I thank you for your presentation of ECAT OFF-GRID ENERGY PROJECT.
Everyone is free to find a desired use for Ecat.
Since a 15 kWh battery costs about the same as 2 kW Ecat, I would rather choose to spend my money on acquiring a device that produces energy rather than using it on a “battery bank with negative interest”.
A battery does not produce energy, only consumes part of the energy that it stores.
I would rather invest in a system for a total of 3 kW Ecat and connect this to the network that takes care of the buffer and storage effect that I need.
It is easy to calculate what improved economic effect this would have.
We will probably have to wait until the global presentation is over and a number of competent engineers have tested and system-integrated units, to see what is possible to achieve with Ecats in different situations.
Dear Massimo, from the very beginning, the goal of my research has been to identify the application with the highest impact and the widest, most practical feasibility.
Every single building—whether a public or private residence, a company, or a factory—is connected to a POD (Point of Delivery). Consequently, the solution described has a potentially universal application. Thanks to the introduction of the off-grid inverter (connected directly to the building’s electrical wiring, plus the ground wire), it is possible to power virtually any appliance or system, including heating and cooling.
Therefore, I haven’t forgotten about the “E-Cat boiler.” While heat is certainly a universal necessity, my objective was different, as explained above.
In Italy, about 20% of homes use a centralized heating system with very high total thermal capacities, while the remaining 80% rely on independent systems. In the latter case, each property generally has its own gas boiler managing two distinct circuits: one for the radiators and one for the domestic hot water (DHW).
Replacing it with an E-Cat boiler would require plumbing work on both systems, as well as installing two separate storage tanks to manage the different water temperatures (including a larger one dedicated specifically to domestic hot water).
The inverter, by contrast, would require a much simpler installation, essentially limited to connecting just two electrical wires (plus the building’s ground).
Of course, I completely agree with you on one point: whatever E-Cat product is presented in January 2027, it will be an extraordinary success.
However, my analysis focuses on a very specific goal: identifying the application capable of delivering the maximum impact and the most immediate ease of implementation.
With this in mind, as anticipated in my report, I am already prepared to execute and document the commissioning as soon as the E-Cat becomes available.
Dr. Rossi:
Did you make a formal monthly report for september? or is the “big breakthrough” and “70%” chance of Jan. SSM, to be considered this month’s report?
Thanks/DrLG
Dear Maico, your interesting hypothesis, which I’ve been mulling over for about six years, does not take into account—correct me if I’m wrong—the e-cat boiler that Rossi said will be presented in January. If, as the engineer “promised,” it can be used in domestic heating systems, even the disconnection from the gas distribution could be accomplished by you and all of us passionate visitors to this forum very quickly. For this reason, we must wait for the presentation, with the technical specifications and costs, in January. With or without SSM, I believe this will be the first step.
Please accept my apologies for the length of this post, but I believe that the data it contains, the analysis of those data, the project described and the conclusions reached are well worth sharing with you and your readers.
If possible, I would be very pleased to hear your comments and thoughts on what I have presented.
The project is entitled:
E-CAT OFF-GRID ENERGY PROJECT
or, even better:
E-CAT AND OFF-GRID SYSTEMS: THE ENERGY AND ECONOMIC REVOLUTION FOR EVERYONE
The complete document can be downloaded in PDF format from the following link:
=====================================================
THE PROJECT AT A GLANCE
=====================================================
– Actual measured average consumption: 20.5 kWh per day
– Initial configuration: ten 100 W E-Cat modules, a 5-6 kW off-grid hybrid inverter and a LiFePO4 battery of at least 15 kWh
– Estimated net generation: approximately 21.6 kWh per day
– Total initial investment: approximately EUR 7,050
– Estimated total economic benefit: approximately EUR 3,020 per year
– Break-even point: approximately 2 years and 4 months
– Theoretical net economic benefit over ten years: approximately EUR 23,150
– Possible fully electric evolution: 14 E-Cat modules, 1.4 kW continuous power and approximately 30.2 kWh net per day
IN SHORT
Based on my home’s actual consumption, an E-Cat-based off-grid system could meet my electricity needs, pay for itself in just over two years and represent the first step towards a fully electric home!
In the following sections, I will explain in detail the data, assumptions and calculations that led me to these results.
======================================================
THE IDEA
======================================================
While waiting for the 100 W E-Cat NGU units to become available, I have tried to “get a little ahead of the game”.
I have read several simulations shared on the blog by different readers, exploring the use of E-Cat units combined with different types of inverters to create “on-grid” systems.
This solution could certainly offer several advantages, which are already well known and have been widely discussed.
However, connecting to the grid requires compliance with specific regulations, as well as the necessary procedures and authorisations involving the electricity supplier and distribution system operator. At least initially, obtaining such authorisations for a new and highly innovative product such as the E-Cat could prove very difficult.
Off-grid systems, on the other hand, generate energy locally and operate without any connection to the public electricity grid. For this very reason, the procedures to be followed are much simpler than those required for on-grid systems. Naturally, the system must be installed in compliance with applicable standards by qualified personnel, and all the equipment used must have the necessary safety and conformity certifications, including CE marking where applicable.
Naturally, when it is brought to market, the E-Cat will have the certifications required for its intended use, as will all the other systems that will make up the off-grid installation.
This is why I am absolutely convinced that an off-grid architecture could represent the simplest and most cost-effective way to use the E-Cat in homes all over the world.
But let me get to the point. I will try to explain my idea as concisely as possible.
In Italy, as I imagine is also the case in many other countries, electricity is supplied to a home through a meter associated with a POD, the Point of Delivery that identifies the connection to the public electricity grid. When a generation system is connected to the grid, the relevant technical standards and connection procedures must be followed.
If the supply is terminated and the domestic electrical system is made completely independent and physically separated from the public grid, it can then be powered by a genuinely off-grid local generation system. In this case, the procedures required for connecting a generation system to the grid are no longer necessary, although all rules concerning safety, design and correct installation must, of course, still be observed.
In my case, the expected cost of terminating the electricity supply and deactivating the meter is approximately EUR 50. Within less than a month of the request, the supply should be terminated and the supplier should issue the final settlement bill, including any charges applicable to the operation.
=====================================================
THE REAL DATA BEHIND MY ESTIMATES
=====================================================
And now let us turn to the real data on which I based my estimates.
Before writing this post, I waited until I had collected real electricity-consumption data for my home for July and August 2026. I did not choose these two months at random: they were marked by particularly high temperatures and by the numerous heatwaves that affected Italy and Europe during the summer.
In my home, heating and domestic hot water are still supplied using natural gas, while everything else, including the air-conditioning system, oven, washing machine, dishwasher, tumble dryer, hob and all other household appliances, is powered by electricity.
The air-conditioning system is inverter-based and can therefore also operate as a heat pump. It consists of a single outdoor unit serving three indoor units. During July and August, the air conditioners remained switched on for a large part of the day.
Overall, between July and August, I consumed 1,270 kWh over 62 days, corresponding to an average of approximately 20.5 kWh per day.
I have a fairly competitive electricity supply contract. Taking into account the energy charge, fixed charge and capacity charge, my overall average cost is approximately EUR 0.27/kWh. Over the 62 days of July and August, I therefore spent approximately EUR 343. If the same average consumption were projected over a full year, the annual cost would be approximately EUR 2,020.
Last year, I spent EUR 2,200 on natural gas for heating and domestic hot water, without any contribution from the air-conditioning system.
As a prudent assumption, I have kept average electricity consumption constant throughout the year, in line with the level recorded during the summer months, and have included winter operation of the air-conditioning system in heat-pump mode in my estimate.
I believe it is reasonable to estimate that this use could reduce my annual gas expenditure from approximately EUR 2,200 to EUR 1,200, producing savings of around EUR 1,000 per year.
