Axil:
Thank you for your insight.
The order of magnitute of the Entropy ratio between the non-coherent and the coherent configurations of the electrons is approximately equal to the number N of the interacting particles, and the coherent clusters status perhaps might be described like a single wave function analogous to the BEC condensate, which does not mean that there is a relationship between the Ecat process and the BEC status,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I recall that in the past, your licensee was said to be working on large E-cat NGU plants — as large as 1 Megawatt. Will a large plant be reported on at the upcoming January 2027 announcement?
I have been studying the evolution of your paper E-Cat SK and Long Range Particle Interactions, including the 2019 version and your later theoretical development.
Your recent explanation that the theory originated from phenomenological experimentation and was subsequently corroborated through discussions with theoretical physicists, principally Prof. Giorgio Vassallo, helped me understand that evolution better.
There is one aspect of your earlier theory that particularly interests me.
In the 2019 paper you proposed that, under special conditions, electron clusters could form a Bose-Einstein condensate, producing a highly ordered coherent state. Your later work gives greater theoretical development to Zitterbewegung, electromagnetic potentials and coherent charge structures.
I am investigating the earlier coherence/BEC direction in my own theoretical work. My starting point is established physics of coherent dispersive systems, particularly exciton-polariton condensates, including phase coherence, Bogoliubov excitations, anomalous dispersion and experimentally observed negative-effective-mass regimes. I explicitly separate these established phenomena from the speculative extension of my model.
The possibility I am examining is that coherence may do more than organize the system. The condensate itself may provide an important motive mechanism:
coherent condensate → anomalous dispersion / negative-effective-mass dynamics → proposed modification of the local quantum electromagnetic field → proposed disequilibrium → energy transfer.
The latter connections are hypotheses requiring experimental verification. What interests me is that the starting point appears compatible with the BEC/coherence possibility you identified in your 2019 paper.
Therefore, rather than asking whether one theoretical approach is correct and another is not, I would be very interested in understanding the causal hierarchy in your present theory:
Do you presently regard BEC/phase coherence as a necessary cause of the E-Cat reaction, as a consequence of the Zitterbewegung/electromagnetic mechanism, or as one component of a mechanism in which both are necessary?
Any clarification of how you presently understand the relationship among BEC, coherence, Zitterbewegung and energy production would be very useful to my research.
1: Will the Ecat built in inverter provide some or all of these capabilities listed below or will it be a basic GFL(grid following inverter) inverter?
2: Will the Ecat inverter, if GFM, be a GFM Type 1 or 2 or 3 or or 4 as defined below?
3: Will the Ecat built-in inverter be easily upgradeable as grid demanded capabilities inevitably change in the future?
4: If the Ecat built-in inverter experiences a fault, will the whole Ecat have to be returned to an Ecat factory or will a plug-in replacement for just the inverter be possible?
5: If a plug-in replacement inverter is possible, will the Ecat’s DC power be available from the same socket?
Table 1. GFM Performance Tiers
1 Voltage magnitude support
2 Voltage angle/frequency support & minimum islanding capability
3 Voltage angle/frequency support & extended islanding capability GFM BESS
4 Black start GFM BESS with black star
2 Performance Requirements for GFM IBRs …7
2.1 Performance Requirements for Operation Within Normal Grid Operating Conditions . 9
2.1.1 Autonomously Support the Grid …… 9
2.1.2 Dispatchability of Power Output …… 9
2.1.3 Provide Positive Damping of Voltage and Frequency Oscillations … 10
2.1.4 Active and Reactive Power Sharing Across Generation Resources … 11
2.1.5 Operation in Grids With Low System Strength ….. 11
2.1.6 Operation Under System Unbalance …… 12
2.2 Performance Requirements for Operation Outside Normal Conditions … 13
2.2.1 Voltage Ride-Through Capability …… 13
2.2.2 Performance During Symmetrical Faults … 14
2.2.3 Performance During Asymmetrical Faults ….. 14
2.2.4 Abnormal Frequency Ride-Through Capability….. 14
2.2.5 Performance in Response to Frequency Deviations …… 15
2.2.6 Performance During Phase Jumps and Voltage Steps…. 15
3 Additional GFM Capabilities ……. 16
3.1 Intentional Islanding ….. 16
3.1.1 General ……. 16
3.1.2 Requirements…… 16
3.1.3 Comments …… 16
3.2 Black Start and System Restoration …… 16
3.2.1 General ……. 16
3.2.2 Requirements…… 17
3.2.3 Comments …… 17
3.3 Regulating Voltage Harmonics …… 18
3.3.1 Requirements…… 18
3.4 Communications Between System Operator and IBR Plant ….. 18
3.4.1 Requirements…… 18
3.5 Secondary Voltage and Frequency Signal Response …. 18
3.5.1 Requirements…… 18
Yes. Your calculation illustrates the point very well. But my Cuba PS was intended to raise a somewhat different question.
Before the present fuel crisis, Cuba was producing roughly 20.7 TWh of electricity per year, corresponding to an average electrical output of about 2.36 GW. Around 84% of its electricity generation was oil-based.
Today, according to your figure, the average electrical output is only about 1.78 GW — and Cuba is suffering from severe fuel shortages and widespread blackouts.
Now imagine that, instead of depending almost entirely on fuel being delivered to centralized power plants, Cuba had gradually installed one 1.2 kW Ecat in each of its 3.8 million homes.
That would represent: 3.8 million × 1.2 kW = 4.56 GW
In other words, the theoretical Ecat capacity in the homes would be almost twice the average electricity production Cuba had before the present crisis, and more than 2.5 times the average output you mention today.
That is what I was thinking about with the Cuba example.
The important question is not simply how many gigawatts the Ecats could produce.
It is what happens to the vulnerability of a country when the fuel does not have to be imported to a central power station because the energy is produced where it is consumed.
Cuba might then have had a very different situation today.
And that, I think, is one of the most interesting consequences of the idea: The user becomes the producer.
The lodestar of my Vacuum Reaction paper is a simple one:
**The proposed reaction should be explainable, as far as possible, by physics that already exists.**
The objective is not to invent new particles, new forces, or new physical processes whenever an unfamiliar observation appears. It is to determine whether established physics—sometimes drawn from areas that are not commonly considered together—can account for the individual stages of the proposed process.
A major revision of the paper is now underway for precisely this reason. Some concepts used in earlier versions are being replaced by more rigorous descriptions based on existing physics.
