United States Patent US 9,115,913 B1

Read the whole US Patent
Download the ZIP file of US Patent

40,874 comments to United States Patent US 9,115,913 B1

  • Andrea Rossi

    Mark Underwood:
    Warm Regards,

  • Mark Underwood

    Dr Rossi,
    From your comments I understood that you are going to perform by this year both the demo of the Ecat NGU to produce electric energy and the demo of an EV powered by the NGU: am I correct ?
    MarK Underwood

  • Andrea Rossi

    Thank you for the link,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels:
    Thank you for the information and for your suggestions,
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I sent the following to Tesla:

    Suggestion for a Modification to Tesla Vehicles to make them more acceptable in New York City

    The Problem:

    Tesla electric vehicles are a great means of transportation. New York City has many pro-environment potential Tesla customers but Tesla sales have not met expectations in large cities such as New York City. The customer base is generally affluent and can afford the cost of a new Tesla vehicle. The problems are:

    1. A limited access to Tesla superchargers.
    2. Apartment dwellers typically do not have dedicated parking locations nor access to apartment-provided charging stations.
    3. Many persons who have automobiles must park their cars on the street in a general proximity to their apartment.
    4. When they leave to go to and come back from work, they generally must use whatever available parking place is near their apartment.
    5. Because the street parking location changes, they cannot simply (and likely illegally) run an extension cord from their apartment to their vehicle for charging purposes.
    6. Range Anxiety become a genuine issue.

    The Facts and Assumptions:

    1. Most NYC automobile commutes are a total of 30 miles or less per working day.
    2. Typical energy consumption is assumed to be 0.23kW-hrs per mile.
    3. Sentry mode is assumed to consume the energy of the equivalent of 2 miles per 24 hours.
    4. Typical commute time is 1 hour each way or less – assume 2 hours of driving per day.

    The Implementation

    1. Assume an energy supply suitcase could be designed that could fit into the frunk of a Tesla vehicle.
    2. Assuming 30 miles of driving each day and the equivalent of 2 miles of driving to support the Sentry daily operation, we need 32 miles * 0.23 kW-hrs/mile or 7.36 kW-hrs of energy supply each day.
    3. Allowing for conversion efficiencies, the likely requirement is 8 kW-hrs of energy supply in a 24-hour period.
    4. Assume a Mobile Connector with a consumption of 120VAC at 12 Amps or 1.44 kW of consumed power.
    5. For anti-theft reasons, assume an additional power inlet connect is installed in the frunk of the Tesla.
    6. Software could be accomplished to allow the Tesla to drive even with the frunk interior power inlet connector still connected with the suitcase.
    7. Also assume a pure sinewave inverter was between the suitcase and the Mobile Connector, with correct grounding so the Mobile Connector will function.
    8. The owner would place the suitcase (and the inverter) in the frunk and make connection to the power inlet connector in the frunk and then secure the frunk cover.
    9. The suitcase would provide power to the inverter which converts that power to usable 120VAC power at an approximately 1.4 kW level causing the Tesla battery system to charge while the Tesla is stationary (either at the street near the apartment or at the work location).

    The Suitcase Options

    1. A suitcase could hold sufficient rechargeable batteries to supply a daily charge to the Tesla. In this approach, the owner would have two (or more) suitcases. One suitcase would be in the frunk, charging the Tesla. A second (or more) suitcase would be at the owner’s apartment being charged. The advantage of this approach is that it uses proven off-the-shelf batteries to provide the power to the inverter that in turn powers the Mobile Connector. The disadvantages are the need to multiple suitcase units, the transport of the suitcase to and from the Tesla, and the need for charging device at the apartment, unless it is built-in to the suitcase.

    2. The alternative method would be to take advantage of the eCat power unit that is becoming commercially available. Each unit provides 100W of DC electrical power (nominal 12 VDC) with a physical size of 7cm x 7cm x 9cm. They may be combined in parallel and/or serially to obtain a desired voltage and current output. To reach 1.4 kW of output power, I would suggest 16 units be combined to output up to 1.6kW of electrical power. The specified duration of each eCat unit is 100,000 hours of operation. The advantage of this approach is only a single suitcase is required to support standalone charging of the Tesla vehicle, no remove and replace of the suitcase is needed, and no owner daily interaction is needed. The disadvantage is the eCat is not currently commercially available but should be in the near future.

