how strongly the electron couples to the electromagnetic field. In quantum electrodynamics (QED), this interaction strength is expressed by the Fine-structure constant, a fundamental QED number.
The Mechanics of Coupling
In the Standard Model, elementary particles like the electron exist as localized excitations of their respective quantum fields.
The Electromagnetic Field – An all-pervasive field.
The Interaction:
The electron interacts with the electromagnetic field by emitting and absorbing virtual photons (the carrier particles of the electromagnetic force).
Charge as a coupling property:
”Charge” is simply the numerical value assigned to the degree of this interaction. It determines the probability that an electron will interact with a photon.
The Fine-Structure Constant
The strength of this coupling is defined by the dimensionless Fine-structure constant:
What it means:
The value quantifies the fundamental probability of a single electron coupling with an electromagnetic field vertex (i.e., emitting or absorbing a single photon).
”Weakly coupled”:
Because ‘alpha’ is significantly less than 1 quantum physics describes this as a “weak coupling”. This relatively small value ensures that atoms remain stable and do not collapse instantly.
Bare vs. Dressed Charge
Because the electron interacts with its own field and the fluctuating quantum vacuum, physicists draw a distinction between “bare” and “dressed” charge:
Bare Charge: The intrinsic strength of the electron isolated from the vacuum.
Dressed Charge:
The measured physical charge observed in experiments. The vacuum polarizes around the bare charge, shielding it and resulting in the exact e we measure (roughly \(1.602 \times 10^-19) Coulombs).The exact numerical values of this coupling, and why it is calibrated to 1/137}, remain fundamental free parameters in the Standard Model that must be input from experimental measurement, rather than derived from scratch.
But what is the so called running of the coupling?
The running of the coupling is the physical phenomenon where the strength of a fundamental force (the coupling constant) is not actually constant, but changes depending on the energy scale or distance at which the interaction is measured.
In quantum field theory, what we traditionally call a “charge” or a “force constant” is merely a value fixed at a specific low-energy limit.
The Core Mechanism: Vacuum Polarization
The running of a coupling constant is driven entirely by vacuum polarization and the presence of virtual particles. According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum is not empty space; it is a boiling sea of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that constantly pop into existence and annihilate over incredibly short timeframes.When an elementary particle (like an electron or a quark) is placed into this vacuum, it polarizes the surrounding virtual pairs. These virtual particles arrange themselves in a way that shields or screens the original particle, physically altering the force field around it.
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED): Charge Screening
In Quantum Electrodynamics (the theory of electromagnetism), the running of the coupling constant ‘alpha’ behaves as follows:
At Long Distances (Low Energy):
A bare electron is surrounded by a cloud of virtual electron-positron pairs. The virtual positrons are electrostatically attracted to the electron and orient themselves closer to it, while the virtual electrons are repelled outward. This creates a screening cloud that partially masks the electron’s true charge. As a result, far away from the electron, we measure the standard fine-structure constant value: ‘alpha’ approx 1/137.
At Short Distances (High Energy): If an incoming particle has immense kinetic energy, it can pierce through this virtual screening cloud. By probing closer to the “bare” core of the electron, it experiences less screening and encounters a stronger effective positive or negative charge concentration.
The Result:
The electromagnetic coupling constant increases (runs upward) as the energy scale increases. At the scale of the Z boson ((91.2 GeV) alpha increases to approximately 1/128.
Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD):
Asymptotic Freedom
In Quantum Chromodynamics (the theory of the strong force between quarks), the running of the coupling constant ‘alpha’ acts in the exact opposite direction due to the unique properties of gluons:
The Anti-Screening Effect:
Quarks are surrounded by virtual quark-antiquark pairs (which screen charge, just like in QED). However, because gluons themselves carry color charge, the virtual gluons in the vacuum create a massive anti-screening effect that outweighs the quark screening.
At Short Distances (High Energy):
When quarks are pushed incredibly close together, the anti-screening cloud is left behind. The strong force coupling constant decreases (runs downward) toward zero. This phenomenon is known as asymptotic freedom. Inside a proton, quarks behave almost like free, non-interacting particles.
At Long Distances (Low Energy):
As quarks are pulled apart, the anti-screening gluon field grows stronger, causing ‘alpha’ to increase rapidly. This leads to color confinement, making it impossible to isolate a single quark.
Mathematical Modeling: The Beta Function
The mathematical framework that dictates exactly how a coupling constant ‘g’ changes (“runs”) with respect to the energy scale is governed by the Renormalization Group Equation Where beta(g) is the Beta Function of the specific quantum field theory:
If beta(g) > 0 (like in QED), the coupling strength increases with higher energy.