One example is what I previously called the **“reverse photon.”** I no longer regard that terminology as sufficiently precise. Physics already contains the relevant mathematical structures: anomalous dispersion, Bogoliubov mode mixing, negative-frequency and negative-norm partner modes, and related effects in coherent quantum systems. These phenomena are established. What is *not* established is my proposed connection between such behavior in the coherent system and a modification of the local quantum electromagnetic vacuum state. That connection must therefore remain an explicit hypothesis to be tested, rather than being disguised by introducing a new kind of photon.
A second important correction concerns energy.
Earlier descriptions could be read as proposing that the vacuum itself is an unlimited reservoir from which energy is simply extracted. That is not the formulation I now use.
**Energy conservation must remain intact.**
If excess energy enters the observable system, there must be a corresponding energy source. The revised Vacuum Reaction framework therefore distinguishes three things:
The identity of any additional reservoir is presently unresolved. The vacuum should not simply be declared to be that reservoir.
Instead, the hypothesis being investigated is whether a coherent quantum state can provide an interface through which energy is transferred from an underlying reservoir into the local electromagnetic system. In the present revision I call the proposed interface the **Dispersion-Vacuum Interface (DVI)**.
The energy accounting can be stated simply:
**Change in source energy + change in coherent-state energy + change in field energy + output energy + losses = 0.**
If experiment cannot identify the source term, that is an unresolved scientific problem. It is not permission to violate conservation of energy.
This principle now governs the entire revision.
For every stage of the Vacuum Reaction I am asking four questions:
**What was observed?**
**What existing physics can explain it?**
**Where does an unproven connection remain?**
**What experiment can determine whether that connection is real?**
As an additional check on this methodology, I have been submitting sections of the revised framework to Claude for adversarial scientific review. In its latest foundation review, Claude found no physics errors in the first three phases and rated the foundation **“B — FOUNDATION ACCEPTED FOR CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT WITH SPECIFIC CORRECTIONS.”** The corrections were incorporated into the development architecture.
One principle from that review is particularly important: established physics on either side of an unresolved connection does not establish the connection itself. The unknown connection must remain identified as unknown until experiment resolves it.
The result may ultimately show that some proposed connections are wrong. That is acceptable. A useful theory must make it possible to eliminate its own incorrect components.
The goal of the Vacuum Reaction framework is therefore not to construct exotic physics around unexplained observations.
It is almost the opposite:
**Use established physics wherever established physics is sufficient, isolate the smallest remaining unknowns, and design experiments capable of deciding whether those unknown connections actually exist.**
You always encourage us to think. So I thought I would continue a little along your line of thinking and asked AI for some figures for Europe, using your US model.
Here are the figures that came out:
The EU has approximately 200 million private households.
If each household had one 1.2 kW Plug-in Ecat NGU:
200 million × 1.2 kW = 240 GW
With continuous production, this corresponds to approximately:
2,100 TWh of electricity per year.
The EU’s total annual electricity consumption is approximately 2,460 TWh.
That means that 200 million small 1.2 kW units would, in theory, represent about 86% of the EU’s present total electricity consumption.
I find that gives a rather different perspective from the US example.
In your US model, the result is roughly one third of total electricity generation. In Europe, the corresponding calculation is even more striking, because Europe’s approximately 200 million households represent an enormous number of potential small production points compared with the total European power system.
And then I started thinking about something else:
Europe has just experienced how vulnerable an energy system can become when a large part of its gas supply suddenly disappears or becomes uncertain. What would be the significance if millions of European households could simultaneously produce their own continuous baseload power?
Then we are no longer talking only about a new energy source.
We are beginning to talk about a completely different structure for the energy system.
And perhaps this is exactly what lies behind your question:
Thoughts?
PS. And then another thought occurred to me:
Imagine if every home in Cuba today had its own 1.2 kW Ecat?
JJ:
The link you sent refers to the hot fusion plants and has nothing to do with the Ecat. The control system of the Ecat has its internal A.I. that has been engineered by us.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Another possible participant for the Global Presentation could be ENTSO-E — the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity.
ENTSO-E represents Europe’s transmission system operators and works with the development, security and long-term planning of the European power system. A verified Ecat technology producing electricity locally could have significant implications for future generation, transmission, distribution and grid investment.
A possible contact is:
Alba Glass
Communications Manager
Policy, Communication and Stakeholder Management
ENTSO-E
Email: alba.glass@entsoe.eu
Tel.: +32 471 29 79 13
The average total electrical consumption is the USA is 480,000 MW (Google)
The are about 150 million residential units and offices in the USA.
If each one had one 1,200W Plug-in eCat NGU unit, the total power generation would be 180,000 MW or roughly a third of the total generated power. This could all be added without charges to the USA Grid infrastructure.
Is there still a restriction on the NGU 12VDC 100w units that they:
1. Be mounted vertically – I assume wires at the top?
2. Be stationary – non-moving?
You mentioned that your present theoretical explanation is based on phenomenological experiments, extensive trial and error, and discussions with theoretical physicists, particularly Prof. Giorgio Vassallo.
Since you have said that you use ChatGPT, you might find it useful to ask it to perform a strict scientific review of E-Cat SK and Long Range Particle Interactions.
A useful review would not ask whether the theory is “right.” Instead, ask the AI to separate, section by section:
What is experimentally observed or measured.
What follows from established physics.
What is a theoretical interpretation or extrapolation.
What assumptions connect the observations to the proposed mechanism.
What alternative conventional explanations remain.
What experiment would most clearly discriminate between the competing explanations.
You could also ask it to identify which conclusions depend on the work of Prof. Vassallo, Holmlid, or other cited authors, and whether those references actually establish the particular connection being made.
I have found this type of adversarial review useful because the AI can challenge each connection without requiring the underlying experimental observations to be discarded simply because their interpretation remains uncertain.
Such a review would not substitute for human peer review, but it could identify weak links, missing controls, and especially valuable experiments before formal review.
The condition of independently verified performance of the E-Cat is, as I see it, also the basis for AR’s Global Presentation and the initiation of mass production.
Since the E-Cat is a revolutionary product that draws energy from a hitherto unknown and untested source, I see AR’s offer of pre-orders as an indication of the market’s interest in the E-Cat and its possible properties, as described in his previous publications.
AR has pointed out that satisfied customers will be his strongest verification. However, achieving an adequate customer base for such a completely new product also depends on a thorough presentation of the independently verified performance of the E-Cat and its intended functions.
This should be accompanied by the necessary public certifications for the intended applications, particularly in areas subject to strict public requirements.
Without such verification and certification in January, I assume that the GP and/or production of certain units will be postponed until these general prerequisites have been met.