The estimated annual electricity cost, including winter use of the heat pump, would be approximately EUR 2,020. Consequently, by eliminating the electricity bill through the off-grid system, the total theoretical economic benefit would be:
EUR 2,020 in avoided electricity costs + EUR 1,000 in gas savings = approximately EUR 3,020 per year
======================================================
SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
======================================================
Based on the average consumption measured, in order to meet my home’s electricity needs with an off-grid system, I would require:
1. Gross daily generation of 24 kWh, corresponding to continuous generation of 1 kW. Assuming total losses of 10%, I would obtain approximately 21.6 kWh net per day, above my average consumption of 20.5 kWh.
2. An off-grid hybrid inverter capable of delivering at least 5-6 kW continuously and managing a battery.
3. A LiFePO4 battery with a capacity of at least 15 kWh, to store generation that is not consumed immediately and to support both power peaks and the hours during which household consumption exceeds the continuous generation of 1 kW.
As for items 2 and 3, I have already identified and purchased suitable commercially available products, with the necessary certifications and warranties of at least five years. The battery even uses automotive-grade LiFePO4 cells, for which the manufacturer declares at least 75% State of Health after 8,000 complete charge and discharge cycles: a service life that, for my intended use, makes them practically “eternal”! The entire package cost me less than EUR 3,000.
As for item 1, the reasoning is simple:
– The calculation could not be simpler: ten 100 W E-Cat modules would provide a total of 1 kW of continuous power, corresponding to gross daily generation of 24 kWh. Assuming total losses of 10%, I would obtain approximately 21.6 kWh net per day, above my average daily consumption of 20.5 kWh. The modules will therefore need to be connected to the off-grid hybrid inverter.
– Regardless of the output configuration in which the 100 W E-Cat is made available, whether AC at 110/230 V and 50/60 Hz or DC between 10 and 450 V, I have already purchased certified equipment specifically selected to enable me to connect a 1 kW array consisting of ten 100 W E-Cat modules to the inverter, at a cost of less than EUR 500. This equipment can also limit the power demanded from each E-Cat, keeping it within the limits specified by the manufacturer.
My domestic electrical installation is already compliant and has been certified by my trusted installer. I also have a small room suitable for housing the E-Cat modules, inverter, battery and interconnection equipment, without requiring particularly complex work. The certified installer who will take care of the off-grid system has already provided me with a quotation of approximately EUR 500 and, once the work has been completed, will issue the relevant declaration of conformity.
======================================================
COSTS AND BREAK-EVEN POINT
======================================================
It is time to add everything up.
The one-off costs already incurred or expected are therefore:
– Termination of the electricity supply and meter deactivation: EUR 50
– Hybrid inverter and battery: EUR 3,000
– Ten 100 W E-Cat modules: estimated EUR 3,000
– Interconnection equipment: EUR 500
– Installation and certification: EUR 500
TOTAL ESTIMATED INITIAL INVESTMENT: EUR 7,050
If I remember correctly, previous communications stated that the E-Cat would carry a three-year warranty. Let us therefore run the numbers over the same period.
TOTAL THEORETICAL ECONOMIC BENEFIT OVER THREE YEARS:
EUR 3,020 x 3 = EUR 9,060
An off-grid system based on 1 kW of E-Cat power and sized for a home like mine would therefore have a theoretical break-even point of approximately 2.3 years, or around 2 years and 4 months.
By the end of the third year, the accumulated net economic benefit would be approximately EUR 2,010. From the break-even point onwards, the benefit would continue to grow at a theoretical rate of approximately EUR 3,020 for each full year of operation.
I will leave you to calculate what the theoretical net economic benefit over ten years could be…
No, I simply cannot resist writing it:
EUR 23,150
Net of the initial investment and before any maintenance or component replacement costs!
======================================================
THE NEXT STEP: A FULLY ELECTRIC HOME
======================================================
Over the years, these savings would allow me to invest in making my home fully electric, eliminating the natural-gas supply as well, upgrading the heat pumps and producing domestic hot water electrically using the energy generated by the E-Cat.
The natural evolution of my off-grid system would be to add another four 100 W E-Cat modules, bringing the total to 14 modules. With continuous power of 1.4 kW and assuming an average overall efficiency of 90%, net generation would be approximately 30.2 kWh per day, almost 10 kWh more than my current average daily electricity consumption. This additional energy could support the transition towards a fully electric home.
In this way, if the additional generation proved sufficient to cover heating and domestic hot-water production as well, I could completely eliminate the gas supply and save the remaining EUR 1,200 per year currently budgeted, significantly increasing the overall economic benefit of the E-Cat-based system. The four additional modules, equal to 0.4 kW, would have an estimated cost of approximately EUR 1,200 and, considering only the cost of the modules and the additional savings on my gas bill, could pay for themselves in just one year!
Furthermore, with net generation of approximately 30 kWh per day, once I had covered the energy required to make the home fully electric, any remaining energy could be used to charge my Twizy, which everyone knows, and the family’s second battery-electric vehicle, making the E-Cat an even more attractive investment.
The beauty of the concept I have described is that it can be adapted to the vast majority of homes, industrial buildings, and public and private facilities, by appropriately sizing E-Cat generation, storage and the inverter according to actual consumption and local regulations.
A VIRTUALLY LIMITLESS POOL OF POTENTIAL USERS!
What more is there to say? Integrating the E-Cat into off-grid systems can certainly be considered a “Columbus’s egg”: an elegantly simple solution for a sustainable and cost-effective energy transition.
A WONDERFUL FUTURE AWAITS US!
I cannot wait to take delivery of the E-Cat units I have pre-ordered.
As described above, I already have the accessories, equipment and instruments required to build and commission an E-Cat-based off-grid system in my home, which will be installed in compliance with applicable standards by qualified personnel and accompanied by the relevant declaration of conformity.
I will document its construction, commissioning and operation in exhaustive detail, so that I can show concretely what the E-Cat is capable of, how it can be integrated into an off-grid system, and what energy and economic benefits it can offer.
I have absolutely no doubt that the E-Cat will deliver on its full potential, combining performance, ease of integration, sustainability and full compliance with the regulations applicable to off-grid systems, while fitting perfectly into a context that is far simpler than that of grid-connected systems.
I cannot wait for the E-Cat presentation scheduled for January 2027 and for its commercial launch and worldwide distribution to finally begin.
AT THAT POINT, I WILL FINALLY BE ABLE TO TURN THIS PROJECT INTO REALITY AND SHARE IT WITH THE WHOLE WORLD!
Axil:
Thank you for your links.
I cannot forward your papers to the peer reviewers of the Journal of Nuclear Physics, because they refuse to publish anonymous papers, and obviously an internet persona identified only with a nickname is anonymous, as I already explained to you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thank you for your information on September 7, 2026 at 07:15.
This was an excellent and well-documented introduction to the importance of GFM when using Ecat.
This shows that, in my understanding, it is necessary for Ecat to function as a GFM inverter to support the grid.
To your last question that AR could not answer, I ask you to present your own conclusions about the necessary battery storage in connection with the use of Ecat SSM and not SSM in the connected grid to ensure the necessary GFM or GFL.
The current theoretical-development stage of the Vacuum Reaction research program has reached a defined endpoint.
The work has been organized into a linked four-paper research series. This is not intended to represent the end of Vacuum Reaction research or a claim that the theory has been experimentally established. Rather, the series provides a documented foundation from which future researchers, experimentalists, and AI systems can continue the investigation.
A description of the work completed, its scientific status, the major unresolved questions, and the intended direction of future research is available here:
The purpose of this series is to define the proposed mechanisms, clearly distinguish established physics from reported observations, hypotheses, and unresolved questions, and identify experiments capable of supporting, modifying, or rejecting individual parts of the framework.
The principal unresolved issue is the origin of the proposed sustaining energy source. Rather than assigning that source to the vacuum or another reservoir without sufficient evidence, the series leaves its origin explicitly unresolved and treats it as an experimental question.
This endpoint is therefore a handoff rather than a conclusion. The framework has been organized so that future progress can increasingly be driven by discriminating experiments, new evidence, and continued work by both human researchers and AI systems.