If beta(g) < 0 (like in QCD), the coupling strength decreases with higher energy.
Restatement of the Concept
The running of the coupling is the dynamic variation of a force's strength caused by quantum vacuum shielding, meaning that forces become stronger or weaker depending on how closely particles interact.
How Giorgio Vassallo's geometric model struggles to reconcile a charge that changes value based purely on collision energy.
The running of the coupling is a fundamental cornerstone of Quantum Field Theory (QFT). It proves that values like the fine-structure constant 'alpha' are not fixed, but change dynamically based on the energy scale of a collision.
Giorgio Vassallo’s geometric and electromagnetic framework—which relies on Space-Time Algebra (STA) to model elementary charges as localized, deterministic toroidal currents moving at the speed of light—struggles significantly to reconcile this phenomenon. His architecture faces five major theoretical obstacles when attempting to explain why a charge changes value based purely on collision energy:
1. Structural Rigidity vs. Dynamic Scaling – Vassallo's View:
In his model, the charge e, mass m, and spin of an electron or proton are simultaneous, rigid geometric consequences of a single point-like charge tracing a localized, closed toroidal loop at the speed of light. The loop's geometry is directly constrained by the fundamental magnetic flux quantum.
The Struggle:
Because the charge in this model is a hard-coded topological boundary condition of the spacetime loop itself, it is structurally rigid. If the coupling constant "runs" (meaning the effective charge increases during a high-energy smash), Vassallo’s model has no native geometric mechanism to allow the charge value to fluidly and reversibly scale up or down. Changing the charge value would mathematically break the quantization of the loops that keep his particles stable.
2. The Rejection of Virtual Particles and the Quantum Vacuum
Standard QFT Explanation: The running of the coupling is physically caused by vacuum polarization. A bare charge is screened by a boiling sea of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that constantly pop in and out of existence in the quantum vacuum. High-energy collisions pierce this screening cloud to reveal a stronger effective charge.
Vassallo's Struggle:
Vassallo’s framework is deeply rooted in Occam’s Razor and classical relativistic electrodynamics. It actively avoids the standard QFT picture of an infinite sea of virtual particles and perturbative Feynman diagrams. Without a fluctuating quantum vacuum to create a dynamic screening cloud, Vassallo’s model lacks the very physical mechanism that standard physics uses to explain why a particle looks different at close distances.
3. The Localized "Zitterbewegung" Limitation
Vassallo's View: Vassallo's model uses a deterministic interpretation of Zitterbewegung (trembling motion), where the particle's internal, localized oscillation creates its properties.
The Struggle:
The running of the coupling constant is fundamentally a non-local, multi-body field effect governed by the Renormalization Group (RG) equations. It is not a property of the isolated particle itself, but an emergent trait born from the particle's interaction with the entire surrounding quantum field continuum. Vassallo's strictly localized single-particle equations are mathematically unequipped to generate an emergent scaling flow (like the Beta function) that depends on external collision energy rather than internal loop mechanics.
4. Over-Determined Kinematics – The Conflict:
In standard physics, a particle's rest mass is fixed, but its effective coupling strength varies with energy scale.
Vassallo's Struggle: In an integrated geometric model where mass, spin, and charge are all tightly locked variables derived from the same rotational frequency and radius, you cannot change one variable without altering the others. If high collision energy changes the effective charge, it would geometrically force a massive re-scaling of the particle’s internal radius, mass, and spin track. Vassallo’s model cannot decouple the running of a force's strength from the fundamental internal kinematics of the particle itself.
5. Inability to Account for Asymptotic Freedom (QCD)
The Conflict:
In the strong force, the coupling constant does the exact opposite of electromagnetism—it decreases at high energies (asymptotic freedom) due to the anti-screening effects of gluons.
Vassallo's Struggle:
Vassallo models the proton using pure electromagnetic and geometric currents rather than the standard three-quark gluon model. While one might try to visually map an electromagnetic screening cloud onto an aether-like geometry, it is mathematically impossible to cleanly derive asymptotic freedom (a negative Beta function) using purely classical, local electromagnetic current loops. Without the non-Abelian gauge fields of QFT, a geometric model cannot inherently explain why a force would completely vanish at ultra-short distances.
Summary of the Conflict
Vassallo’s geometric model struggles because it treats charge as an indivisible, structural trait of a localized spacetime loop, whereas the running of the coupling proves that charge is an emergent, variable property dictated by the global, fluctuating environment of a quantum field.