Michael Underwood:
My paper “Ecat SK and Long Range Particle Interactions” is so far the more convincing about all the alternatives I read, but, truth to be spoken, I am not yet sure it is perfect. The theoretical hypothesis written in my paper has been born from phenomenological experiments along complex try and error series, corroborated by discussions with theoretical physicists, mainly Prof. Giorgio Vassallo, of the University of Palermo (Italy): I studied all his papers on the matter, in particular all the chapters he authored in the collection of papers contained in the book “Unified Field Theory and Occam’s Razor”(*). The Ecat IS a paradigmatic example of the Occam’s Razor principles…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
(*) World Scientific Publishing Europe Ltd. 2022
Dr Rossi,
You said that you still are not 100% sure that the theory you published about the Ecat process is right; that suggests me a question: did you read or listen any alternative theory that could be better ?
Michael
Axil:
This information is confidential. After the presentation all the information necessary to the Clients will be reported in the Operation and Maintenance Manual,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Now that the NGU produces relatively little waste heat, I have a question about scaling multiple NGU units.
Could multiple NGU units operate together as an aggregated system without a conventional control/power backplane between the individual units, using a coupling principle similar to the earlier E-Cat “Mouse and Cat” arrangement?
In other words, could one NGU influence, synchronize, or control the operation of other NGU units without a direct electrical or thermal control connection between them?
If so, what physical coupling mechanism communicates between the units?
If you cannot say now, will that information be revealed at the introduction presentation?
The release of the Vacuum Reaction paper will be contingent on independently verified performance of the NGU **or another competitive system demonstrating the same fundamental anomaly**.
The reason is simple: the paper is built on a foundational empirical premise—that a real anomalous energy source exists after conventional energy inputs, stored energy, measurement uncertainty, and other ordinary explanations have been adequately accounted for.
The paper is not intended to prove that premise. Its purpose is to address the much harder question that follows:
**If the anomalous energy is real, where does the energy come from and by what physical mechanism is it transferred?**
NGU is one potential system capable of establishing that premise, but it is not the only one. A competing technology would serve equally well if its anomalous energy production were independently demonstrated under sufficiently rigorous conditions.
If neither NGU nor another system establishes independently verifiable anomalous energy production, then the Vacuum Reaction framework lacks the empirical foundation needed to justify its release as an explanation of a real physical phenomenon.
If any credible system passes that threshold, however, the scientific problem changes immediately. The central question becomes not whether there is an anomaly requiring explanation, but **what physical process supplies and transfers the verified energy**.
That is the problem the Vacuum Reaction paper is designed to address.
For this reason, I intend to wait for independent verification of NGU **or a comparable competing technology** before releasing the paper.
“Plug in Solar” panels are a good idea. In principle, this should just as well apply to Ecat.
The limitation for Ecat should for a 400/230 V grid be the limitation of the socket.
With a 20A circuit, 4.6 kW Ecat could then be connected in the same way as a regular stove.
The penultimate line in your attachment states the following:
“The batteries would charge and discharge not in order to optimise our consumption of the solar power we generate, but to optimise operation of the local grid”.
This shows that the grid owner is trying to protect the grid against excessive simultaneous loads or outages.
For Ecat, this can be regulated by dividing the power, in and out, into 10 steps.
At 230 V, the grid can normally fluctuate 10%. That is, from 207 to 253 V.
If there is a risk of excess power in the grid, the power in the individual Ecat can be stepped down from, for example, 245 V by 1 step and further if the voltage does not fall towards 240 V.
When connecting a new Ecat, this can also be stepped up in 10 steps with a time interval between each step.
This will protect the grid well enough that batteries are unnecessary.
Genevieve:
The Ecat does not contain rare earths or “exotic” materials, as you dubbed them, but not all the components can be found in the market, because we had to invent components that do not exist in the market and that are fundamental to make the Ecat; we invented them by years of phenomenological series of try and error experiments, also based on the theoretical principles published in the paper “Ecat SK and Long Range Particle Interactions” now published on the Journal of Nuclear Physics ( http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com ) after reaching over 170 000 readings with the pre-print published on Researchgate,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
“Balcony solar systems connect to the electrical grid by syncing with your home’s standard wall outlets to offset your real-time electricity use.
How the Process Works
Generation: Sunlight hits the small solar panels and creates direct current (DC) electricity.
Conversion: A microinverter changes the DC power into alternating current (AC) power that matches your home’s electrical standard.
Synchronization: The inverter locks onto the grid’s voltage and frequency coming through your wall socket.
Consumption: The solar electricity flows backward through your household circuit, powering active appliances like your refrigerator or Wi-Fi router first. Because your home uses this self-generated power immediately, you draw less electricity from the public grid, which lowers your bill.
Real-time offset: Whatever power your panels produce at that moment is instantly consumed by your home. If your panels make 300 watts and your apartment uses 400 watts, you pull the remaining 100 watts from the grid.
Excess energy: If your panels generate more electricity than your home is using at that exact second, the surplus spills out through your meter back into the utility grid. With small plug-in setups (often limited to 300W–800W), this tiny excess might make your meter spin backward or feed into the grid uncompensated, depending on local utility rules.”
eCat NGU possible implementation
4 100W eCaT 12VDC units (configured to produce 24VDC), connected to a 350W Grid-Tie Inverter (cost about $60USD, available on Amazon). Add cooling fans to keep the inverter cool. Plug into a 120VAC socket. Keep power below what is allowed if using multiple units.
“Plugin Solar” panels are becoming very popular and accessible and allowed in more countries, now also in Australia. These do not require expert installation. The customer buys them from walmart and just plugs them into their wall socket to offset their energy consumption.
I think if you study how they work, and most importantly how they interface to the wall socket and how they are certified for safety, your ecat can provide the exact interface to the wall and be certified in the same way.
Have you ever thought of the “plugin solar” way for the ecat?
It seems that we agree that Ecat should be attempted to be utilized in the best possible energy-economic way when/if it becomes available.
I have read through the appendices that Paul presented, except for RoCoF which I found to be special and comprehensive at this time.
If Ecat had been on the market when the three primary appendices were written, Ecat would, for sure, have received extensive coverage.
The expression that appears from one of the attachments: “Prosumer” which implies that one can be both producer and consumer at the same time is something that could easily be included in the Ecat terminology.
The problem of determining battery size, whether it is necessary at all when using Ecat that is connected to the electricity grid, can probably only be solved after a period of experimentation with the current design of mass-produced Ecats has been carried out.
When this can be clear, hardly anyone can now determine.