    Alternative Uses

    1. With a fully operational suitcase and assuming an apartment electrical black-out, the suitcase power, through an inverter, could provide limited electrical power to apartment appliances, such as a television set or a refrigerator.
    2. If on a camping trip, then the suitcase power could be used to support camping electrical needs.


    1. Consider adding a power input port within the Tesla vehicle frunk, which would allow charging during times of the Tesla being parked.
    2. Develop a suitcase capability to facilitate Tesla sales in major metropolitan areas such as New York City.

  • Sam

    Hello DR Rossi

    A talk about the life and
    work of Paul Dirac.



  • Andrea Rossi

    Thank you for your update,
    Warm Regards

  • João da Mata

    Dear Mr. TSS

    The biggest mistake made by nuclear theorists was to assume that there is a strong force, responsible for the aggregation of atomic nuclei.
    A definitive and indisputable proof that the strong force does not exist is the nucleus 4Be11.

    The following text is from page 286 of the book NEW NUCLEAR PHYSICS:

    ============Two short analyses on the strong nuclear force=================

    Analysis One: how the experiment denies the hypothesis of the existence of strong nuclear force.
    Analysis Two: how the equilibrium between strong nuclear force and Coulomb’s repulsion is dismissed by the experiment.

    i) Analysis One.
    In 2009, the discovery that 4Be11 has a halo neutron far away 7 fm from the core [1], put in checkmate the hypothesis on the existence of the strong nuclear force because any theory, supported by the principles of the standard nuclear physics (SNP), which can be proposed with the aim to explain the enigma, is unacceptable and unfruitful because:

    a) Suppose a theory is proposed (no matter if based on the principles of the SNP or even if based on new arguments beyond the Standard Model), however by keeping the belief that nucleons are bound via strong nuclear force.

    b) However, the theory is unacceptable because in 97% of decays 4Be11 transmutes to 5B11 and therefore the neutron does not leave the nucleus.

    c) In the 4Be11, the neutron decays into a proton and electron and the proton turns back to the core (the new-born 5B11). If the strong nuclear force was responsible for the cohesion of nuclei, the proton could never go back to the core because in a distance of 7 fm it cannot interact with the core via strong force and the classical Coulomb repulsion between the core and the proton would be so strong that the proton would be expelled from the new-born 5B11.

    d) Therefore, 5B11 could never be formed in 97% of the 4Be11 decay.

    But the discovery of 2009 only corroborated other experimental finding which points out that protons and neutrons cannot be bound via strong nuclear force inside atomic nuclei, as proven in [2], where incontestable arguments invalidate Gamow’s theory and demonstrate that protons and neutrons cannot be bound by the strong nuclear force.

    According to current nuclear physics the value of the permeability constant is 4pi.10^-7 H/m.

    But on page 287 of the book NEW NUCLEAR PHYSICS it is calculated that, within atomic nuclei, the permeability constant is 92.5x(4pi.10^-7) H/m.

    In other words, inside the atomic nuclei the permeability constant is 92.5 times greater than outside the atomic nuclei.
    Meaning that within atomic nuclei the magnetic intensity is 92.5 times greater than what is considered in current nuclear physics.
    The stability of atomic nuclei is due to magnetism, not strong force.

    Hence you can see how far nuclear theorists are from understanding the stability mechanisms of atomic nuclei.

  • Prof

    Dr Rossi,
    here are your complete stats I found today on
    Total Readings: 138000 (of which 127028 only for “Ecat the New Fire and Long Range Particle Interactions”) more than 99% of 1.5 million papers on Researchgate
    Recommendations: 10672, more than 99% of 1.5 million publications on Researchgate
    Research Interest Score: 2757, more than 99% of 1.5 million Researchgate publications
    Most Readings by Cathegories: Electrical Engineering, Theoretical Physics, Chemical Engineering, Engineering Physics
    Most Readings by Seniority: Prof, PhD Students, Researchers, Seniors
    And counting…

  • João da Mata

    Dear Prof.

