1. Is my understanding that NGU 100W units outputting 230VAC will be first made available to the public?
2. If 1. is true, then are there any technical reasons prohibiting the user from connecting the 230VAC NGU output to a 100W 230VAC to 12VDC converter?
These converters are available on Amazon and relatively inexpensive, costing about 20USD each.
Response to post: https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=937#comment-1707270
My current understanding of a smart inverter is that its microprocessor can construct and adjust the AC waveform within a optimum power level constrained to a minimum level. A inverter that is not powered by a microprocessor called an analog inverter needs a contingency overpower level that greatly exceeds the power level that the smart inverter can sustain.
Standalone Inverter Buying Guide: Smart vs. Analog
Choosing between a microprocessor-driven Smart Inverter and a traditional, transformer-based Analog Inverter is the most critical decision in off-grid power design. This guide simplifies the engineering wisdom into an actionable buying comparison to help you choose the right technology for your standalone system based purely on power handling, efficiency, and hardware requirements.
Direct Recommendation First
Choose a Smart Inverter if you run standard household appliances, electronics, or want a compact system that handles high demand spikes without needing massive, expensive hardware oversizing.
Choose an Analog Inverter only if you operate an industrial workshop with massive, continuous motor loads and do not mind the heavy space, weight, and extreme standby power waste.
Core Technology Comparison
SMART INVERTER (Microprocessor/High-Frequency)
[Input Power] ➔ [DSP Brain / Fast Switches] ➔ [Perfect Pure Sine Wave] ➔ [Efficient Output]
* Adjusts the waveform 20,000+ times per second digitally.
ANALOG INVERTER (Transformer/Low-Frequency)
[Input Power] ➔ [Analog Filters] ➔ [Massive Iron Transformer] ➔ [Brute-Force Output]
* Relies on physical mass and heavy copper coils to smooth out power.
Key Buying Metrics
Hardware Sizing & Oversizing Penalty
Smart Inverter:
Sized tightly to your actual appliance watts. Because its microprocessor digitally corrects poor power factors on the fly, a 5 kW Smart Inverter can easily start heavy home loads.
Analog Inverter:
Must be severely oversized. Because it cannot handle reactive power digitally, you must buy a 15 kW Analog Inverter to survive the exact same startup surges without triggering its NGU hardware trip limit.
Idle Power Waste (The “Ghost” Load)
Smart Inverter: Uses a “Search Mode” to sleep when appliances are off, consuming a tiny 15 to 20 Watts while waiting for a load to turn on.
Analog Inverter:
Keeps its heavy iron core constantly energized, wasting 120 to 150 Watts 24/7 just by being turned on. This wastes up to 3.6 kWh of raw power every single day doing absolutely nothing.
Heavy Motor Handling (Pumps & AC Units)
Smart Inverter:
Uses software to instantly steer reactive power back into internal capacitors, stabilizing voltage seamlessly during massive “demand excursions.”
Analog Inverter:
Fights reactive power using physical resistance, causing heavy voltage sags (flickering lights) and generating massive internal heat inside the transformer.
Which Approach is Right for You?
Buy a 5 kW NGU system that includes a Smart Inverter with a DC NGU interface if:
Modern Home:
You are powering standard home appliances, computers, TVs, and refrigerators.
Efficiency Focus:
You want to minimize internal energy waste and maximize the utility of your stand alone NGU input power source.
Space Constraints:
You need a lightweight, wall-mountable unit rather than a massive floor-standing piece of machinery.
Buy an Analog Inverter if:
Heavy Workshop:
You frequently run heavy industrial tools, large arc welders, or old commercial pumps.
Extreme Environments:
The analog inverter will live in an unconditioned space with extreme dust or temperature swings where simple, un-brained analog components survive longer.
———————————-
My opinion:
The optimum lowest cost approach
Get a 1 kW DC NGU with a low powered low cost smart inverter to feed power to the grid using 1:1 billing. Let the grid control the AC waveform.