It seems that the energy authorities in Italy have not yet reached the same positive attitude as in the UK when it comes to renewable electricity sources.
This will hopefully change if Ecats are produced in large numbers in Italy.
I am unable to put a single number on the necessary battery capacity. The important thing is that the capacity can be easily upgraded to meet any current needs for grid services[1:][2:][3:], as a grid system gradually transfers from GFL to GFM inverters. 100% GFM penetration does not appear to be necessary. The penetration level just needs to meet all the requirments for grid services as synchronous rotating generators are removed from the grid.
Inverter-based Resources (IBRs) can be Grid Following (GFL) vs Grid Forming (GFM). Again the important thing is that the inverter firmware is easily upgraded whilst the Ecat firmware is protected. It seems that GFM penetration on a system can remain at low levels whilst synchronous rotating generators of sufficient capacity remain on the system. After an inverter has its GFM firmware upgraded it would be rebooted and tested for correct operation. It reminds me of my Raspberry Pi, a small UNIX based computer, which receives regular updates over the Internet. After an update, the Pi needs a reboot to put the new firmware and software into service. A GFM inverter does not have to handle all grid services. Inertia and RoCoF[4:] are a good place to start on understanding the most important grid services.
Of course, the solution you describe, which you have already explained very clearly in some of your previous posts, is and will remain the best way to use the energy generated by the E-Cat as efficiently as possible.
There is no denying that the best battery in the world is the electricity grid itself.
The E-Cat array could always operate at its maximum configured output, feeding energy into the grid whenever production exceeds the user’s needs and drawing energy from the grid whenever production is not sufficient to meet them.
If the electricity provider were then to pay for the energy fed into the grid at the same price charged for the energy drawn from it, this would create the perfect balance. Unfortunately, at least in Italy, this is not the case: electricity fed into the grid is generally compensated at between EUR 0.05 and EUR 0.11 per kWh, while electricity drawn from the grid costs between EUR 0.22 and EUR 0.30 per kWh.
In practice, what you are describing is a system very similar to a conventional grid-connected solar installation without battery storage, in which the solar panels are simply replaced by E-Cat modules as the source of electricity generation.
And this brings us back to the POD, the Point of Delivery.
To activate a grid-connected generation system, a proper detailed project must be prepared and, to simplify a much more complex subject, the entire process required to obtain the necessary certifications and authorisations must be completed.
In Italy, even after the installation of a certified photovoltaic system has been completed, several months may pass before it can actually be activated and switched on with the approval of the relevant authorities. In some cases, the process can take as long as six months.
And we are talking about solar panels, a well-known, established and certified technology that has been used for decades…
The E-Cat will revolutionise the way energy is generated worldwide, making it affordable and accessible to everyone. However, a transformation on this scale cannot happen overnight.
I therefore believe that grid-connected E-Cat systems may receive all the necessary installation approvals only some time after the product has been officially presented and brought to market. At the same time, I am absolutely convinced that, once this initial phase has been overcome, they will become the most widely used, efficient and profitable solution, also eliminating the need to purchase expensive battery-storage systems, as you rightly pointed out.
And this brings us back to the purpose of my research and analysis:
to identify a solution that is easy to implement, compliant with the applicable regulations, economically attractive and, above all, ready to be put into operation and documented immediately, as soon as the E-Cat modules become available.
In this way, I hope to make a tangible contribution to the visibility and widespread adoption of the E-Cat by demonstrating, under real operating conditions, one of its countless possible applications.
Furthermore, the solution I have described, and for which I have already purchased all the necessary components, uses a hybrid inverter that can be configured for either off-grid operation or connection to the public grid. Switching from one operating mode to the other essentially requires a different software configuration.
The use of the battery-storage system can also be configured through software. As you correctly observed, in a grid-connected E-Cat system the battery could become unnecessary, because the grid itself would compensate for the difference between electricity generation and consumption.
However, I believe that the real heart of the solution I am proposing is the method used to connect the E-Cat to the hybrid inverter. As I have explained, this connection should be relatively easy to implement, whether the E-Cat is brought to market with an AC output or with a DC output.
Thank you, Svein, for your contribution. It is always extremely interesting and stimulating to exchange ideas on these subjects.
These are subjects that, in all likelihood, we would not even be discussing today if Dr Rossi had not discovered, engineered and brought so close to production the extraordinary energy project represented by the E-Cat.
Using Electric Vehicles (EVs) in a residential eCat NGU powered scenario…
The use of eCat NGU technology with Grid-tie and off-Grid systems have been discussed. One of the costly items is the system storage battery. It is necessary for handling large transient loads associated with turning on motors (air conditioning, pumps, etc.) and for Grid power outages.
Large storage battery systems cab expensive, costing about $250 USD per kW-hr of storage capacity. While a small battery system might still be needed for transient needs, perhaps the battery system in EVs could be used for long periods of Grid outages.
Some EV firms are developing the mechanisms where the energy stored in the EV battery could be accessed by the residential inverter. Since the EV battery was already paid for when the EV was purchased, it could become a low-cost way of supplementing residential battery capacity.
If properly implemented, it could be used to “sell back” electricity to the Grid during high demand periods, then refilled during low demand periods by eCat NGU devices.
Axil:
Thank you for your insight.
The order of magnitute of the Entropy ratio between the non-coherent and the coherent configurations of the electrons is approximately equal to the number N of the interacting particles, and the coherent clusters status perhaps might be described like a single wave function analogous to the BEC condensate, which does not mean that there is a relationship between the Ecat process and the BEC status,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
TJKaminski:
Not yet,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I recall that in the past, your licensee was said to be working on large E-cat NGU plants — as large as 1 Megawatt. Will a large plant be reported on at the upcoming January 2027 announcement?
Dr. Rossi,
I have been studying the evolution of your paper E-Cat SK and Long Range Particle Interactions, including the 2019 version and your later theoretical development.
Your recent explanation that the theory originated from phenomenological experimentation and was subsequently corroborated through discussions with theoretical physicists, principally Prof. Giorgio Vassallo, helped me understand that evolution better.
There is one aspect of your earlier theory that particularly interests me.
In the 2019 paper you proposed that, under special conditions, electron clusters could form a Bose-Einstein condensate, producing a highly ordered coherent state. Your later work gives greater theoretical development to Zitterbewegung, electromagnetic potentials and coherent charge structures.
I am investigating the earlier coherence/BEC direction in my own theoretical work. My starting point is established physics of coherent dispersive systems, particularly exciton-polariton condensates, including phase coherence, Bogoliubov excitations, anomalous dispersion and experimentally observed negative-effective-mass regimes. I explicitly separate these established phenomena from the speculative extension of my model.