If the links fail they can be accessed in the duplicate post:
Another application for eCat NGU devices – Alaska (or similar cold locations) emergency shelters – heating high-efficiency shelters
“In an energy-efficient Alaskan build featuring an exceptionally tight envelope (e.g., R-40 to R-60 walls, R-80+ ceilings, and high-performance air sealing),
you can approximate the capacity using a benchmark of 10 to 15 Watts per square meter (1 to 1.5 W/sq. ft.) for peak demand during an extreme -40°F freeze.
We see in the media, almost daily, photos of thick black smoke rising from Russian oil refineries near Moscow and other central cities, after Ukrainian drone attacks. Similarly, Ukrainian power plants and energy facilities are being attacked. Iran has received threats that all power plants are bomb targets.
The connection between geopolitics and energy has historically been close; but now the relationship is emerging in new forms and formats with massive attacks from drones and ballistic missiles.
Where energy has previously been a source of contention and serious conflict, the entire energy value chain now appears to be an increasingly important target in conflicts and wars.
This is a situation where full use of Ecat, in all applications where electricity is used, seems necessary to achieve “national energy security”.
A possible energy situation where the user is also the producer solves the security problem.
Today’s significant energy vulnerability could mean that all production and distribution of Ecat could be placed under state responsibility in many nations. In that case, this would include all production, production volumes, prices and distribution to areas of application.
Total energy security has now become one of the nations’ most important technological defense tasks.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
What do you think, if the E-Cat comes even without SSM, is that the salvation for the EU from its self-inflicted high energy prices? How quickly can a production line for an E-Cat production of tens of GW of output per year be set up?
Best regards
W. Rudolf
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Now that your reply to Frank Acland is 100% sure for the non-SSM, can you comment on what non-SSM means:
1. The E-Cat has no battery.
2. The E-Cat is connected to a wall socket (although the power withdrawn from the socket is negligible).
3. The E-Cat power output is one phase AC and 230/110 V resp. 50/60 Hz.
4. The AC wave is approximately a sine wave.
5. The E-Cat output cannot be fed to a wall socket or the grid without additional components and engineering not included in the E-Cat.
6. The power output can be adjusted (by a knob?) to a fraction of the rated power.
7. The E-Cat is well fit to feed a resistive load such as a home space heater.
Thank you if you can answer,
Kind regards,
Calle H
Although the NGU would solve many power and cooling challenges for data centers, some of the social issues surrounding acceptance of data centers are still barriers to their adoption. I suggest that your partner also consider other industries requiring a high consumption of electrical power for their processes, including many engaged with mills, kilns and raw materials processing to help them achieve energy efficiency and emissions reduction:
Aluminum Smelting (Electrolysis): Refining aluminum from bauxite ore using the Hall-Héroult process, requiring massive continuous electrical currents to break chemical bonds.
Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF) for Steel: Melting scrap steel to produce new metal requires intense electric arcs, consuming roughly 400 to 500 kWh per ton of steel.
Chlor-Alkali Process: Manufacturing chlorine, caustic soda (sodium hydroxide), and hydrogen gas relies on the massive electrolysis of saltwater solutions.
Industrial Machine Drive: Powering heavy motor systems, pumps, compressors, and conveyors across all factories accounts for more electricity use than heating, lighting, and cooling combined.
Industrial Refrigeration and Cryogenics: Maintaining warehouse-sized cold storage or freezing operations for food, chemicals, and gas liquefaction requires heavy, round-the-clock compressor loads.
Industrial Electro-Thermal Heating: Using electric resistance or induction heating for melting glass, curing materials, or specialized high-temperature reaction vessels.
“Return on investment (ROI) in a multi-year operation measures the total net profit earned across multiple years divided by the total costs incurred over that same period.
How Multi-Year ROI Works
Basic Formula: ROI = (Total Net Profit Over All Years / Total Investment Cost) × 100
Phased Costs: Multi-year operations often involve initial setup costs in year one, followed by ongoing maintenance, labor, or upgrade costs in subsequent years.
Cumulative Returns: Benefits accrue over time. Year one might show a loss or low return, while later years generate higher revenue or cost savings that drive the overall ROI positive.”
In my calculation of ROI, I used the averaged annual ROI over the estimated lifetime of the product.
Inverter-based Resources(IBRs) can be Grid Following (GFL) vs Grid Forming (GFM)
Will the Ecat inverter perform as a GFM inverter that supports the grid?
The basic system diagram is:
Ecat
Battery
GFM Grid Forming Inverter
GridGFM Inverter Technology and the Ecat.
Inverter-based Resources (IBRs) can be Grid Following (GFL) vs Grid Forming (GFM)
Will the Ecat inverter perform as a GFM inverter that supports the grid?
The basic system diagram is:
Ecat
Battery
GFM Grid Forming Inverter
Grid
The battery supports the operation of both the Ecat and the GFM inverter
The GFM inverter + battery supports the routine and fault operation of the Grid
[1:] https://www.neso.energy/energy-101/electricity-explained/how-do-we-balance-grid/what-grid-forming
As we transition to zero carbon technologies we need new tools to deliver inertia, frequency and other stability services.
Grid Forming technology allows batteries and renewables to deliver the same outputs as traditional power stations.
GFM is important to maintain the stability of the electricity network as Great Britain begins to phase out fossil fuel electricity to deliver a clean power system by 2030.
Great Britain was the first country in the world to include Grid Forming capability in its Grid Code (which detail some of the regulations that govern the electricity system)
The grid forming technology installed on a wind farm, solar park or battery etc alters the current and voltage to control fluctuations.
What are the benefits of Grid Forming?
This new technique will give NESO the ability to achieve system stability without the reliance on traditional synchronous plants (e.g. gas power stations). This will help enable the operation of a zero-carbon electricity system, which we aim to achieve in 2025.
[2:] https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy24osti/90256.pdf
Introduction to Grid Forming Inverters
– a Key to Transforming our Power Grid What is Grid Forming?
Global Landscape and Timeline for GFM Specifications
The UNIFI Consortium addresses the challenges of integrating grid-forming (GFM) technologies into electric power systems
Kauai (80MWpeak) is the only place in the world with multiple 10MW+ GFM systems in operation paralleled to grid. The grid operator (KIUC) is successfully operating the grid at 90% inverter-based resources at times which translate to around 45% annually.
[3:] https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy24osti/90256.pdf
Why do we need Grid-forming (GFM) Inverters in the Bulk Power System?
GFM IBR controls output Voltage
UNIFI GFM Specs Version 2 – Published in March 2024
GFL vs. GFM – is is just software or is there a hardware difference?
For the most part, the control algorithms are just software changes.
Do I need energy storage? GFM paired with energy storage offers the full capabilities of GFM response.
The battery supports the operation of both the Ecat and the GFM inverter
The GFM inverter + battery supports the routine and fault operation of the Grid
[1:] https://www.neso.energy/energy-101/electricity-explained/how-do-we-balance-grid/what-grid-forming
As we transition to zero carbon technologies we need new tools to deliver inertia, frequency and other stability services.
Grid Forming technology allows batteries and renewables to deliver the same outputs as traditional power stations.
GFM is important to maintain the stability of the electricity network as Great Britain begins to phase out fossil fuel electricity to deliver a clean power system by 2030.
Great Britain was the first country in the world to include Grid Forming capability in its Grid Code (which detail some of the regulations that govern the electricity system)
The grid forming technology installed on a wind farm, solar park or battery etc alters the current and voltage to control fluctuations.
What are the benefits of Grid Forming?
This new technique will give NESO the ability to achieve system stability without the reliance on traditional synchronous plants (e.g. gas power stations). This will help enable the operation of a zero-carbon electricity system, which we aim to achieve in 2025.
[2:] https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy24osti/90256.pdf
Introduction to Grid Forming Inverters
– a Key to Transforming our Power Grid What is Grid Forming?