Axil:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Under the quantum mechanical posit that an electron can be in two or more places at once, how is its charge reckoned?
To reconcile the charge of an electron when it is “in two or more places at once,” physics relies on the concept of quantum superposition and the framework of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).The short answer is that the electron’s charge does not split into fractional pieces. Instead, it is the probability of interacting with the full, undivided charge that is distributed across those locations.
Here is exactly how this is reconciled across different physical frameworks:
The Wavefunction and Charge Density
In standard quantum mechanics, an electron in multiple places is described by a single wavefunction.
The Reality:
The mathematical charge density acts like a smooth, delocalized cloud. For example, in a hydrogen atom, the electron is superposed all around the nucleus simultaneously. This smooth cloud is what produces the molecule’s electrostatic fields and chemical bonds
The Measurement Postulate (Wavefunction Collapse)
While the charge behaves like a delocalized cloud before you look at it, it changes completely the moment an observation occurs.
If you place two highly sensitive particle detectors at the two locations where the electron is superposed, you will never find half an electron in each.
Instead, one detector will register 100% of the electron’s charge -e, and the other detector will register 0%. The act of measurement forces the superposed wavefunction to “collapse” into a single, localized point. What is factionalized is the probability of finding the charge detected in any given detector.
The QED View:
Quantized Field Excitations
In Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), particles are not tiny billiard balls; they are localized ripples (excitations) in an underlying, all-permeating electron-positron field. Charge is how the EMF cupules with the electron and other charge particles.
The total charge operator of this universe-wide field is strictly quantized in integer units of -e.
When an electron is in a superposition, the excitation of the field is spread out. However, because the field itself is governed by strict quantum rules, it is physically impossible for the field to transfer a fraction of a charge to an instrument. The field transfers energy and charge in indivisible packets (quanta).
How this Challenges Giorgio Vassallo’s Framework
This exact scenario highlights why purely localized, geometric models like Giorgio Vassallo’s Spacetime Algebra (STA) face severe theoretical hurdles:
The Conflict:
Vassallo models the electron as a single, physical, localized toroidal current track (a point-like charge zipping around a doughnut-shaped path at the speed of light).
The Problem:
If an electron is physically real and confined to a single local geometric loop, it cannot be in two macroscopic places at once.
To explain a double-slit experiment or a split wavefunction, Vassallo’s model must either reject the literal interpretation of superposition or rely on non-local aether waves to guide the single, localized loop. It cannot naturally reconcile a single geometric track existing in two distinct spatial regions simultaneously.
Jean Beaumont:
Without the help I obtained in the USA starting from the year 1996 on, the Ecat would never have been born.
In the USA my life has been saved.
See http://www.drandrearossi.com
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi:
About your wishes for the 4th of July: what does mean the USA for you ?
Jean Beaumont
Regarding: 2026-06-29 07:41 Roberto
“Which reading would you suggest in matter of nuclear physics related to anomalous reactions like, for example, the ones that happens in the Ecat ?”
The vacuum reaction is NOT a LENR – nuclear reaction as posited by Giorgio Vassallo. Vassallo does not accept virtual particle theory and modern quantum mechanics. He attempts to explain what Dr. Rossi’s system is doing as a nuclear reaction thus LENR. Dr. Rossi has stated recently “The E-cat, in its actual version, is not a LENR system”.
The NGU is a optical system related to lasor technology.
Here is the appropriate theory for the NGU:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD0DRAxxVWg
Stopped Light: How Physicists Halted a Beam Inside Atoms.
The key to the vacuum reaction is stopped light. In a Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC) light is captured by coherent atoms and the nature of the light is recorded. The BEC involved is what Ultra Dense Hydrogen (UDH) creates. This ability to combine with light makes UDH the seed by which light is captured. In the BEC, light can be recreated and continue its path when the BEC is stimulated by other light. This recreated light can move forward but it can also move back in the direction that it first entered the BEC. This is called negative photon momentum. This negative energy is what produces the Dynamic Casimir Cavity that makes virtual vacuum photons into real ones.
The AI validates this theory here
https://share.google/aimode/jejxWu1z3Ka3UopDd
These real photons harvested from the vacuum is where the extra optical power comes from that produces energy gain.
If the like to the AI is invalid, reference a duplicate post at
https://e-catworld.com/2026/06/28/rossi-important-goal-reached-with-ssm/#comment-6896568419
Daniel Kaufmann:
Please find what I think could be a theoretical explication of the Ecat process in my publication “Ecat SK and Long Range Particle Interactions” now published on the Journal of Nuclear Physics
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
The theoretical hypothesis has gone through substantial evolution based on the experimental discoveries all along my research from the year 1995 through the year 2026 ( more than 30 years…).