The possibility I am examining is that coherence may do more than organize the system. The condensate itself may provide an important motive mechanism:
coherent condensate → anomalous dispersion / negative-effective-mass dynamics → proposed modification of the local quantum electromagnetic field → proposed disequilibrium → energy transfer.
The latter connections are hypotheses requiring experimental verification. What interests me is that the starting point appears compatible with the BEC/coherence possibility you identified in your 2019 paper.
Therefore, rather than asking whether one theoretical approach is correct and another is not, I would be very interested in understanding the causal hierarchy in your present theory:
Do you presently regard BEC/phase coherence as a necessary cause of the E-Cat reaction, as a consequence of the Zitterbewegung/electromagnetic mechanism, or as one component of a mechanism in which both are necessary?
Any clarification of how you presently understand the relationship among BEC, coherence, Zitterbewegung and energy production would be very useful to my research.
Warm Regards,
Axil
Paul Dodgshun:
All the information necessary to our clients for their connections will be given at the delivery.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
1: Will the Ecat built in inverter provide some or all of these capabilities listed below or will it be a basic GFL(grid following inverter) inverter?
2: Will the Ecat inverter, if GFM, be a GFM Type 1 or 2 or 3 or or 4 as defined below?
3: Will the Ecat built-in inverter be easily upgradeable as grid demanded capabilities inevitably change in the future?
4: If the Ecat built-in inverter experiences a fault, will the whole Ecat have to be returned to an Ecat factory or will a plug-in replacement for just the inverter be possible?
5: If a plug-in replacement inverter is possible, will the Ecat’s DC power be available from the same socket?
UNIFI Specifications for Grid-forming Inverter-based Resources Version 3
https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy26osti/98381.pdf
Table 1. GFM Performance Tiers
1 Voltage magnitude support
2 Voltage angle/frequency support & minimum islanding capability
3 Voltage angle/frequency support & extended islanding capability GFM BESS
4 Black start GFM BESS with black star
2 Performance Requirements for GFM IBRs …7
2.1 Performance Requirements for Operation Within Normal Grid Operating Conditions . 9
2.1.1 Autonomously Support the Grid …… 9
2.1.2 Dispatchability of Power Output …… 9
2.1.3 Provide Positive Damping of Voltage and Frequency Oscillations … 10
2.1.4 Active and Reactive Power Sharing Across Generation Resources … 11
2.1.5 Operation in Grids With Low System Strength ….. 11
2.1.6 Operation Under System Unbalance …… 12
2.2 Performance Requirements for Operation Outside Normal Conditions … 13
2.2.1 Voltage Ride-Through Capability …… 13
2.2.2 Performance During Symmetrical Faults … 14
2.2.3 Performance During Asymmetrical Faults ….. 14
2.2.4 Abnormal Frequency Ride-Through Capability….. 14
2.2.5 Performance in Response to Frequency Deviations …… 15
2.2.6 Performance During Phase Jumps and Voltage Steps…. 15
3 Additional GFM Capabilities ……. 16
3.1 Intentional Islanding ….. 16
3.1.1 General ……. 16
3.1.2 Requirements…… 16
3.1.3 Comments …… 16
3.2 Black Start and System Restoration …… 16
3.2.1 General ……. 16
3.2.2 Requirements…… 17
3.2.3 Comments …… 17
3.3 Regulating Voltage Harmonics …… 18
3.3.1 Requirements…… 18
3.4 Communications Between System Operator and IBR Plant ….. 18
3.4.1 Requirements…… 18
3.5 Secondary Voltage and Frequency Signal Response …. 18
3.5.1 Requirements…… 18
Dear Steven
Yes. Your calculation illustrates the point very well. But my Cuba PS was intended to raise a somewhat different question.
Before the present fuel crisis, Cuba was producing roughly 20.7 TWh of electricity per year, corresponding to an average electrical output of about 2.36 GW. Around 84% of its electricity generation was oil-based.
Today, according to your figure, the average electrical output is only about 1.78 GW — and Cuba is suffering from severe fuel shortages and widespread blackouts.
Now imagine that, instead of depending almost entirely on fuel being delivered to centralized power plants, Cuba had gradually installed one 1.2 kW Ecat in each of its 3.8 million homes.
That would represent: 3.8 million × 1.2 kW = 4.56 GW
In other words, the theoretical Ecat capacity in the homes would be almost twice the average electricity production Cuba had before the present crisis, and more than 2.5 times the average output you mention today.
That is what I was thinking about with the Cuba example.
The important question is not simply how many gigawatts the Ecats could produce.
It is what happens to the vulnerability of a country when the fuel does not have to be imported to a central power station because the energy is produced where it is consumed.
Cuba might then have had a very different situation today.
And that, I think, is one of the most interesting consequences of the idea: The user becomes the producer.
Regards Svein
Steven Nicholes karels:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Axil:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The lodestar of my Vacuum Reaction paper is a simple one:
**The proposed reaction should be explainable, as far as possible, by physics that already exists.**
The objective is not to invent new particles, new forces, or new physical processes whenever an unfamiliar observation appears. It is to determine whether established physics—sometimes drawn from areas that are not commonly considered together—can account for the individual stages of the proposed process.
A major revision of the paper is now underway for precisely this reason. Some concepts used in earlier versions are being replaced by more rigorous descriptions based on existing physics.
One example is what I previously called the **“reverse photon.”** I no longer regard that terminology as sufficiently precise. Physics already contains the relevant mathematical structures: anomalous dispersion, Bogoliubov mode mixing, negative-frequency and negative-norm partner modes, and related effects in coherent quantum systems. These phenomena are established. What is *not* established is my proposed connection between such behavior in the coherent system and a modification of the local quantum electromagnetic vacuum state. That connection must therefore remain an explicit hypothesis to be tested, rather than being disguised by introducing a new kind of photon.
A second important correction concerns energy.
Earlier descriptions could be read as proposing that the vacuum itself is an unlimited reservoir from which energy is simply extracted. That is not the formulation I now use.
**Energy conservation must remain intact.**
If excess energy enters the observable system, there must be a corresponding energy source. The revised Vacuum Reaction framework therefore distinguishes three things:
**Energy reservoir -> coupling/transfer mechanism -> observable system**
The identity of any additional reservoir is presently unresolved. The vacuum should not simply be declared to be that reservoir.
Instead, the hypothesis being investigated is whether a coherent quantum state can provide an interface through which energy is transferred from an underlying reservoir into the local electromagnetic system. In the present revision I call the proposed interface the **Dispersion-Vacuum Interface (DVI)**.