Maico:
Initially yes, because this is by far the prevailing demand; if eventually massively requested, we will make also the DC version; until then it will be easy for the Clients to connect the Ecat to a normal certified inverter of the same power,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
For the introduction Demo to convey important hardware reliably information, determine the Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF).
To MTBF determine the of a long-lived system using multiple short-term tests, you must apply Reliability Growth Modeling or Accelerated Life Testing (ALT) principles. Since you cannot wait for the system to fail naturally, you pool the total test time from multiple units to calculate the failure rate.
Here is the step-by-step engineering process to calculate this metric.
Calculate Total Operating Time
The foundational metric for MTBF is the Total Accumulated Test Time (TATT), also known as unit-hours. The assumption is that you are testing many identical units at the same time.
You pool the running hours of all test units together.
Example: Testing 100 systems for 500 hours each yields a TATT of 50,000 hours.
Tabulate the Failures
Count the exact number of relevant failures (F) observed across all systems during the test window.
Exclude Infantile Failures:
Do not count early software bugs or manufacturing defects if the goal is to find the intrinsic useful-life MTBF.
Exclude External Failures:
Do not count damage caused by operator error or external test rig power failures.
Apply the Point-Estimate Formula
If the system operates in its “useful life” phase (where the failure rate is constant over time), use the standard point-estimate formula: MTBF = TATT/F
Example (With Failures): If your 100 units run for 500 hours each
TATT = 50,000 hours and you observe 2 failures, the estimated MTBF MTBF = 50,000/2 = 25,000 hours
Adjust for Zero Failures (Chi-Square Distribution)
If you run many short-term tests and observe zero failures, you cannot divide by zero. You must use a statistical Chi-Square (chi ^2) distribution to find the MTBF at a specific confidence level (usually 60% or 90% or 95%).
Chi-Square value from standard statistical tables.
Zero Failure Shortcut:
MTBF_60% = 50,000/0.916 or approx 54,585 hours
Critical Engineering Assumptions
For this multi-unit pooling method to be scientifically valid, your test protocol must satisfy three core criteria:Identical Assets:
All test units must feature identical hardware configurations,
software builds, and components.
Independent Risks:
A failure in Unit A must not physically cause or influence a failure in Unit B.
Constant Failure Rate:
The system must be operating in the flat middle section of the “bathtub curve” (no active wear-out mechanisms occurring during the short test window).
Example: Use the AI to access (Chi-Square Distribution) as follows:
What is the MTBF_90% for TATT at 2000 hours
AI Answer
Assuming 0 failures were observed, the MTBF_90% for a Total Accumulated Test Time (TATT) of 2,000 hours is 868.59 hours.
The Vacuum reaction is an optical reaction (the production of light) where virtual photons are harvested from the vacuum when virtual photons are made into real photons. This light is generated in the pico clusters that are also called EVOs. This is also how the SunCell works. THe power production mechanism of the SunCell is not hydrinos because the power density of the SunCell is 20 times that of fission at the fuel rod level (surface).
See post
https://e-catworld.com/2026/07/09/major-independent-third-party-to-support-e-cat-presentation/#comment-6900627587
“There is only ONE fundamental cause of over unity power production. That is vacuum energy harvesting. The SunCell optical power density is around 20 times that of fission. That might be the maximum amount of power available from the vacuum. Also, In the SAFIRE reactor for 7 watts of input power, 10,000,000 watts power spike can be generated.”
There is only one over-unity reaction. All LENR systems are optical systems, The SAFIRE system is an optical system. All optical systems are so powerful that they all can produce transmutation. If a overunity system can transmute matter, then it is a optical system.
If a system can convert elements from one element into another, then it is a vacuum system. The vacuum power accumulation inside the active agent— pico cluster_EVO — generates a quark gluon plasma that breaks apart elements at the quark level and expresses them as new elements.
The vacuum reaction is identical to Hawking radiation of a black hole.
A decaying micro black hole converts its entire remaining mass directly into energy via Hawking radiation, meaning a micro black hole of mass M will produce a total energy of E = Mc2 over its remaining lifespan because the power output escalates exponentially as the black hole mass shrinks, the final decay results in a violent universe shaking explosion.