    I suggest you to read “On the lack of potential in quantum mechanics, pointed out by the Aharonov-Bohm effect”:


  • Prof

    Dr Rossi,
    The paper
    reached today 127000 total readings, more than the 99.9 of the 1.5 million readings on Researchgate.
    And counting…

  • Andrea Rossi

    Thank you for the lnks,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    For obvious reasons the list of the pre-order forms we received is confidential.
    Everybody can ask confirmation of us receiving his pre-order form by sending an email here:
    Warm Regards,

  • João da Mata

    Mr. TSS

    The prediction that Coulomb repulsions within atomic nuclei are much lower than calculated by current nuclear physics was predicted in this article published in the end of 2019:

    This article had been submitted to the European Physical Journal A at the beginning of 2019, but was rejected by the Editor-in-Chief of EJPA, because he considered it impossible that the Coulomb Law within atomic nuclei does not behave in accordance with the Standard Coulomb Law.

    This anomaly of Coulomb’s Law within atomic nuclei requires a NEW NUCLAR THEORY.

    This new nuclear physics is exposed in the book NEW NUCLEAR PHYSICS:

    Here is the description of the book:

    The author began to analyze current nuclear physics in 1993. The conclusion he reached is that none of the proposed nuclear models could explain some properties of nuclei, measured in experiments. That was why he set out to discover a new model that could explain all the properties of atomic nuclei. On page 137 of his book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006, the conclusion he reached is that nuclei with Z>8, Z being pair, and Z=N, are ellipsoidal in shape. According to standard nuclear physics that was impossible, because nuclear theory was developed from the principle of symmetry, and so those nuclei had to have spherical shape. But in 2012 the journal Nature published the article “How atomic nuclei cluster”, describing an experiment that detected that such nuclei really have an ellipsoidal shape, meaning that symmetry is not a fundamental law of Nature. In the beginning of 2019 he submitted to the European Physical Journal A a paper where was shown that Coulomb’s Law is incomplete, and because of this the repulsion between protons inside atomic nuclei is very weaker than predicted in the standard nuclear physics. The paper was rejected after few days. After that he submitted it to the International Journal of Atomic and Nuclear Physics, and the paper was published in the end of 2019. In the beginning of 2023 the Physical Review Letters published a paper describing an experiment made by Kegel et al., whose result showed that repulsions within helium-4 are really very weaker than predicted by the standard nuclear physics.
    The conclusions from these two experiments are:

    The structure of existing nuclei in Nature is different from that conceived by nuclear theorists.
    Nuclear physics was developed from a wrong fundamental principle: the symmetry.

  • Kurt

    Herr Dr. R. Rossi,
    gibt es eine möglichkeit wo jeder Vorbesteller (auch vor Jahren) eine Vorbestellung gemacht hat alle seine Bestellungen
    zu überprüfen ..gegebenenfalls noch korrigieren kann?
    weil es sind inzwischen bei einzelnen schon Jahre vergangen! unsere Menschlichen Speicher sind voll!
    so könnte jeder Kotrollieren ob alles noch korrekt?
    Freue mich auf eine Adresse von Ihnen Danke.
    Freundliche Grüsse
    Dr. R. Rossi, is there a way where everyone who pre-ordered (even years ago) can check all of their orders and correct them if necessary? because years have now passed for some of them! our human memories are full! so everyone could check whether everything is still correct? I look forward to receiving an address from you. Thank you. Kind regards Kurt

  • Jõao da Mata

    Mr. TSS

    Nuclear energy for 5 seconds???
    Probably you don’t know that all the foundations of current nuclear physics are in checkmate.

    The experiment made by Kegel at al. has shown that repulsion between protons inside atomic nuclei is very weaker than predicted by the current nuclear theory.

    The experiment showed that Coulomb repulsion between protons inside helium-4 is far weaker than predicted by nuclear theory.

    So, such experiment implies that Coulomb Law inside atomic nuclei does not follow the Standard Coulomb Law considered by nuclear theorists.

    Therefore, the test of the Oxford hot fusion reactor is very very far away of nuclear energy production.

    They do not have any idea on why Coulomb Law inside atomic nuclei does not work as current nuclear theory predicts.