The energy accounting can be stated simply:
**Change in source energy + change in coherent-state energy + change in field energy + output energy + losses = 0.**
If experiment cannot identify the source term, that is an unresolved scientific problem. It is not permission to violate conservation of energy.
This principle now governs the entire revision.
For every stage of the Vacuum Reaction I am asking four questions:
**What was observed?**
**What existing physics can explain it?**
**Where does an unproven connection remain?**
**What experiment can determine whether that connection is real?**
As an additional check on this methodology, I have been submitting sections of the revised framework to Claude for adversarial scientific review. In its latest foundation review, Claude found no physics errors in the first three phases and rated the foundation **“B — FOUNDATION ACCEPTED FOR CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT WITH SPECIFIC CORRECTIONS.”** The corrections were incorporated into the development architecture.
One principle from that review is particularly important: established physics on either side of an unresolved connection does not establish the connection itself. The unknown connection must remain identified as unknown until experiment resolves it.
The result may ultimately show that some proposed connections are wrong. That is acceptable. A useful theory must make it possible to eliminate its own incorrect components.
The goal of the Vacuum Reaction framework is therefore not to construct exotic physics around unexplained observations.
It is almost the opposite:
**Use established physics wherever established physics is sufficient, isolate the smallest remaining unknowns, and design experiments capable of deciding whether those unknown connections actually exist.**
Svein,
Cuba:
Number of residential dwellings: 3.8 Million
Average total electrical power is 1,780 MW.
3.8 Million time 1,200W = 4.56 MW.
Dear Steven,
You always encourage us to think. So I thought I would continue a little along your line of thinking and asked AI for some figures for Europe, using your US model.
Here are the figures that came out:
The EU has approximately 200 million private households.
If each household had one 1.2 kW Plug-in Ecat NGU:
200 million × 1.2 kW = 240 GW
With continuous production, this corresponds to approximately:
2,100 TWh of electricity per year.
The EU’s total annual electricity consumption is approximately 2,460 TWh.
That means that 200 million small 1.2 kW units would, in theory, represent about 86% of the EU’s present total electricity consumption.
I find that gives a rather different perspective from the US example.
In your US model, the result is roughly one third of total electricity generation. In Europe, the corresponding calculation is even more striking, because Europe’s approximately 200 million households represent an enormous number of potential small production points compared with the total European power system.
And then I started thinking about something else:
Europe has just experienced how vulnerable an energy system can become when a large part of its gas supply suddenly disappears or becomes uncertain. What would be the significance if millions of European households could simultaneously produce their own continuous baseload power?
Then we are no longer talking only about a new energy source.
We are beginning to talk about a completely different structure for the energy system.
And perhaps this is exactly what lies behind your question:
Thoughts?
PS. And then another thought occurred to me:
Imagine if every home in Cuba today had its own 1.2 kW Ecat?
Regards Svein
JJ:
The link you sent refers to the hot fusion plants and has nothing to do with the Ecat. The control system of the Ecat has its internal A.I. that has been engineered by us.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Svein:
Thank you for the suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
Another possible participant for the Global Presentation could be ENTSO-E — the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity.
ENTSO-E represents Europe’s transmission system operators and works with the development, security and long-term planning of the European power system. A verified Ecat technology producing electricity locally could have significant implications for future generation, transmission, distribution and grid investment.
A possible contact is:
Alba Glass
Communications Manager
Policy, Communication and Stakeholder Management
ENTSO-E
Email: alba.glass@entsoe.eu
Tel.: +32 471 29 79 13
General ENTSO-E contact: info@entsoe.eu
I think ENTSO-E could provide an interesting European power-system perspective at the Global Presentation.
Regards Svein
Dear Andrea Rossi
Is the E-Cat also AI controlled?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/09/260903064215.htm
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Depends on the specific situations,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The average total electrical consumption is the USA is 480,000 MW (Google)
The are about 150 million residential units and offices in the USA.
If each one had one 1,200W Plug-in eCat NGU unit, the total power generation would be 180,000 MW or roughly a third of the total generated power. This could all be added without charges to the USA Grid infrastructure.
Thoughts?
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Is there still a restriction on the NGU 12VDC 100w units that they:
1. Be mounted vertically – I assume wires at the top?
2. Be stationary – non-moving?
Axil:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
You mentioned that your present theoretical explanation is based on phenomenological experiments, extensive trial and error, and discussions with theoretical physicists, particularly Prof. Giorgio Vassallo.
Since you have said that you use ChatGPT, you might find it useful to ask it to perform a strict scientific review of E-Cat SK and Long Range Particle Interactions.
A useful review would not ask whether the theory is “right.” Instead, ask the AI to separate, section by section:
What is experimentally observed or measured.
What follows from established physics.
What is a theoretical interpretation or extrapolation.
What assumptions connect the observations to the proposed mechanism.
What alternative conventional explanations remain.
What experiment would most clearly discriminate between the competing explanations.
You could also ask it to identify which conclusions depend on the work of Prof. Vassallo, Holmlid, or other cited authors, and whether those references actually establish the particular connection being made.
I have found this type of adversarial review useful because the AI can challenge each connection without requiring the underlying experimental observations to be discarded simply because their interpretation remains uncertain.
Such a review would not substitute for human peer review, but it could identify weak links, missing controls, and especially valuable experiments before formal review.
Best regards,
Axil
@Axil, September 12, 2026 at 7:51 AM
The condition of independently verified performance of the E-Cat is, as I see it, also the basis for AR’s Global Presentation and the initiation of mass production.
Since the E-Cat is a revolutionary product that draws energy from a hitherto unknown and untested source, I see AR’s offer of pre-orders as an indication of the market’s interest in the E-Cat and its possible properties, as described in his previous publications.
AR has pointed out that satisfied customers will be his strongest verification. However, achieving an adequate customer base for such a completely new product also depends on a thorough presentation of the independently verified performance of the E-Cat and its intended functions.
This should be accompanied by the necessary public certifications for the intended applications, particularly in areas subject to strict public requirements.
Without such verification and certification in January, I assume that the GP and/or production of certain units will be postponed until these general prerequisites have been met.