Global Landscape and Timeline for GFM Specifications
The UNIFI Consortium addresses the challenges of integrating grid-forming (GFM) technologies into electric power systems
Kauai (80MWpeak) is the only place in the world with multiple 10MW+ GFM systems in operation paralleled to grid. The grid operator (KIUC) is successfully operating the grid at 90% inverter-based resources at times which translate to around 45% annually.
[3:] https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy24osti/90256.pdf
Why do we need Grid-forming (GFM) Inverters in the Bulk Power System?
GFM IBR controls output Voltage
UNIFI GFM Specs Version 2 – Published in March 2024
Frank Acland:
We reached a benchmark very important on the way toward the SSM. By the way: the non SSM is sure at 100 % in case we should adopt the plan B.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thanks for the answers; still trying to understand your analysis:
As I understand it, {Net_Profit= Net_income – Total_Cost}. So, breakeven (4.6 Years) is the point where ROI=0. Before that ROI is negative, and after that ROI is positive. At 9.2 Years (Assuming the Ecat were still operational), ROI should be 100%.
With respect to discarding a system once Warranty expires– clearly no, but the Warranty is guarantied by the company (with presumed reimbursement, if necessary), and Expected-Lifetime is calculated (without operational field experience or reimbursement promises). If field experience aligns closely with the 11-year number, presumably the warranty lifetime will increase over time. For a business case, however, I would think one would use the guarantied warranty interval and not the estimated, Expected-Lifetime.
As an example, Solar panels (which, electrically, are fairly simple devices) have built-in redundancy and have warranties that range from 10 to 30 years and expected lifetimes of 25-35 years (according to one source).
Possibly, I’m missing something in your underlying assumptions?
Dear Andrea
Congratulations on a great leap forward with SSM.
1 Are you still committed to doing the Global Presentation (GP) whether SSM is ready or not?
2 Will your partners be publicly presented at the GP?
3 Is Ecat without SSM third party assessed?
4 Are the 20 units currently in operation SSM or without SSM?
5 How many individual 100 W units have been tested together in one generator?
Joseph Fine:
1- The situation is more complex, detailed and it is restricted
2- Not with the same configuration
3- No
4- Yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
1. Which of your testing programs in different configurations gives you a better prediction of 5 Sigma reliability ?
a) A number of small sub-assemblies of 100 W and/or 1kW units connected together to yield an output of 5-20 kW
b) A larger number of 100 W or 1 kW standalone units not in larger assemblies
c) A collection of all test results i.e. both a) and b)
2. Have any units or assemblies operated continuously for 1-2 years yet?
3. If you have several 5 KW assemblies (each with 50 100W subunits) without any subunit failures for 2-3 years etc., does that imply there will not be more than 1-2 small unit failures in 4-5 years etc.
4. The answer presumably is TBD (to be determined)
So, net profit is earned during operation, as well as after pay-back time.
Warranty has little to do with expected operational lifetime. Operation lifetime is expected to about 11 years. Would you discard a system simply because the warranty expired? In this case, use the NGU Power Generator until it fails, then replace it. The warranty cover infancy fails.
Dr Rossi,
How would you choose about the probabilities that you will confirm the SSM at the presentation next January:
1- 30%
2- 50%
3- 70%
4- 90%
Thank you if you can answer,
Alpino
Questions (not to criticize, but seeking understanding):
1) What warranty interval are you assuming from the manufacturer? Because breakeven (4.6 years) doesn’t occur until after the previously stated warranty interval (3 yrs).
2) What time interval is the 22% ROI based on (presumably after breakeven)?
3) I realize that the, previously mentioned, operational lifetime is roughly 11 years, but if the seller doesn’t have the confidence/experience to back that number up with a comparable warranty interval, would you still suggest building a business case assuming post-warranty operation?
Assume an eCat NGU installation in a typical USA residential home.
“Daily Average: About 30 kWh per day (a continuous power draw of roughly 1,200 watts averaged over 24 hours).Peak Demand: Most homes require 5,000 to 20,000 watts (5–20 kW) at any given moment when major appliances run simultaneously.”
Assume the homeowner uses 2kW of NGU power generator coupled with an inverter and a battery system – the battery system accommodates surge requirements. This will be the fixed cost to be Grid independent in terms of monthly Grid electricity cost.
Question: Does it make economic sense to add a 1kW NGU power generator to sell electricity back to the Grid?
1. Assume a 1kW NGU costs $4,000USD ($4USD per Watt).
2. Grid reimbursement rate is assumed to be an average of $0.10 per kW-hr provided. (higher during peak demand, lower during off-load hours)
3. NGU runs 24/7 every day – 8,760 hours in a year.
4. $876USD earned per year.
5. Payback in 4.6 years.
6. About 22% Return On Investment.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Ohh, I understand, you referred to our R&D with a 25 kW module: it is still under R&D, but in this period our major focus is on the SSM; the 25 K is not urgent, because anyway we can reach any power assembling modules.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
To obtain the same annual energy as a 3 kW E-Cat operating 24/7/365, I would need about 26,280 kWh per year.
In Norway, I would roughly estimate 100 kWp of solar panels — around 500 m² — together with about 10 MWh of battery storage to approach a fully self-sufficient system.
A rough investment could be $ 0,3–0,4 million.
The E-Cat is specified at approximately 25 × 15 × 30 cm and 4 kg.
That is the comparison I find remarkable:
3 kW of firm power — 24/7/365 — from a 4 kg unit, versus hundreds of square metres of solar panels and a large battery installation of multible tons.
I am looking at the dimensions that you have operated with for a 3kW Ecat so far.
This is pretty much the exact same dimensions as a box containing 6 regular bottles of wine.
This is an incredibly small size.
The weight of the Ecat is also close to half of the box before the wine is taken out.
That is also impressive.
Will the latest edition also have a similarly minimalist size and weight?
I just finished a new take on the EVO and the vacuum reaction. I got the AI to do the research and TO justify that existing science can explain the EVO and explain how it works.
Are there any delays foreseen in the January 2027 commercial product NGU release to date ?
@Maico
I thank you for your presentation of ECAT OFF-GRID ENERGY PROJECT.
Everyone is free to find a desired use for Ecat.
Since a 15 kWh battery costs about the same as 2 kW Ecat, I would rather choose to spend my money on acquiring a device that produces energy rather than using it on a “battery bank with negative interest”.
A battery does not produce energy, only consumes part of the energy that it stores.
I would rather invest in a system for a total of 3 kW Ecat and connect this to the network that takes care of the buffer and storage effect that I need.
It is easy to calculate what improved economic effect this would have.
We will probably have to wait until the global presentation is over and a number of competent engineers have tested and system-integrated units, to see what is possible to achieve with Ecats in different situations.
Regards Svein
DrLG:
I think we’ll do,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Massimo
Dear Massimo, from the very beginning, the goal of my research has been to identify the application with the highest impact and the widest, most practical feasibility.
Every single building—whether a public or private residence, a company, or a factory—is connected to a POD (Point of Delivery). Consequently, the solution described has a potentially universal application. Thanks to the introduction of the off-grid inverter (connected directly to the building’s electrical wiring, plus the ground wire), it is possible to power virtually any appliance or system, including heating and cooling.
Therefore, I haven’t forgotten about the “E-Cat boiler.” While heat is certainly a universal necessity, my objective was different, as explained above.
In Italy, about 20% of homes use a centralized heating system with very high total thermal capacities, while the remaining 80% rely on independent systems. In the latter case, each property generally has its own gas boiler managing two distinct circuits: one for the radiators and one for the domestic hot water (DHW).
Replacing it with an E-Cat boiler would require plumbing work on both systems, as well as installing two separate storage tanks to manage the different water temperatures (including a larger one dedicated specifically to domestic hot water).
The inverter, by contrast, would require a much simpler installation, essentially limited to connecting just two electrical wires (plus the building’s ground).
Of course, I completely agree with you on one point: whatever E-Cat product is presented in January 2027, it will be an extraordinary success.
However, my analysis focuses on a very specific goal: identifying the application capable of delivering the maximum impact and the most immediate ease of implementation.