    In short, nuclear theorists do not have any idea on how to get energy from nuclear fusion, since their nuclear theory is wrong, and they are shooting in the dark, because they even do not know where the target is.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Raffaele Bongo:
    Sorry, but the answer is complex and, so far, confidential.
    Warm Regards,

  • Raffaele Bongo

    Hello Dr. Rossi
    When you were working on the thermal E-Cat, you told me that the reactor core had a temperature of 1 ev or around 11600° K. At this temperature the plasma normally emits in the scepter of violet, ultra violet. This is not the most suitable light for solar panels which are more sensitive in the warm.
    Have you since changed the operating temperature in order to have a light specter more appropriate to the sensitivity of the photovoltaic cells?
    Best regards

  • Andrea Rossi

    W. Schulz:
    The Ecat SKLep NGU will be able to power both inductive and resistive loads,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels:
    Thank you for your suggestion,
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Yet another eCat application

    Agricultural (farm) tractors

    “What is the downside of electric tractors?

    The list of disadvantages is very, very long! In broadacre farming, tractors are working for days at end, and electric will never meet the workload demand. Rural areas do not have sufficient infrastructure to charge the things, and farmers cannot afford the down time while waiting for the thing to re-charge.” – internet.

    Large farm tractors have hp ratings of about 80 hp (about 60 kW) up to 500 hp (about 373 kW). While the average load is usually much smaller – peak load can be accommodated by energy stored in onboard batteries.

    eCat technology can provide power on the tractor for long periods and it is independent of rural electrical infrastructure. During non-tractor use, the onboard eCat tractor can provide power to the farmer’s home and his buildings, perhaps to storage batteries so power is available while the tractor is being used in the fields.

    John Deer has published that they expect to market all electric tractors in 2026.


  • W. Schulz

    Dear Dr. Rossi,
    if there are still issues with inductive loads so can we assume that there are no problems with resistive/ohmic load?
    Anyways most ohmic loads are the real big power consumers, like heating, electric water heater, light bulbs and cooking.
    Therefore you could just make a (maybe cheaper?) version of the ecat for these applications.
    I think it is important that your invention will come to the market as soon as possible.
    Best regards
    W. Schulz

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels:
    1. we are working on it
    2. depends on the application
    3. same as in 3
    4. yes
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,


    1. Does the NGU implementation still have issues with inducive loads, such as motors?
    2. If so, does placing a battery between the NGU unit and the inductive load resolve the issue?
    3. If so, would it make sense to place a small rechargeable battery within the NGU unit, to accommodate inductive loads?
    4. Would a capacitor suffice to replace a battery for this implementation?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Jan Srajer,
    Thank you for your insight,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels:
    Thank you for your suggestion,
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Yet another eCat application

    Electric conversion of ferries.

    Ferries are usually smaller boats designed to transport people and vehicles across rivers or smaller bodies of water. Many times, they are in rural areas where the electric infrastructure is inadequate for battery-only ferry operation. This would normally require expensive changes to the electric infrastructure to add additional power capacity at the locations where the ferry will dock.

    Ferry motors would likely run around 1,000 hp for a small ship, about 746 kW of peak electrical power.

    Adding eCat technology will have two primary benefits:

    1. Decrease the size of the onboard battery system to only handle short-term power needs with the eCat system providing the average energy consumption generation of electrical power.
    2. The avoidance of changing the electrical infrastructure to accommodate the ferry docking facilities. I.e., no charging facilities would need to be added at each docking location if the onboard eCat equipment can provide the total round trip energy needs.


  • Jan Šrajer

    Your theoretical work is inspiring in the sense of ZPE. For example, an ordinary capacitor could also be seen as a precursor to a ZPE. Its amount of accumulated energy is dependent on the size of the plates and the distance between them. If the distance between them were infinitely small, then the energy of the capacitor would be infinitely large. Of course, this is not yet possible because the capacitor will destroy itself, but the idea of ​​keeping the charge of a capacitor in a very small space between its poles is similar to the idea of ​​zero point energy ZPE and your work on using very small distances between electrons.