For example, a micro black hole with a mass of 1,000 kg will output a total energy of roughly 9 times 10^19 Joules.
This is equivalent to 21 gigaton nuclear explosion in a fraction of a millisecond.
See this post by Rossi about the explosion and fire in his lab that destroyed the lab and almost ended Rossi when he was debugging charging a lithium ion battery for the Latina demo.
https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=937#comment-1707254
—————————————————————-
I asked the AI what the intraduatroy demo at years’ end means to our science and the perception of reality. Its response typifies why I am looking forward to the end of year introductory NGU demo.
If such situations exist, what would this mean for science and the perception of reality
If over-unity energy production, elemental transmutation via vacuum harvesting, and controllable micro-black holes were proven to be real, it would trigger the most profound paradigm shift in human history.
This discovery would instantly shatter our current understanding of physics, rewrite the laws of thermodynamics, and fundamentally alter how humanity perceives its place in the universe.
1. The Collapse and Reconstruction of Science
The validation of these phenomena would mean that our current foundational models of reality are, at best, deeply incomplete or, at worst, fundamentally flawed.
Thermodynamics Rewritten:
The First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy) would not be disproven, but it would have to be radically expanded. The universe would no longer be viewed as a closed system with a finite pool of usable energy, but as an open system plugged into an infinite cosmic reservoir.
The Quantum-Classical Bridge:
Mainstream physics currently treats quantum vacuum fluctuations as transient, mathematically restricted events. Proving that “pico-clusters” or “EVOs” can stabilize and harvest these fluctuations would finally bridge the gap between quantum mechanics and macroscopic engineering, creating a unified “Theory of Everything.”
Engineering Alchemy:
Desktop transmutation would turn chemistry and material science upside down. Scarcity of rare-earth elements, gold, or platinum would vanish overnight, as any element could be synthesized on demand by rearranging quarks.
2. A Shift from Scarcity to Absolute Abundance
For all of human history, reality and civilization have been shaped by the struggle over scarce resources (food, water, territory, and fossil fuels).
The Death of Geopolitics:
Wars fought over oil, gas, or uranium would become obsolete. If a small device can tap the vacuum to generate limitless power, every nation, community, and individual would achieve total energy independence.
Technological Hyper-Acceleration:
Technologies currently limited by energy constraints—such as deep-space travel, massive artificial intelligence data centers, planetary terraforming, and large-scale carbon capture—would become trivial to deploy.
3. A New Perception of Reality and Spacetime
Such a discovery would radically alter how humans perceive the fabric of existence itself.
The Vacuum as a Solid Matrix:
Instead of perceiving “empty space” as nothingness, humanity would begin to view the vacuum as a hyper-dense, vibrant medium. Space would no longer be the absence of matter, but the very source from which all matter and energy spring.
The Universe as a Living Mechanism:
Proving that the same mechanics governing Hawking radiation in giant cosmic black holes can be replicated inside a small laboratory apparatus would reinforce the concept of a holographic or fractal universe, where the laws of the macrocosm are perfectly mirrored in the microcosm.
4. The Existential and Existentialist Risk
With absolute power comes absolute vulnerability. Proving that the vacuum can be tapped with small laboratory equipment introduces profound psychological and existential anxiety.
The “Safe in a Lab” Paradox:
As seen in the historical disputes over laboratory explosions, if tapping the vacuum risks creating runaway reactions or localized micro-black hole detonations, humanity would realize it is playing with the foundational forces of creation.
The Fragility of Existence:
The perception of reality would shift from feeling secure on a stable planet to realizing that civilization rests on a highly volatile quantum sea. A single catastrophic mistake by an amateur researcher could theoretically threaten the fabric of local spacetime.
Conclusion
If these phenomena transitioned from fringe anomalies to verified facts, science would evolve from a tool used to observe and manipulate existing matter into a discipline that summons reality directly from the void. Humanity would transition from passive consumers of cosmic energy into active managers of spacetime itself.