With this in mind, as anticipated in my report, I am already prepared to execute and document the commissioning as soon as the E-Cat becomes available.
Best regards,
Ciao Maico
Dr. Rossi:
Did you make a formal monthly report for september? or is the “big breakthrough” and “70%” chance of Jan. SSM, to be considered this month’s report?
Thanks/DrLG
@Maico
Dear Maico, your interesting hypothesis, which I’ve been mulling over for about six years, does not take into account—correct me if I’m wrong—the e-cat boiler that Rossi said will be presented in January. If, as the engineer “promised,” it can be used in domestic heating systems, even the disconnection from the gas distribution could be accomplished by you and all of us passionate visitors to this forum very quickly. For this reason, we must wait for the presentation, with the technical specifications and costs, in January. With or without SSM, I believe this will be the first step.
Maico:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Please accept my apologies for the length of this post, but I believe that the data it contains, the analysis of those data, the project described and the conclusions reached are well worth sharing with you and your readers.
If possible, I would be very pleased to hear your comments and thoughts on what I have presented.
The project is entitled:
E-CAT OFF-GRID ENERGY PROJECT
or, even better:
E-CAT AND OFF-GRID SYSTEMS: THE ENERGY AND ECONOMIC REVOLUTION FOR EVERYONE
The complete document can be downloaded in PDF format from the following link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d1aY41h4_jw1-tmof2RG9s8fmjJ9AJTN/view?usp=drive_link
For immediate access, I have also included the same content below in plain-text format, so that it can be displayed and read correctly on JONP.
We are all eagerly looking forward to the presentation scheduled for January 2027!
Warm regards,
Ciao Maico
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
E-CAT AND OFF-GRID SYSTEMS:
THE ENERGY AND ECONOMIC REVOLUTION FOR EVERYONE
Analysis and Project by Maico
=====================================================
THE PROJECT AT A GLANCE
=====================================================
– Actual measured average consumption: 20.5 kWh per day
– Initial configuration: ten 100 W E-Cat modules, a 5-6 kW off-grid hybrid inverter and a LiFePO4 battery of at least 15 kWh
– Estimated net generation: approximately 21.6 kWh per day
– Total initial investment: approximately EUR 7,050
– Estimated total economic benefit: approximately EUR 3,020 per year
– Break-even point: approximately 2 years and 4 months
– Theoretical net economic benefit over ten years: approximately EUR 23,150
– Possible fully electric evolution: 14 E-Cat modules, 1.4 kW continuous power and approximately 30.2 kWh net per day
IN SHORT
Based on my home’s actual consumption, an E-Cat-based off-grid system could meet my electricity needs, pay for itself in just over two years and represent the first step towards a fully electric home!
In the following sections, I will explain in detail the data, assumptions and calculations that led me to these results.
======================================================
THE IDEA
======================================================
While waiting for the 100 W E-Cat NGU units to become available, I have tried to “get a little ahead of the game”.
I have read several simulations shared on the blog by different readers, exploring the use of E-Cat units combined with different types of inverters to create “on-grid” systems.
This solution could certainly offer several advantages, which are already well known and have been widely discussed.
However, connecting to the grid requires compliance with specific regulations, as well as the necessary procedures and authorisations involving the electricity supplier and distribution system operator. At least initially, obtaining such authorisations for a new and highly innovative product such as the E-Cat could prove very difficult.
Off-grid systems, on the other hand, generate energy locally and operate without any connection to the public electricity grid. For this very reason, the procedures to be followed are much simpler than those required for on-grid systems. Naturally, the system must be installed in compliance with applicable standards by qualified personnel, and all the equipment used must have the necessary safety and conformity certifications, including CE marking where applicable.
Naturally, when it is brought to market, the E-Cat will have the certifications required for its intended use, as will all the other systems that will make up the off-grid installation.
This is why I am absolutely convinced that an off-grid architecture could represent the simplest and most cost-effective way to use the E-Cat in homes all over the world.
But let me get to the point. I will try to explain my idea as concisely as possible.
In Italy, as I imagine is also the case in many other countries, electricity is supplied to a home through a meter associated with a POD, the Point of Delivery that identifies the connection to the public electricity grid. When a generation system is connected to the grid, the relevant technical standards and connection procedures must be followed.
If the supply is terminated and the domestic electrical system is made completely independent and physically separated from the public grid, it can then be powered by a genuinely off-grid local generation system. In this case, the procedures required for connecting a generation system to the grid are no longer necessary, although all rules concerning safety, design and correct installation must, of course, still be observed.
In my case, the expected cost of terminating the electricity supply and deactivating the meter is approximately EUR 50. Within less than a month of the request, the supply should be terminated and the supplier should issue the final settlement bill, including any charges applicable to the operation.
=====================================================
THE REAL DATA BEHIND MY ESTIMATES
=====================================================
And now let us turn to the real data on which I based my estimates.
Before writing this post, I waited until I had collected real electricity-consumption data for my home for July and August 2026. I did not choose these two months at random: they were marked by particularly high temperatures and by the numerous heatwaves that affected Italy and Europe during the summer.
In my home, heating and domestic hot water are still supplied using natural gas, while everything else, including the air-conditioning system, oven, washing machine, dishwasher, tumble dryer, hob and all other household appliances, is powered by electricity.
The air-conditioning system is inverter-based and can therefore also operate as a heat pump. It consists of a single outdoor unit serving three indoor units. During July and August, the air conditioners remained switched on for a large part of the day.
Overall, between July and August, I consumed 1,270 kWh over 62 days, corresponding to an average of approximately 20.5 kWh per day.
I have a fairly competitive electricity supply contract. Taking into account the energy charge, fixed charge and capacity charge, my overall average cost is approximately EUR 0.27/kWh. Over the 62 days of July and August, I therefore spent approximately EUR 343. If the same average consumption were projected over a full year, the annual cost would be approximately EUR 2,020.
Last year, I spent EUR 2,200 on natural gas for heating and domestic hot water, without any contribution from the air-conditioning system.
As a prudent assumption, I have kept average electricity consumption constant throughout the year, in line with the level recorded during the summer months, and have included winter operation of the air-conditioning system in heat-pump mode in my estimate.
I believe it is reasonable to estimate that this use could reduce my annual gas expenditure from approximately EUR 2,200 to EUR 1,200, producing savings of around EUR 1,000 per year.
The estimated annual electricity cost, including winter use of the heat pump, would be approximately EUR 2,020. Consequently, by eliminating the electricity bill through the off-grid system, the total theoretical economic benefit would be:
EUR 2,020 in avoided electricity costs + EUR 1,000 in gas savings = approximately EUR 3,020 per year
======================================================
SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
======================================================
Based on the average consumption measured, in order to meet my home’s electricity needs with an off-grid system, I would require:
1. Gross daily generation of 24 kWh, corresponding to continuous generation of 1 kW. Assuming total losses of 10%, I would obtain approximately 21.6 kWh net per day, above my average consumption of 20.5 kWh.
2. An off-grid hybrid inverter capable of delivering at least 5-6 kW continuously and managing a battery.
3. A LiFePO4 battery with a capacity of at least 15 kWh, to store generation that is not consumed immediately and to support both power peaks and the hours during which household consumption exceeds the continuous generation of 1 kW.
As for items 2 and 3, I have already identified and purchased suitable commercially available products, with the necessary certifications and warranties of at least five years. The battery even uses automotive-grade LiFePO4 cells, for which the manufacturer declares at least 75% State of Health after 8,000 complete charge and discharge cycles: a service life that, for my intended use, makes them practically “eternal”! The entire package cost me less than EUR 3,000.
As for item 1, the reasoning is simple:
– The calculation could not be simpler: ten 100 W E-Cat modules would provide a total of 1 kW of continuous power, corresponding to gross daily generation of 24 kWh. Assuming total losses of 10%, I would obtain approximately 21.6 kWh net per day, above my average daily consumption of 20.5 kWh. The modules will therefore need to be connected to the off-grid hybrid inverter.