    All the best. J.Š

  • Andrea Rossi

    Thank you for your support,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    It depends on the model: if its components worth a certification have been already certified for a previous model, the certification needs several weeks; if it is a completely new thing, the time necessary depends on the complexity, we are in the order of months,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Thank you for your suggestion,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels:
    1- no
    2- yes
    Warm Regards,

  • WaltC

    Dr. Rossi,
    1) Are you considering redundancy within, for instance, your 3kW assembly so that the lifespan of the assembly can be longer than that of the weakest subcomponent?

    For example, solar PV modules do this quite simply by using bypass and blocking diodes within the module, so that the failure of one or more cells simply degrades the output rather than stopping it altogether.

    Best Wishes,

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    1- Is it generally true that the maximum number of 10W NGU units you can tie in series is bounded by 20 units — to comply with the maximum voltage specification?

    2- Conversely, is it also true that an unbounded number of 10W NGU units may be connected in parallel – assuming adequately sized buss bars were used?

  • Anonymous

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
    how much time is necessary to make the CE certification of an object like the Ecat ?

  • Claude

    Dr Rossi,
    Kudos for your answer to TSS

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steve D:
    1- yes
    2- no, we privide the necessary A.I.
    3- b)
    Warm Regards,

  • Steve D

    Dear Andrea Rossi 

    In your response to my question of 2024-02-07 you agreed that there been additional connections installed for each NGU ecat to enable direct interface for better control of performance. 

    1) Can we now see the ecat NGU as having relinquished its independent thinking in deference to a master control device, particularly so where banks of ecats are required?

    2) Where Q1 is true, does this means that those who ordered multiple ecats might require a controller as well?

    3) Where an ecat NGU operates alone such as in the live stream or for the home experimenter,

    a) has this presented a compromise challenge? 

    b) is this this source if your concern re your comment 2024-01-20 “Yes, the non stop streaming poses problems that are different from a normal use, this is why we are worried and still working on it.”

    Thank You

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gavino Mamia:
    You are right.
    The trolls have no real arguments and to disparage us are scretching the bottom of the barrel.
    The CE mark on the Ecat is regular.
    Anyway, I repeat that the trolls are not worth the time to take them in consideration. Our policy is: just ignore them at all.
    Contano come il due di picche quando la briscola è a fiori.
    Warm Regards,

  • Gavino Mamia

    Dott. Rossi
    Alcuni Troll stanno commentando che il simbolo CE nel suo prototipo da 3 KW non è Certificazione Europea ma bensì Cina Export.
    Come faranno poi a capirlo da una immagine non frontale non si sa.
    Ormai non sanno più cosa dire, stanno aggrappandosi agli specchi, sono alla frutta.

  • Steven Nicholes Karels


    While the test was stable for 5 seconds, what we need is a demonstration of continuous stability. We also need an energy gain somewhere between 10 and 100 from the input energy to the output energy. This is due to the Carnot cycle for converting heat energy into electricity and the supporting power needed to initiate and control the process. This goal is still far from the current reach.

    We also need to use a reaction that is aneutronic (does not produce neutrons). An aneutronic reaction would not produce neutrons that would interact with the enclosure to form radioactive materials in the reactor’s walls.

    It seems that nuclear fusion will always be 40 years away. Perhaps the eCat technology can provide GREEN electrical energy, if it can be mass produced and is accepted? Fusion looks great, if I can be made to be practical. It is not an easy task. Sometimes, difficult tasks will never become practical systems.

  • Jaroslaw Bem

    Mr TTS

    You wrote “nuclear fusion does not use radioactive materials and is not dangerous”
    This is the fake, because to proceed nuclear fusion on temperature ~ 150 000 000 K is necessary use 2 isotopes of Hydrogen.
    1. Deuterium
    2. Tritium
    Deuterium is abundant in environment in see water and is no radioactive, but Tritium is absent in nature and must be produced in conventional nuclear reactors.
    Tritium is radioactive and very expensive isotope of Hydrogen ~ 30 000 $/g.