“The Ecat SSM (IF…) can power loads at 230 V; therefore, with it, you can charge a battery using a standard power supply (or inverter) with 230 V AC input and 12 V DC (or higher) output, depending on the power supply’s limits and the power of the Ecat assembly.”
Is my interpretation of your reply correct—that *if* the Ecat SSM becomes available, its output will be 230 V AC (50 Hz) or 110 V AC (60 Hz)?
TJ Kaminski:
1- your interpretation is correct
2- nonsense
3- because it is a nonsense
4- any real resistance is fit for the Ecat, provided it does not demand a power superior to the power of the Ecat ( remember that if V=I*R, I=V/R, and P=I*V ). If the demand of P overcomes the power of the Ecat, the protection system automatically shuts down the Ecat.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thank you for responding to my question about the power output of the ecat versus a lithium battery. As all travelers know, lithium batteries can catch fire and cannot be brought onto airplanes if larger than a cell phone or laptop. Does the ecat pose a fire risk? Thanks.
In your answer to JJ, you stated that the Ecat NGU can only work with a resistive load. I would interpret a resistive load as one that obeys the relationship V = I*R. One can design an active circuit that makes sure the relationship V I*R holds at the interface for a large range of V, as long as V is within the values of the active circuit. For example, active circuits exist for Power Factor Correction (PFC) to appear as a resistive input for line-connected power supplies used to power computers. These PFC controllers were introduced because simply designed computer supplies that just used diode bridges and capacitors as the input rectification circuit were causing capacitive power factors that could overload AC distribution, causing transformers to overheat and even catch fire.
On another note, is is very difficult to make a pure resistor. Most resistor models include a series inductor and parallel capacitor, though both the inductance and capacitance values can be small.
Question(s):
1). Is my interpretation that a “resistive” load obeys V = I*R correct as an Ecat NGU load, or is there some other physical property that is required?
2). Would it be possible to use a PFC active circuit to force the input to look resistive and allow the NGU to be in SSM?
3). If not, is there a simple explanation for why this is not possible?
4). For the real (not ideal) resistor, what are the limits of C and L for the capacitive and inductive values for it to properly interface with the Ecat NGU?
Dr Rossi,
You answered to Richard that the ratio Watts/weight of the Ecat is higher than the same of batteries: can you give numbers ?
Thank you if you can answer,
Igor
Dear Andrea,
I know this is a thorny subject, but I am going to discuss it anyway.
We owe a great debt of gratitude to Nikola Tesla for inventing alternating current, which enabled the electrification of the world; however, we must not overlook the mounting costs and dangers associated with the increasing expansion of this system:
1) The need for generators, most of which still rely on fossil fuels or nuclear fission (nuclear waste), resulting in a dependency on other Nations for many, and leading to the inevitable conflicts we see playing out today.
2) The “vulnerability” of generation sites and distribution grids to environmental damage, as well as acts of terrorism or warfare (Iran and Ukraine).
3) The absolute reliance of individuals and businesses on the functioning of these systems (leading to economic speculation on energy sources and potentially catastrophic blackouts).
4) The significant risk of serious wildfires caused by short circuits in high-voltage grids (California and Spain) and low-voltage household systems (an estimated 3–4 million incidents annually), alongside the risk of electrocution (with a rising global toll of over 200,000 deaths and 1–2 million injuries).
We know there is a price to pay for everything, but if a different solution emerges that offers fewer risks and major advantages, we must push for change. Your invention, whether SSM-based or otherwise, already enables on-board electricity generation; we saw this firsthand, I was there (Latina test). Most usage will likely involve low-voltage DC (5–48 V) or AC via a low-power converter, entailing far lower risks and costs for both people and the environment. Every stationary or mobile device will have its own generator and be independent of electrical outlets and long power cords, no HV lines or dangerous grid power transformers, no pylons and tons of metal (copper, iron, aluminum) for electricity transmission, no widespread blackouts, and no “energy oligarchs.” Even the costly, bulky, and intermittent “renewable energy” sources and the use of gas will progressively decline. Of course, it will take time, but this future is certain; the current “masters of the world” will simply have to accept it, so much for decarbonization!