– Regardless of the output configuration in which the 100 W E-Cat is made available, whether AC at 110/230 V and 50/60 Hz or DC between 10 and 450 V, I have already purchased certified equipment specifically selected to enable me to connect a 1 kW array consisting of ten 100 W E-Cat modules to the inverter, at a cost of less than EUR 500. This equipment can also limit the power demanded from each E-Cat, keeping it within the limits specified by the manufacturer.
My domestic electrical installation is already compliant and has been certified by my trusted installer. I also have a small room suitable for housing the E-Cat modules, inverter, battery and interconnection equipment, without requiring particularly complex work. The certified installer who will take care of the off-grid system has already provided me with a quotation of approximately EUR 500 and, once the work has been completed, will issue the relevant declaration of conformity.
======================================================
COSTS AND BREAK-EVEN POINT
======================================================
It is time to add everything up.
The one-off costs already incurred or expected are therefore:
– Termination of the electricity supply and meter deactivation: EUR 50
– Hybrid inverter and battery: EUR 3,000
– Ten 100 W E-Cat modules: estimated EUR 3,000
– Interconnection equipment: EUR 500
– Installation and certification: EUR 500
TOTAL ESTIMATED INITIAL INVESTMENT: EUR 7,050
If I remember correctly, previous communications stated that the E-Cat would carry a three-year warranty. Let us therefore run the numbers over the same period.
TOTAL THEORETICAL ECONOMIC BENEFIT OVER THREE YEARS:
EUR 3,020 x 3 = EUR 9,060
An off-grid system based on 1 kW of E-Cat power and sized for a home like mine would therefore have a theoretical break-even point of approximately 2.3 years, or around 2 years and 4 months.
By the end of the third year, the accumulated net economic benefit would be approximately EUR 2,010. From the break-even point onwards, the benefit would continue to grow at a theoretical rate of approximately EUR 3,020 for each full year of operation.
I will leave you to calculate what the theoretical net economic benefit over ten years could be…
No, I simply cannot resist writing it:
EUR 23,150
Net of the initial investment and before any maintenance or component replacement costs!
======================================================
THE NEXT STEP: A FULLY ELECTRIC HOME
======================================================
Over the years, these savings would allow me to invest in making my home fully electric, eliminating the natural-gas supply as well, upgrading the heat pumps and producing domestic hot water electrically using the energy generated by the E-Cat.
The natural evolution of my off-grid system would be to add another four 100 W E-Cat modules, bringing the total to 14 modules. With continuous power of 1.4 kW and assuming an average overall efficiency of 90%, net generation would be approximately 30.2 kWh per day, almost 10 kWh more than my current average daily electricity consumption. This additional energy could support the transition towards a fully electric home.
In this way, if the additional generation proved sufficient to cover heating and domestic hot-water production as well, I could completely eliminate the gas supply and save the remaining EUR 1,200 per year currently budgeted, significantly increasing the overall economic benefit of the E-Cat-based system. The four additional modules, equal to 0.4 kW, would have an estimated cost of approximately EUR 1,200 and, considering only the cost of the modules and the additional savings on my gas bill, could pay for themselves in just one year!
Furthermore, with net generation of approximately 30 kWh per day, once I had covered the energy required to make the home fully electric, any remaining energy could be used to charge my Twizy, which everyone knows, and the family’s second battery-electric vehicle, making the E-Cat an even more attractive investment.
The beauty of the concept I have described is that it can be adapted to the vast majority of homes, industrial buildings, and public and private facilities, by appropriately sizing E-Cat generation, storage and the inverter according to actual consumption and local regulations.
A VIRTUALLY LIMITLESS POOL OF POTENTIAL USERS!
What more is there to say? Integrating the E-Cat into off-grid systems can certainly be considered a “Columbus’s egg”: an elegantly simple solution for a sustainable and cost-effective energy transition.
A WONDERFUL FUTURE AWAITS US!
I cannot wait to take delivery of the E-Cat units I have pre-ordered.
As described above, I already have the accessories, equipment and instruments required to build and commission an E-Cat-based off-grid system in my home, which will be installed in compliance with applicable standards by qualified personnel and accompanied by the relevant declaration of conformity.
I will document its construction, commissioning and operation in exhaustive detail, so that I can show concretely what the E-Cat is capable of, how it can be integrated into an off-grid system, and what energy and economic benefits it can offer.
I have absolutely no doubt that the E-Cat will deliver on its full potential, combining performance, ease of integration, sustainability and full compliance with the regulations applicable to off-grid systems, while fitting perfectly into a context that is far simpler than that of grid-connected systems.
I cannot wait for the E-Cat presentation scheduled for January 2027 and for its commercial launch and worldwide distribution to finally begin.
AT THAT POINT, I WILL FINALLY BE ABLE TO TURN THIS PROJECT INTO REALITY AND SHARE IT WITH THE WHOLE WORLD!
Ciao Maico
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your suggestions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Axil:
Thank you for your links.
I cannot forward your papers to the peer reviewers of the Journal of Nuclear Physics, because they refuse to publish anonymous papers, and obviously an internet persona identified only with a nickname is anonymous, as I already explained to you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Axil:
This will not depend only on me,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Paul Dogshun
Thank you for your information on September 7, 2026 at 07:15.
This was an excellent and well-documented introduction to the importance of GFM when using Ecat.
This shows that, in my understanding, it is necessary for Ecat to function as a GFM inverter to support the grid.
To your last question that AR could not answer, I ask you to present your own conclusions about the necessary battery storage in connection with the use of Ecat SSM and not SSM in the connected grid to ensure the necessary GFM or GFL.
Regards Svein
After your IP is protected, do you intend to publish research results, or spend all your time on product improvements?
The current theoretical-development stage of the Vacuum Reaction research program has reached a defined endpoint.
The work has been organized into a linked four-paper research series. This is not intended to represent the end of Vacuum Reaction research or a claim that the theory has been experimentally established. Rather, the series provides a documented foundation from which future researchers, experimentalists, and AI systems can continue the investigation.
A description of the work completed, its scientific status, the major unresolved questions, and the intended direction of future research is available here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1–h4jflhvw-lVoStKKfJCznb_xu7xvIy/view?usp=sharing
The complete PDF containing all four papers, together with the series-level introduction and the connections between the papers, is available here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xzv9TLzYpx4Q5lRC-2mhhEoe2AX9To6f/view?usp=sharing
The purpose of this series is to define the proposed mechanisms, clearly distinguish established physics from reported observations, hypotheses, and unresolved questions, and identify experiments capable of supporting, modifying, or rejecting individual parts of the framework.
The principal unresolved issue is the origin of the proposed sustaining energy source. Rather than assigning that source to the vacuum or another reservoir without sufficient evidence, the series leaves its origin explicitly unresolved and treats it as an experimental question.
This endpoint is therefore a handoff rather than a conclusion. The framework has been organized so that future progress can increasingly be driven by discriminating experiments, new evidence, and continued work by both human researchers and AI systems.
If the links fail they can be accessed in the duplicate post:
https://e-catworld.com/2026/09/04/casimir-inc-extracting-power-from-the-quantum-vacuum-harold-sonny-white/#comment-6931153283
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Another application for eCat NGU devices – Alaska (or similar cold locations) emergency shelters – heating high-efficiency shelters
“In an energy-efficient Alaskan build featuring an exceptionally tight envelope (e.g., R-40 to R-60 walls, R-80+ ceilings, and high-performance air sealing),
you can approximate the capacity using a benchmark of 10 to 15 Watts per square meter (1 to 1.5 W/sq. ft.) for peak demand during an extreme -40°F freeze.
Shelter Size Estimated Peak Heating Load (kW)Equivalent BTU/hr.
Small Shelter/Tiny House (~400 sq. ft. / 37 m²)0.5 kW – 1.0 kW 1,700 – 3,400 BTU/hr.
Medium Cabin / Military Shelter (~800 sq. ft. / 74 m²)1.2 kW – 2.0 kW 4,100 – 6,800 BTU/hr.