    Best regards
    Jaroslaw Bem

  • Andrea Rossi

    After your suggestion for me to retire, I decided to follow your wisdom, therefore I felt myself insensible shouldn’t I thank you dedicating at least one hour, included the composition of this comment ( you know, retired guys have so much free time ) to analyze carefully the press release you fallen in love with so much.
    But, sadly, after few minutes I got baffled.
    The statement you refer to, made by the scientists of the nuclear fusion performed in Oxford, contains a malicious scientific information of relevant importance, because it makes us think that all that system is finalized to hide the truth only to get billions of euros and dollars in funds to contunue an enterprise that in fifty years has eaten thousands of billions from the Taxpayer repeating for half century every now and agin the mantra ” within 10 years we will reach the real thing”.
    Here is the evidence of what I wrote above:
    they published in their press release that they have been able to produce 68 MegaJoules (MJ) of ENERGY in 5 seconds. They proclaim that this is a spectacular performance ! A record ! But let us analyze these numbers carefully: 68 MJ in 6 seconds mean 11.33 MJ/s
    1 MJ = 239 Kcal, therefore 11.33 MJ = 239 x 11.33 = 2708 Kcal/s = 3,147 Wh/s = 3 kWh/s
    If we multiply 3 kWh x 6″, we obtain the “impressive” amount of 18 kWh/6″
    Here is the devil’s smartness: they forgot to say that to obtain 18 kW the system consumed about 100 kWh of energy, therefore, in reality, they consumed 100 kWh of input energy to obtain 18 kWh of output energy, with an efficiency of 18%, about half the efficiency of a standard diesel fueled genset, priced about 3000 $, whose standard efficiency is around the 36% .
    But not only the COP is ridiculous in that context, but the power is not existent, because they had to shut down all the system immediately ( = after 6 seconds, just the time to say ” how are you mama ?” ) because the magnetic field necessary to confine the temperature of 150 millions °C, broke up at once, and when the magnetic confinement field breaks up if you do not shut down immediately all the system you obtain something not completely incostintent with a fusion bomb, and eventually you turn into radioactive everything around, as heavy as it might be.
    The devil needs funds from the taxpayers and lies to get them.
    I am sorry, TTS: after thinking about that, I changed idea and decided not to retire: if your love for these guys is sincere, and not occasional, you should suggest them to retire, envisioning them going, just for example, to the shore of a mountain lake and playing who throws farther some balls in the water; besides, having some free time,they could read the paper
    maybe encouraged by what the DOD ( Department of Defense) wrote about it here:
    Warm Regards,

  • Walter

    Even if it were forever instead of 5 seconds, it will be always more expensive. You need an electric power grid to bring it to the consumers and because of it is centralised the government will let pay you taxes, the company want much profit.
    And btw: The fusion constant is still about 30 years, since at least 60 years.
    I trust in Leonardo. They never ask for money, but the researchers in Britain, at Iter.. of hot fusion did it in billions.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Thank you for your kind suggestion for my retirement.
    About your comment:
    1- the test you cite is substantially the repetition of the same test made two years ago and repeated the same failure: after 5 seconds has been stopped because of the failure of the control of the magnetic fields: the core of the problem is to maintain the magnetic fields stable to separate the plasma at 150 millions °C from the internal walls of the reactor
    2- whereas it is true that hydrogen is not radioactive, it is fraudolent to hide the fact that all the materials that enter in contact with the plasma from the hot fusion becomes radioactive: this means that thousands of tonns of the facitity would become radioactive in case o an enduring failure of the stability of the magnetic fields.
    3- about the work of our Team: we do not think it is useless, although it does not fuse thousands of billions of the taxpayer and is completely financed by ourselves.
    Good Bye,

  • Andrea Rossi

    “Karels, Steven”
    The datasheet will be published only when we will be ready to deliver, after the tests on the prototypes will be completed. We are still in a phase during which the data are fluid.
    Warm Regards,
    Although this blog allows nicknames and creative URLs, please do not again choose a nickname that creates confusion with real names of our Readers: whereas nicknames are accepted to protect the privacy of persons that want not to expose themselves, to use real names and family names of others to put on them the exposition is unfair. Your next similar comment will be spammed.

  • Karels, Steven

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    On your prototype 3kW NGU unit, what output voltage? AC or DC? If AC, Hertz?

  • TSS

    Mr Rossi,
    Two days ago has been reached a successful test of the Oxford hot fusion reactor that succeeded to produce nuclear energy for 5 seconds; nuclear fusion does not use radioactive materials and is not dangerous.
    I think your work is useless: enjoy your retirement.
    Good bye,
    The Sceptic Scientist

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

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