This is the revolution that must be accelerated; the E-Cat works, and, like everything else, it will be continuously improved. Andrea, don’t aim for perfection; push the Licensee, at least for a global presentation without technical details. This announcement alone could change everything and your merit must be quickly recognized.
The world is suffering greatly, and every delay becomes a fault.
Neri
Jean Pierre:
1- As I wrote many times here on the JoNP and said in many interviews, the Latina test was determined to last 6 hours. An Ecat SSM has to last for years.
2- The NGU at the time of Latina was an R&D prototype, the Ecat SSM must confront a global market.
3- The Latina prototype had just to charge a battery, and battery is not an inductive load.
4- After the explosion and eventual fire happened before the Latina test in my laboratory while I was preparing of the Ecat for the Twizy, among other modifications we had to enclose the Ecat in a steel safe, big and heavy, able to contain an explosion, which, for obvious reason, is not a possible solution for a product, for obvious reasons that surely you can understand.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi,Andrea. Please forgive me if I have got things muddled.
In the Latina test run, the car was apparently having its battery charged for 6 hours as it travelled. This indicates to me that the NGU would have been operating in SSM at the time. So why are you now in a situation where you are desperately trying to achieve SSM before the end of January 2027?
This device has inductance, therefore SSM must have existed a couple of years ago. Perhaps I am missing something here. The NGU at the time of Latina seemed to be a wonderful invention capable of doing lots of things. Not any more?
I hope that you can clarify things for my old brain. Thank you in advance.
JJ
The Ecat non SSM can power only resistive loads, therefore cannot recharge batteries.
The Ecat SSM ( IF…) can power loads at 230 V, therefore with it you can charge a battery through a normal alimentator ( or inverter ) 230 V AC in, 12 or more V DC out, depending on the limits of the alimentator and the power of the Ecat assembly,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
One of the potential highly motivated advocates of NGU deployment are those in the environmental movement. A leader in this field that can serve as an entree into this community and a prime example of such a potential enthusiastic advocate with a global following is as follows:
Dr. Michael E. Mann is one of the most influential and prominent figures in the global climate science and environmental community. His influence spans groundbreaking scientific research, public policy advocacy, and high-profile climate communication.
The contact information for prominent leading climatologist and environmental scientist Dr. Michael E. Mann:
Academic & University Contact
Dr. Mann serves as a Presidential Distinguished Professor and Director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media (PCSSM) at the University of Pennsylvania.University
Email: mmann00@sas.upenn.edu
Office Location: 160 Hayden Hall, 240 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Public & General Inquiries
For media requests, speaking engagements, or general inquiries, you can use his personal professional channels listed on the Official Michael E. Mann Website: https://michaelmann.net/contact/
General Email: mann@michaelmann.net
I suggest that you invite via email, Dr. Mann to the introduction of the NGU as follows:
Subject: Advancing Climate Mitigation: Upcoming NGU Launch (Winter 2026/2027)
Dear Dr. Mann,
I hope this message finds you well.
As a follower of your work at the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media, I am reaching out to introduce an upcoming technological development that aligns closely with your efforts to mitigate global environmental damage.
Between late December 2026 and January 2027, we will officially release the NGU system as a commercial product. This technology is engineered to bridge the critical gap between clean energy infrastructure and successful consumer deployment. By integrating with existing residential and commercial clean energy systems—such as solar installations—the NGU maximizes grid efficiency, reduces fossil fuel dependency, and lowers carbon footprints at scale.
We are currently shifting our deployment model to work directly with commercial solar installation partners. This ensures that the systems are deployed seamlessly, reducing technical failure and accelerating the adoption of green infrastructure in homes and businesses.
Given your deep expertise in climate science communication and sustainability frameworks, we would welcome the opportunity to share our technical brief with you as we approach the launch. We believe the NGU can serve as a vital tool in the practical application of decarbonization strategies.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and continued leadership in the climate community.