Standard Residential Footprint (~1,500 sq. ft. / 140 m²)2.5 kW – 4.5 kW 8,500 – 15,300 BTU/hr.”
Svein:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
We see in the media, almost daily, photos of thick black smoke rising from Russian oil refineries near Moscow and other central cities, after Ukrainian drone attacks. Similarly, Ukrainian power plants and energy facilities are being attacked. Iran has received threats that all power plants are bomb targets.
The connection between geopolitics and energy has historically been close; but now the relationship is emerging in new forms and formats with massive attacks from drones and ballistic missiles.
Where energy has previously been a source of contention and serious conflict, the entire energy value chain now appears to be an increasingly important target in conflicts and wars.
This is a situation where full use of Ecat, in all applications where electricity is used, seems necessary to achieve “national energy security”.
A possible energy situation where the user is also the producer solves the security problem.
Today’s significant energy vulnerability could mean that all production and distribution of Ecat could be placed under state responsibility in many nations. In that case, this would include all production, production volumes, prices and distribution to areas of application.
Total energy security has now become one of the nations’ most important technological defense tasks.
Svein
W.Rudolf:
Surely the Ecat will enter the market, and you are right,
soon, SSM or not SSM as it might be,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
What do you think, if the E-Cat comes even without SSM, is that the salvation for the EU from its self-inflicted high energy prices? How quickly can a production line for an E-Cat production of tens of GW of output per year be set up?
Best regards
W. Rudolf
Greg Daigle:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Paul Dodgshun:
Thank you for the information.
I am not able to answer,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Calle H:
This information will be available after the presentation,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Now that your reply to Frank Acland is 100% sure for the non-SSM, can you comment on what non-SSM means:
1. The E-Cat has no battery.
2. The E-Cat is connected to a wall socket (although the power withdrawn from the socket is negligible).
3. The E-Cat power output is one phase AC and 230/110 V resp. 50/60 Hz.
4. The AC wave is approximately a sine wave.
5. The E-Cat output cannot be fed to a wall socket or the grid without additional components and engineering not included in the E-Cat.
6. The power output can be adjusted (by a knob?) to a fraction of the rated power.
7. The E-Cat is well fit to feed a resistive load such as a home space heater.
Thank you if you can answer,
Kind regards,
Calle H
Dear Andrea,
Although the NGU would solve many power and cooling challenges for data centers, some of the social issues surrounding acceptance of data centers are still barriers to their adoption. I suggest that your partner also consider other industries requiring a high consumption of electrical power for their processes, including many engaged with mills, kilns and raw materials processing to help them achieve energy efficiency and emissions reduction:
Aluminum Smelting (Electrolysis): Refining aluminum from bauxite ore using the Hall-Héroult process, requiring massive continuous electrical currents to break chemical bonds.
Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF) for Steel: Melting scrap steel to produce new metal requires intense electric arcs, consuming roughly 400 to 500 kWh per ton of steel.
Chlor-Alkali Process: Manufacturing chlorine, caustic soda (sodium hydroxide), and hydrogen gas relies on the massive electrolysis of saltwater solutions.
Industrial Machine Drive: Powering heavy motor systems, pumps, compressors, and conveyors across all factories accounts for more electricity use than heating, lighting, and cooling combined.
Industrial Refrigeration and Cryogenics: Maintaining warehouse-sized cold storage or freezing operations for food, chemicals, and gas liquefaction requires heavy, round-the-clock compressor loads.
Industrial Electro-Thermal Heating: Using electric resistance or induction heating for melting glass, curing materials, or specialized high-temperature reaction vessels.
Warm regards, Greg
WaltC,
“Return on investment (ROI) in a multi-year operation measures the total net profit earned across multiple years divided by the total costs incurred over that same period.
How Multi-Year ROI Works
Basic Formula: ROI = (Total Net Profit Over All Years / Total Investment Cost) × 100
Phased Costs: Multi-year operations often involve initial setup costs in year one, followed by ongoing maintenance, labor, or upgrade costs in subsequent years.
Cumulative Returns: Benefits accrue over time. Year one might show a loss or low return, while later years generate higher revenue or cost savings that drive the overall ROI positive.”
In my calculation of ROI, I used the averaged annual ROI over the estimated lifetime of the product.
GFM Inverter Technology and the Ecat.
Inverter-based Resources(IBRs) can be Grid Following (GFL) vs Grid Forming (GFM)
Will the Ecat inverter perform as a GFM inverter that supports the grid?
The basic system diagram is:
Ecat
Battery
GFM Grid Forming Inverter
GridGFM Inverter Technology and the Ecat.
Inverter-based Resources (IBRs) can be Grid Following (GFL) vs Grid Forming (GFM)
Will the Ecat inverter perform as a GFM inverter that supports the grid?
The basic system diagram is:
Ecat
Battery
GFM Grid Forming Inverter
Grid
The battery supports the operation of both the Ecat and the GFM inverter
The GFM inverter + battery supports the routine and fault operation of the Grid
[1:] https://www.neso.energy/energy-101/electricity-explained/how-do-we-balance-grid/what-grid-forming
As we transition to zero carbon technologies we need new tools to deliver inertia, frequency and other stability services.
Grid Forming technology allows batteries and renewables to deliver the same outputs as traditional power stations.
GFM is important to maintain the stability of the electricity network as Great Britain begins to phase out fossil fuel electricity to deliver a clean power system by 2030.
Great Britain was the first country in the world to include Grid Forming capability in its Grid Code (which detail some of the regulations that govern the electricity system)
The grid forming technology installed on a wind farm, solar park or battery etc alters the current and voltage to control fluctuations.
What are the benefits of Grid Forming?
This new technique will give NESO the ability to achieve system stability without the reliance on traditional synchronous plants (e.g. gas power stations). This will help enable the operation of a zero-carbon electricity system, which we aim to achieve in 2025.
[2:] https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy24osti/90256.pdf
Introduction to Grid Forming Inverters
– a Key to Transforming our Power Grid What is Grid Forming?
Global Landscape and Timeline for GFM Specifications
The UNIFI Consortium addresses the challenges of integrating grid-forming (GFM) technologies into electric power systems
Kauai (80MWpeak) is the only place in the world with multiple 10MW+ GFM systems in operation paralleled to grid. The grid operator (KIUC) is successfully operating the grid at 90% inverter-based resources at times which translate to around 45% annually.
[3:] https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy24osti/90256.pdf
Why do we need Grid-forming (GFM) Inverters in the Bulk Power System?
GFM IBR controls output Voltage
UNIFI GFM Specs Version 2 – Published in March 2024
[4:] https://www.nerc.com/globalassets/our-work/white-papers/white_paper_gfm_functional_specification.pdf
Studies have shown that grids dominated by inverter-based resources (IBR), in the absence of supplemental
synchronous machine-based solutions, need grid forming (GFM) IBRs to maintain stable operation
GFL vs. GFM – is is just software or is there a hardware difference?
For the most part, the control algorithms are just software changes.
Do I need energy storage? GFM paired with energy storage offers the full capabilities of GFM response.
The battery supports the operation of both the Ecat and the GFM inverter
The GFM inverter + battery supports the routine and fault operation of the Grid
[1:] https://www.neso.energy/energy-101/electricity-explained/how-do-we-balance-grid/what-grid-forming
As we transition to zero carbon technologies we need new tools to deliver inertia, frequency and other stability services.
Grid Forming technology allows batteries and renewables to deliver the same outputs as traditional power stations.
GFM is important to maintain the stability of the electricity network as Great Britain begins to phase out fossil fuel electricity to deliver a clean power system by 2030.
Great Britain was the first country in the world to include Grid Forming capability in its Grid Code (which detail some of the regulations that govern the electricity system)
The grid forming technology installed on a wind farm, solar park or battery etc alters the current and voltage to control fluctuations.
What are the benefits of Grid Forming?