Regards Svein
Michael Underwood:
My paper “Ecat SK and Long Range Particle Interactions” is so far the more convincing about all the alternatives I read, but, truth to be spoken, I am not yet sure it is perfect. The theoretical hypothesis written in my paper has been born from phenomenological experiments along complex try and error series, corroborated by discussions with theoretical physicists, mainly Prof. Giorgio Vassallo, of the University of Palermo (Italy): I studied all his papers on the matter, in particular all the chapters he authored in the collection of papers contained in the book “Unified Field Theory and Occam’s Razor”(*). The Ecat IS a paradigmatic example of the Occam’s Razor principles…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
(*) World Scientific Publishing Europe Ltd. 2022
Dr Rossi,
You said that you still are not 100% sure that the theory you published about the Ecat process is right; that suggests me a question: did you read or listen any alternative theory that could be better ?
Michael
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Also,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Axil:
This information is confidential. After the presentation all the information necessary to the Clients will be reported in the Operation and Maintenance Manual,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
Now that the NGU produces relatively little waste heat, I have a question about scaling multiple NGU units.
Could multiple NGU units operate together as an aggregated system without a conventional control/power backplane between the individual units, using a coupling principle similar to the earlier E-Cat “Mouse and Cat” arrangement?
In other words, could one NGU influence, synchronize, or control the operation of other NGU units without a direct electrical or thermal control connection between them?
If so, what physical coupling mechanism communicates between the units?
If you cannot say now, will that information be revealed at the introduction presentation?
Best regards,
axil
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Is the change to the NGU 100W 12VDC size in length due to the added control logic?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
1. Yes
2. Larger
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Dimensions of the NGU 100W 12VDC unit.
1. Have the dimensions changed from the 300mm long by 60mm diameter?
2. If so, small or larger volume, dimensions?
I am not looking for exact dimensions at this time. That will come when you release the product.
Steve
The release of the Vacuum Reaction paper will be contingent on independently verified performance of the NGU **or another competitive system demonstrating the same fundamental anomaly**.
The reason is simple: the paper is built on a foundational empirical premise—that a real anomalous energy source exists after conventional energy inputs, stored energy, measurement uncertainty, and other ordinary explanations have been adequately accounted for.
The paper is not intended to prove that premise. Its purpose is to address the much harder question that follows:
**If the anomalous energy is real, where does the energy come from and by what physical mechanism is it transferred?**
NGU is one potential system capable of establishing that premise, but it is not the only one. A competing technology would serve equally well if its anomalous energy production were independently demonstrated under sufficiently rigorous conditions.
If neither NGU nor another system establishes independently verifiable anomalous energy production, then the Vacuum Reaction framework lacks the empirical foundation needed to justify its release as an explanation of a real physical phenomenon.
If any credible system passes that threshold, however, the scientific problem changes immediately. The central question becomes not whether there is an anomaly requiring explanation, but **what physical process supplies and transfers the verified energy**.
That is the problem the Vacuum Reaction paper is designed to address.
For this reason, I intend to wait for independent verification of NGU **or a comparable competing technology** before releasing the paper.
Patrick:
Thank you !
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Patrick September 10, 2026 at 1:58 PM
“Plug in Solar” panels are a good idea. In principle, this should just as well apply to Ecat.
The limitation for Ecat should for a 400/230 V grid be the limitation of the socket.
With a 20A circuit, 4.6 kW Ecat could then be connected in the same way as a regular stove.
The penultimate line in your attachment states the following:
“The batteries would charge and discharge not in order to optimise our consumption of the solar power we generate, but to optimise operation of the local grid”.
This shows that the grid owner is trying to protect the grid against excessive simultaneous loads or outages.
For Ecat, this can be regulated by dividing the power, in and out, into 10 steps.
At 230 V, the grid can normally fluctuate 10%. That is, from 207 to 253 V.
If there is a risk of excess power in the grid, the power in the individual Ecat can be stepped down from, for example, 245 V by 1 step and further if the voltage does not fall towards 240 V.
When connecting a new Ecat, this can also be stepped up in 10 steps with a time interval between each step.
This will protect the grid well enough that batteries are unnecessary.
Regards Svein
Dear Andrea,
I never left! Just following in silence.
Warm regards
Patrick
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Genevieve:
The Ecat does not contain rare earths or “exotic” materials, as you dubbed them, but not all the components can be found in the market, because we had to invent components that do not exist in the market and that are fundamental to make the Ecat; we invented them by years of phenomenological series of try and error experiments, also based on the theoretical principles published in the paper “Ecat SK and Long Range Particle Interactions” now published on the Journal of Nuclear Physics ( http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com ) after reaching over 170 000 readings with the pre-print published on Researchgate,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Balcony or Plug-in Solar – AI response
“Balcony solar systems connect to the electrical grid by syncing with your home’s standard wall outlets to offset your real-time electricity use.
How the Process Works
Generation: Sunlight hits the small solar panels and creates direct current (DC) electricity.
Conversion: A microinverter changes the DC power into alternating current (AC) power that matches your home’s electrical standard.
Synchronization: The inverter locks onto the grid’s voltage and frequency coming through your wall socket.
Consumption: The solar electricity flows backward through your household circuit, powering active appliances like your refrigerator or Wi-Fi router first. Because your home uses this self-generated power immediately, you draw less electricity from the public grid, which lowers your bill.
Real-time offset: Whatever power your panels produce at that moment is instantly consumed by your home. If your panels make 300 watts and your apartment uses 400 watts, you pull the remaining 100 watts from the grid.
Excess energy: If your panels generate more electricity than your home is using at that exact second, the surplus spills out through your meter back into the utility grid. With small plug-in setups (often limited to 300W–800W), this tiny excess might make your meter spin backward or feed into the grid uncompensated, depending on local utility rules.”
eCat NGU possible implementation
4 100W eCaT 12VDC units (configured to produce 24VDC), connected to a 350W Grid-Tie Inverter (cost about $60USD, available on Amazon). Add cooling fans to keep the inverter cool. Plug into a 120VAC socket. Keep power below what is allowed if using multiple units.
Dr Rossi,
Are all the components of the Ecat easy to find in the market, or are there exotic materials like rare earths and similar ?
Best
Genevieve
Patrick:
Welcome back !
Thank you for the suggestion and for the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
“Plugin Solar” panels are becoming very popular and accessible and allowed in more countries, now also in Australia. These do not require expert installation. The customer buys them from walmart and just plugs them into their wall socket to offset their energy consumption.
I think if you study how they work, and most importantly how they interface to the wall socket and how they are certified for safety, your ecat can provide the exact interface to the wall and be certified in the same way.
Have you ever thought of the “plugin solar” way for the ecat?
Warm regards,
Patrick
See https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-11/balcony-solar-to-become-legal-in-australia/107144234
Ambrogio:
Yes, so far,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Paul, Maico and Ferro.