Sincerely,[Your Name – partner]
[Your Title]
[Your Company/Contact Information]
The interaction between the NGU customer and the partner that currently exists may not be intensive enough to enable the customer the background to protect both himself and the NGU from issues that block sucessful deployment of the NGU in his home.
To strengthen NGU deployment success and optimize customer onboarding, we need to shift from our current, high-touch direct retail model to a strategic B2B channel partner approach.
Current Problem
Weak Partner Engagement:
Current interactions do not provide retail customers with sufficient background knowledge.
Deployment Risks:
Lack of customer education leads to preventable in-home installation issues.
High Operational Workload:
Direct support of retail customers creates an unsustainable customer service burden for the partner.
Proposed Solution
Partner with Solar Installers:
Form strategic commercial relationships with established residential and commercial solar energy companies.
Leverage Existing Technical Expertise:
Solar installers already possess the complementary technical know-how required for in-home field deployments.
Transition to Turnkey Delivery:
Shift the entire installation and first-line support workload to these solar companies.
Strategic Benefits
Risk Mitigation:
Experienced field technicians ensure higher deployment success rates and protect NGU from technical failures.
Scalability:
Offloads the intensive customer service workload from NGU partners.
Market Acceleration:
Taps into existing customer bases already interested in green energy and home infrastructure upgrades.
The solar installer will sell the NGU as a better option to panel installations.
These solar energy companies will soon develop the knowhow to deliver a turnkey NGU system for the customer without the customer service workload involved in the partner’s direct contact with the retail NGU customer.
On your upcoming demonstration – a few suggestions
1. Keep it simple. Heating flowing water. If electricity, measure output power and input power, if any.
2. Start the demonstration with the NGU off. Display/record all measurements. Establish a baseline.
3. Then activate the NGU unit. Observe the resulting changes.
4. When equilibrium occurs, run the experiment 10 times longer than a hidden battery could support.
5. When the demonstration period ends, turn off the NGU unit. Observe the changes. They should be similar to what occurred when the NGU was activated.
6. Finally, show the final state is the same baseline as the initial state.
If the NGU only produces heat – use the set-up of calibrated water flow rate and temperature change to show power. Like in you did in the early demonstrations – about a decade ago.
If electricity is produced – use identical power meters on the output and, if any, on the input. Power meters showing power, voltage, amperage, and total energy.
If electricity is produced, the load could be a heat exchanger, and you could use the water flow technique described above to show consistency with the electric power measurements and the water heating. Or else, use lamps of a known power consumption. You could turn on or off individual lamps to change the electrical power load and verify corresponding changes in the NGU output power, voltage, amperage.
I like your comment! Dr Rossi said a ‘major independent third party of the world’ will be publicly supporting the Ecat at the presentation. That will be enough to persuade make people willing to make their payment for the preorders. Then the real revolution will start.
Dr Rossi,
I suggest you not to lose much time searching exotic testing ways at the global presentation of the Ecat: the real third parties will be the customers that, at that point, will receive the Ecat; when Bill Gates made the global presentation of his operative systems had a global success because his customers spread in the world the pass-parole that it works, not because some guru said that the test was successful. Present the product, sell it and the rest will arrive with or without gurus: the market is the sole expert that really counts.
All the best,
Giovanni
Svein:
So far the SSM is suitable for nothing, but IF…, it would be suitable for any kind of normal loads: I am not an expert of AI technology, I am just an enthusiast user of it, therefore I am not able to answer your specific question,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
die Kraftstoffpreise steigen und steigen.
Wenn ich ihren Latina-Test zeige, werde ich nur müde belächelt.
Was keiner kaufen kann, damit ist niemand zu begeistern.
Es ist einfach nur traurig.