Truth to be said: I am not 100% sure my theoretical hypothesis is correct, albeit I am convinced of the reality of the work of the Ecat ( probably in SSM regime ).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Regarding: 2026-06-29 07:41 Roberto
I strongly recommend that the science interpretation of Giorgio Vassallo et Al not be referenced in any patent application covering the NGU system.
Giorgio Vassallo version of science does not comport with the accepted version of vacuum energy science that has supported prior art in associated patents on the extraction of energy from the vacuum. I checked with the AI on this issue to gain insight about the stance of the patent office based on their past actions as follows:
AI prompt:
List all prior patents claiming extraction of power from the vacuum, then compare the science of Giorgio Vassallo against the prior art these sucessful theories expressed in the other patents claiming vacuum exergy extraction, then provide an analysis of these differences between these theories as detracting from the Rossi patent application.
The response as follows:
https://share.google/aimode/oEbzz7XDzmncXT0Z7
In order to be safe and preserve Dr. Rossi’s IP claims, it is prudent to avoid any science claims associated with LENR theory in his patent applications.
If the AI link is invalid, reference post:
https://e-catworld.com/2026/06/14/rossi-working-on-e-cat-producing-ac-electricity-for-ssm/#comment-6895596494
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I have been following your work since your collaboration with Prof. Sergio Focardi. I am particularly interested in the research methodology behind your product rather than just its technical specifications.
Could you share whether the E-Cat technology is an entirely new discovery—akin to the discovery of electricity—or is it based on an existing phenomenon that simply hasn’t received enough attention?
If it is a completely new paradigm: How does your research process look? Do your existing theories guide your experiments, or do you formulate new theories based on the outcomes of your trials?
Thank you for your time and dedication.
Best regards
Dani
Ecat Enthusiast:
All the due persons,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Zoltan:
The Ecat is an energy generator: it will be bought and used from anybody that needs energy. Once the Ecat is for sale around the world, anybody can buy it and use the energy generated
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi, please never give your license to the military. They would use it in the worst possible way.
Dr. Rossi,
Who is making the SSM tests? Is it you alone or your manufacturing partner?
Regards, Ecat Enthusiast
Roberto:
The text I studied with more attention lately is “Unified Field Theory and Occam’s Razor”, by Giorgio Vassallo et Al.
It is published by World Scientific Publishing Europe Ltd. and distributed by Amazon,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Which reading would you suggest in matter of nuclear physics related to anomalous reactions like, for example, the ones that happens in the Ecat ?
Cheers
Roberto
Ambrogio:
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
The bio on http://www.drandrearossi.com is really moving
Best
Ambrogio
Axil:
With or without the SSM I think that the global presentation will be made within January 2027, this implying no residual issues,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Has the Partner solved the issues of self regulation that has existed with the NGU product line. If not, what are the prospects of these issues being resolved by time of the introductory demo.
Claudio Varotto:
I think so, that wouldn’t be difficult,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Svein:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
It is claimed that the Ecat SSM is the most important invention that has come about in recent centuries.
A recognition of this would be of great importance to AR and his partners.
This must be argued for, in a clear and simple way, when the global presentation comes.
This is then a challenge to contribute from those JoNP followers who agree with the aforementioned conclusion.
I myself believe that the most decentralized energy access possible, also with reversible power supply, is both cost-, safety- and especially environmentally favorable.
This will be very conflict-free for most nations, groups and people. It will therefore be of crucial importance for both individuals and nations.
I believe that humanity, in terms of energy, undoubtedly needs:
1. An energy availability that is highly decentralized.
2. To safeguard all the benefits that local and global environmentally safe resource use can provide.
3. A device that can utilize ZPE seems to be able to provide the best opportunity here.
Regards Svein
Good morning, Dr. Rossi. A quick question requiring a brief answer: can you confirm that the 100-watt NGU E-Cats will also be marketed in a version with a 12-volt DC output?
Thank you, and I wish you every success with your project.
LENR-Wiki:
Thank you again for your attention.
Answer:
You understood perfectly,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thank you very much for your answers.
Regarding Question 3 about the location of the SSM control, I’m afraid I didn’t express myself clearly enough: Specifically, whether the SSM control is technically located within each individual base module, or whether it is located separately outside a base module (or outside the aggregation of multiple base modules).