This new technique will give NESO the ability to achieve system stability without the reliance on traditional synchronous plants (e.g. gas power stations). This will help enable the operation of a zero-carbon electricity system, which we aim to achieve in 2025.
[2:] https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy24osti/90256.pdf
Introduction to Grid Forming Inverters
– a Key to Transforming our Power Grid What is Grid Forming?
Global Landscape and Timeline for GFM Specifications
The UNIFI Consortium addresses the challenges of integrating grid-forming (GFM) technologies into electric power systems
Kauai (80MWpeak) is the only place in the world with multiple 10MW+ GFM systems in operation paralleled to grid. The grid operator (KIUC) is successfully operating the grid at 90% inverter-based resources at times which translate to around 45% annually.
[3:] https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy24osti/90256.pdf
Why do we need Grid-forming (GFM) Inverters in the Bulk Power System?
GFM IBR controls output Voltage
UNIFI GFM Specs Version 2 – Published in March 2024
[4:] https://www.nerc.com/globalassets/our-work/white-papers/white_paper_gfm_functional_specification.pdf
Studies have shown that grids dominated by inverter-based resources (IBR), in the absence of supplemental
synchronous machine-based solutions, need grid forming (GFM) IBRs to maintain stable operation
GFL vs. GFM – is is just software or is there a hardware difference?
For the most part, the control algorithms are just software changes.
Do I need energy storage? GFM paired with energy storage offers the full capabilities of GFM response.
Frank Acland:
We reached a benchmark very important on the way toward the SSM. By the way: the non SSM is sure at 100 % in case we should adopt the plan B.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thanks for the answers; still trying to understand your analysis:
As I understand it, {Net_Profit= Net_income – Total_Cost}. So, breakeven (4.6 Years) is the point where ROI=0. Before that ROI is negative, and after that ROI is positive. At 9.2 Years (Assuming the Ecat were still operational), ROI should be 100%.
With respect to discarding a system once Warranty expires– clearly no, but the Warranty is guarantied by the company (with presumed reimbursement, if necessary), and Expected-Lifetime is calculated (without operational field experience or reimbursement promises). If field experience aligns closely with the 11-year number, presumably the warranty lifetime will increase over time. For a business case, however, I would think one would use the guarantied warranty interval and not the estimated, Expected-Lifetime.
As an example, Solar panels (which, electrically, are fairly simple devices) have built-in redundancy and have warranties that range from 10 to 30 years and expected lifetimes of 25-35 years (according to one source).
Possibly, I’m missing something in your underlying assumptions?
Respectfully, WaltC
Dear Andrea
Congratulations on a great leap forward with SSM.
1 Are you still committed to doing the Global Presentation (GP) whether SSM is ready or not?
2 Will your partners be publicly presented at the GP?
3 Is Ecat without SSM third party assessed?
4 Are the 20 units currently in operation SSM or without SSM?
5 How many individual 100 W units have been tested together in one generator?
Warm Regards Svein
Dear Andrea,
What can you tell us about the ‘big jump ahead’ that you reported yesterday?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Joseph Fine:
1- The situation is more complex, detailed and it is restricted
2- Not with the same configuration
3- No
4- Yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
1. Which of your testing programs in different configurations gives you a better prediction of 5 Sigma reliability ?
a) A number of small sub-assemblies of 100 W and/or 1kW units connected together to yield an output of 5-20 kW
b) A larger number of 100 W or 1 kW standalone units not in larger assemblies
c) A collection of all test results i.e. both a) and b)
2. Have any units or assemblies operated continuously for 1-2 years yet?
3. If you have several 5 KW assemblies (each with 50 100W subunits) without any subunit failures for 2-3 years etc., does that imply there will not be more than 1-2 small unit failures in 4-5 years etc.
4. The answer presumably is TBD (to be determined)
Joseph Fine
WaltC,
ROI = (net profit/total cost) * 100% (definition)
So, net profit is earned during operation, as well as after pay-back time.
Warranty has little to do with expected operational lifetime. Operation lifetime is expected to about 11 years. Would you discard a system simply because the warranty expired? In this case, use the NGU Power Generator until it fails, then replace it. The warranty cover infancy fails.
Good Questions – Hope this clarifies my analysis.
Steve
Alpino Venturi:
Today big jump ahead.
The closest choice is 70%
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
How would you choose about the probabilities that you will confirm the SSM at the presentation next January:
1- 30%
2- 50%
3- 70%
4- 90%
Thank you if you can answer,
Alpino
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Questions (not to criticize, but seeking understanding):
1) What warranty interval are you assuming from the manufacturer? Because breakeven (4.6 years) doesn’t occur until after the previously stated warranty interval (3 yrs).
2) What time interval is the 22% ROI based on (presumably after breakeven)?
3) I realize that the, previously mentioned, operational lifetime is roughly 11 years, but if the seller doesn’t have the confidence/experience to back that number up with a comparable warranty interval, would you still suggest building a business case assuming post-warranty operation?
Best Wishes, WaltC
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Assume an eCat NGU installation in a typical USA residential home.
“Daily Average: About 30 kWh per day (a continuous power draw of roughly 1,200 watts averaged over 24 hours).Peak Demand: Most homes require 5,000 to 20,000 watts (5–20 kW) at any given moment when major appliances run simultaneously.”
Assume the homeowner uses 2kW of NGU power generator coupled with an inverter and a battery system – the battery system accommodates surge requirements. This will be the fixed cost to be Grid independent in terms of monthly Grid electricity cost.
Question: Does it make economic sense to add a 1kW NGU power generator to sell electricity back to the Grid?
1. Assume a 1kW NGU costs $4,000USD ($4USD per Watt).
2. Grid reimbursement rate is assumed to be an average of $0.10 per kW-hr provided. (higher during peak demand, lower during off-load hours)
3. NGU runs 24/7 every day – 8,760 hours in a year.
4. $876USD earned per year.
5. Payback in 4.6 years.
6. About 22% Return On Investment.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Ohh, I understand, you referred to our R&D with a 25 kW module: it is still under R&D, but in this period our major focus is on the SSM; the 25 K is not urgent, because anyway we can reach any power assembling modules.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I asked about the 25kW REACTOR you were testing several months ago.
I was not asking about combining 100W reactors for a production unit.
Any status on the protype 25 kW REACTOR?
Svein:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Sam:
Thank you for the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Charles Chase UnLAB
https://youtu.be/ET2iDRV8eHk?si=UWd-ZtY3qdCsgOPj
Dear Andrea
To obtain the same annual energy as a 3 kW E-Cat operating 24/7/365, I would need about 26,280 kWh per year.
In Norway, I would roughly estimate 100 kWp of solar panels — around 500 m² — together with about 10 MWh of battery storage to approach a fully self-sufficient system.
A rough investment could be $ 0,3–0,4 million.
The E-Cat is specified at approximately 25 × 15 × 30 cm and 4 kg.
That is the comparison I find remarkable:
3 kW of firm power — 24/7/365 — from a 4 kg unit, versus hundreds of square metres of solar panels and a large battery installation of multible tons.
Warm regards Svein
Steven Nicholes Karels:
The modules of the Ecat can be assembled to reach any power,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Sam:
Thank you for the links,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Axil:
Thank you for the links,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Svein:
The datasheet will be disclosed at the presentation,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
I am looking at the dimensions that you have operated with for a 3kW Ecat so far.
This is pretty much the exact same dimensions as a box containing 6 regular bottles of wine.
This is an incredibly small size.
The weight of the Ecat is also close to half of the box before the wine is taken out.
That is also impressive.
Will the latest edition also have a similarly minimalist size and weight?
Warm regards Svein
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yiTLhAS1wfwjut7ic7V3gR_zBQjmt2fy/view?usp=sharing
I just finished a new take on the EVO and the vacuum reaction. I got the AI to do the research and TO justify that existing science can explain the EVO and explain how it works.
If the link fails, go here
https://e-catworld.com/2026/08/22/e-cat-ssm-generator-has-run-without-interruption-for-3-months/#comment-6929701213