It seems that we agree that Ecat should be attempted to be utilized in the best possible energy-economic way when/if it becomes available.
I have read through the appendices that Paul presented, except for RoCoF which I found to be special and comprehensive at this time.
If Ecat had been on the market when the three primary appendices were written, Ecat would, for sure, have received extensive coverage.
The expression that appears from one of the attachments: “Prosumer” which implies that one can be both producer and consumer at the same time is something that could easily be included in the Ecat terminology.
The problem of determining battery size, whether it is necessary at all when using Ecat that is connected to the electricity grid, can probably only be solved after a period of experimentation with the current design of mass-produced Ecats has been carried out.
When this can be clear, hardly anyone can now determine.
It seems that the energy authorities in Italy have not yet reached the same positive attitude as in the UK when it comes to renewable electricity sources.
This will hopefully change if Ecats are produced in large numbers in Italy.
I thank you all for your good input.
Regards Svein
Dr Rossi,
Still good the perspective of the SSM ?
Ambrogio
@ 2026-09-08 02:07 Svein
I am unable to put a single number on the necessary battery capacity. The important thing is that the capacity can be easily upgraded to meet any current needs for grid services[1:][2:][3:], as a grid system gradually transfers from GFL to GFM inverters. 100% GFM penetration does not appear to be necessary. The penetration level just needs to meet all the requirments for grid services as synchronous rotating generators are removed from the grid.
Inverter-based Resources (IBRs) can be Grid Following (GFL) vs Grid Forming (GFM). Again the important thing is that the inverter firmware is easily upgraded whilst the Ecat firmware is protected. It seems that GFM penetration on a system can remain at low levels whilst synchronous rotating generators of sufficient capacity remain on the system. After an inverter has its GFM firmware upgraded it would be rebooted and tested for correct operation. It reminds me of my Raspberry Pi, a small UNIX based computer, which receives regular updates over the Internet. After an update, the Pi needs a reboot to put the new firmware and software into service. A GFM inverter does not have to handle all grid services. Inertia and RoCoF[4:] are a good place to start on understanding the most important grid services.
[1:] https://powerverse.com/what-are-grid-services/
[2:] https://www.capture.energy/blog/grid-services
[3:] https://www.capture.energy/blog/grid-services
[4:] https://eepublicdownloads.entsoe.eu/clean-documents/SOC%20documents/Inertia%20and%20RoCoF_v17_clean.pdf
Inertia and RoCof
@Svein
Dear Svein, thank you for your feedback.
Of course, the solution you describe, which you have already explained very clearly in some of your previous posts, is and will remain the best way to use the energy generated by the E-Cat as efficiently as possible.
There is no denying that the best battery in the world is the electricity grid itself.
The E-Cat array could always operate at its maximum configured output, feeding energy into the grid whenever production exceeds the user’s needs and drawing energy from the grid whenever production is not sufficient to meet them.
If the electricity provider were then to pay for the energy fed into the grid at the same price charged for the energy drawn from it, this would create the perfect balance. Unfortunately, at least in Italy, this is not the case: electricity fed into the grid is generally compensated at between EUR 0.05 and EUR 0.11 per kWh, while electricity drawn from the grid costs between EUR 0.22 and EUR 0.30 per kWh.
In practice, what you are describing is a system very similar to a conventional grid-connected solar installation without battery storage, in which the solar panels are simply replaced by E-Cat modules as the source of electricity generation.
And this brings us back to the POD, the Point of Delivery.
To activate a grid-connected generation system, a proper detailed project must be prepared and, to simplify a much more complex subject, the entire process required to obtain the necessary certifications and authorisations must be completed.
In Italy, even after the installation of a certified photovoltaic system has been completed, several months may pass before it can actually be activated and switched on with the approval of the relevant authorities. In some cases, the process can take as long as six months.
And we are talking about solar panels, a well-known, established and certified technology that has been used for decades…
The E-Cat will revolutionise the way energy is generated worldwide, making it affordable and accessible to everyone. However, a transformation on this scale cannot happen overnight.
I therefore believe that grid-connected E-Cat systems may receive all the necessary installation approvals only some time after the product has been officially presented and brought to market. At the same time, I am absolutely convinced that, once this initial phase has been overcome, they will become the most widely used, efficient and profitable solution, also eliminating the need to purchase expensive battery-storage systems, as you rightly pointed out.
And this brings us back to the purpose of my research and analysis:
to identify a solution that is easy to implement, compliant with the applicable regulations, economically attractive and, above all, ready to be put into operation and documented immediately, as soon as the E-Cat modules become available.
In this way, I hope to make a tangible contribution to the visibility and widespread adoption of the E-Cat by demonstrating, under real operating conditions, one of its countless possible applications.
Furthermore, the solution I have described, and for which I have already purchased all the necessary components, uses a hybrid inverter that can be configured for either off-grid operation or connection to the public grid. Switching from one operating mode to the other essentially requires a different software configuration.
The use of the battery-storage system can also be configured through software. As you correctly observed, in a grid-connected E-Cat system the battery could become unnecessary, because the grid itself would compensate for the difference between electricity generation and consumption.
However, I believe that the real heart of the solution I am proposing is the method used to connect the E-Cat to the hybrid inverter. As I have explained, this connection should be relatively easy to implement, whether the E-Cat is brought to market with an AC output or with a DC output.
Thank you, Svein, for your contribution. It is always extremely interesting and stimulating to exchange ideas on these subjects.
These are subjects that, in all likelihood, we would not even be discussing today if Dr Rossi had not discovered, engineered and brought so close to production the extraordinary energy project represented by the E-Cat.
Best Regards,
Ciao Maico
Axil:
Not so far,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Svein:
I think you are right
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Using Electric Vehicles (EVs) in a residential eCat NGU powered scenario…
The use of eCat NGU technology with Grid-tie and off-Grid systems have been discussed. One of the costly items is the system storage battery. It is necessary for handling large transient loads associated with turning on motors (air conditioning, pumps, etc.) and for Grid power outages.
Large storage battery systems cab expensive, costing about $250 USD per kW-hr of storage capacity. While a small battery system might still be needed for transient needs, perhaps the battery system in EVs could be used for long periods of Grid outages.
Some EV firms are developing the mechanisms where the energy stored in the EV battery could be accessed by the residential inverter. Since the EV battery was already paid for when the EV was purchased, it could become a low-cost way of supplementing residential battery capacity.
If properly implemented, it could be used to “sell back” electricity to the Grid during high demand periods, then refilled during low demand periods by eCat NGU devices.
Thoughts?