I interpret your answer—that “SSM modules should conserve SSM even if aggregated”—to mean that the SSM control is always an integral part of every base module.
Have I understood this correctly?
Paul Dodgshun:
Thank you for your insight and information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
This applies equally to Ecat NGUs as well as Solar PV and any other reverse power devices.
Sent to the UK government who have made a mistake:
The UK government publicity claims the cost of a Balcony Plug-in Solar system will be about £400; you need to double that to allow for fitting RCBOs before(and not after) you allow burning to start.
There is a clear risk of house fires. I am not sure how far the damaged wiring behind the CU(Consumer Unit) extended but the potential for causing a short circuit and the fire extending, even to a house fire, is clear. The danger is made clear by Article 24/3/2026 in the ‘I’ newspaper[2:].
This is not a manufacturer’s problem. They already market BI-DIRECTIONAL RCBOs. What is needed is the correct Regulation in the G98 distribution code and BS7671 which I have just found [3:]. I agree with everything it says, but what about the 25 million homes without bi-directional protective devices who might buy a plug-in solar system? Updating the Regulations will not reach them and plug-in solar is, dangerously, marketed as not requiring an electrician.
[1:] The dangers of balcony PV Systems, ‘reverse power’ flows, and lack of a trained electrician
The highest level of electrical protection is achieved by fitting BI-DIRECTIONAL RCBOs in the correct places. Do NOT fit reverse current devices to switchboard circuits that lack bi-directional protection. I am the proud owner of a burnt-out protection module and wiring, which is why I know about this.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Niglon-40amp-Bi-Directional-SSAX2-16Amp/dp/B0FH2P6MBP?s=diy
Product description
… This model includes BI-DIRECTIONAL fault detection, ESSENTIAL for SOLAR PV installations [I would add batteries, car chargers, NGUs[ https://ecatthenewfire.com/pre-order-the-ecat-sklep/ ] and any other reverse power devices] where power can flow in either direction. Unlike conventional RCBOs, which only protect against faults in one direction, this device ensures continuous protection regardless of energy flow making it an excellent choice for PV-ready consumer units.
In addition, it offers Type A RCD protection and switched line and neutral, simplifying maintenance and improving safety throughout the installation. These RCBO’s are the latest Bi-Directional Switched Neutral Space saver compact size ones. Each RCBO is brand new and manufacturer boxed.
[2:] Article 24/3/2026 in the ‘I’ newspaper:
‘The government will work with ENA, DO and OFGEM to update the Regulations. Specifically, it will update the G98 distribution code and wiring regulations BS 7671 to allow households to connect 800W plug-in solar panels to domestic[13amp] sockets without the need for an electrician.
!! SolarPV needs BI-DIRECTIONAL RCBOs fitted by a qualified electrician !!
[3:] https://www.cef.co.uk/guides/emergency-3rd-amendment-to-bs-7671-wiring-regulations
Urgent 3rd amendment to BS 7671
[ EMERGENCY URGENT IMMEDIATELY NEW ? Someone has just woken up to the need for BI-DIRECTIONAL protective devices. ]
The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) has issued an urgent 3rd amendment to BS 7671, which will be open for public comment from May 8th onwards.
The key change introduced by the 3rd Amendment is the requirement for BI-DIRECTIONAL protective devices on all generating sets including SOLAR PV, battery storage, and electric vehicles capable of supplying power back to the charger (vehicle-to-grid).
This new requirement aims to ensure safe and reliable electrical installations for the growing number of renewable energy sources and bi-directional power flow scenarios.
After a one-month consultation period, this amendment will become part of the BS 7671 regulations, effective immediately.
LENR-Wiki:
Thank you for your attention to our work.
Answers:
1a. Work in progress
1b. Not yet
2a. Yes
2b. I don’t think so, for the time being
3. SSM modules should conserve SSM even if aggregated
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I was pleased to read that you have made significant progress toward solving the SSM problem, and that this progress warrants a separate report, which will be published on July 4 [2026]. Since no further updates are expected to be released before then, I would like to raise three additional topics whose current status may be of general interest:
1a. What is the status of the completion of the first production facility(ies)?
1b. Is Computational Engineering already playing a role in this?
2. It has already been reported in JoNP that the 100-watt base modules currently serve as the standard for all aggregations.
(a) Is work continuing on the development of the 500-watt base modules?
(b) Will the 10-watt base modules continue to be part of the portfolio (as announced a few months ago)?
3. Will the SSM solution be part of the base modules or always part of the aggregation (1…n)?
Warm regards
Anna:
I agree,
Warm Regards,
A.R.