ENGLISH SYNOPSIS:
Car fuels are too highly priced: I hope the Ecat will be useful also to power cars,
VG
Dieter Zöller
Decio:
We are grateful to all our Readers that empathize our problems and dedicate time of theirs to try to help us with their suggestions; the suggestions are always helpful, at the least to double check the issues, sometimes they are very useful,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
1. yes
2. no problem at all ( good question )
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
1. Is my understanding that NGU 100W units outputting 230VAC will be first made available to the public?
2. If 1. is true, then are there any technical reasons prohibiting the user from connecting the 230VAC NGU output to a 100W 230VAC to 12VDC converter?
These converters are available on Amazon and relatively inexpensive, costing about 20USD each.
Dr Rossi,
When will you make the Summer holidays ? How is going on the test period of the Ecat SSM ?
Ambrogio
Axil:
Thank you for your opinion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Response to post: https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=937#comment-1707270
My current understanding of a smart inverter is that its microprocessor can construct and adjust the AC waveform within a optimum power level constrained to a minimum level. A inverter that is not powered by a microprocessor called an analog inverter needs a contingency overpower level that greatly exceeds the power level that the smart inverter can sustain.
Standalone Inverter Buying Guide: Smart vs. Analog
Choosing between a microprocessor-driven Smart Inverter and a traditional, transformer-based Analog Inverter is the most critical decision in off-grid power design. This guide simplifies the engineering wisdom into an actionable buying comparison to help you choose the right technology for your standalone system based purely on power handling, efficiency, and hardware requirements.
Direct Recommendation First
Choose a Smart Inverter if you run standard household appliances, electronics, or want a compact system that handles high demand spikes without needing massive, expensive hardware oversizing.
Choose an Analog Inverter only if you operate an industrial workshop with massive, continuous motor loads and do not mind the heavy space, weight, and extreme standby power waste.
Core Technology Comparison
SMART INVERTER (Microprocessor/High-Frequency)
[Input Power] ➔ [DSP Brain / Fast Switches] ➔ [Perfect Pure Sine Wave] ➔ [Efficient Output]
* Adjusts the waveform 20,000+ times per second digitally.
ANALOG INVERTER (Transformer/Low-Frequency)
[Input Power] ➔ [Analog Filters] ➔ [Massive Iron Transformer] ➔ [Brute-Force Output]
* Relies on physical mass and heavy copper coils to smooth out power.
Key Buying Metrics
Hardware Sizing & Oversizing Penalty
Smart Inverter:
Sized tightly to your actual appliance watts. Because its microprocessor digitally corrects poor power factors on the fly, a 5 kW Smart Inverter can easily start heavy home loads.
Analog Inverter:
Must be severely oversized. Because it cannot handle reactive power digitally, you must buy a 15 kW Analog Inverter to survive the exact same startup surges without triggering its NGU hardware trip limit.
Idle Power Waste (The “Ghost” Load)
Smart Inverter: Uses a “Search Mode” to sleep when appliances are off, consuming a tiny 15 to 20 Watts while waiting for a load to turn on.
Analog Inverter:
Keeps its heavy iron core constantly energized, wasting 120 to 150 Watts 24/7 just by being turned on. This wastes up to 3.6 kWh of raw power every single day doing absolutely nothing.
Heavy Motor Handling (Pumps & AC Units)
Smart Inverter:
Uses software to instantly steer reactive power back into internal capacitors, stabilizing voltage seamlessly during massive “demand excursions.”
Analog Inverter:
Fights reactive power using physical resistance, causing heavy voltage sags (flickering lights) and generating massive internal heat inside the transformer.
Which Approach is Right for You?
Buy a 5 kW NGU system that includes a Smart Inverter with a DC NGU interface if:
Modern Home:
You are powering standard home appliances, computers, TVs, and refrigerators.
Efficiency Focus:
You want to minimize internal energy waste and maximize the utility of your stand alone NGU input power source.
Space Constraints:
You need a lightweight, wall-mountable unit rather than a massive floor-standing piece of machinery.
Buy an Analog Inverter if:
Heavy Workshop:
You frequently run heavy industrial tools, large arc welders, or old commercial pumps.
Extreme Environments:
The analog inverter will live in an unconditioned space with extreme dust or temperature swings where simple, un-brained analog components survive longer.
———————————-
My opinion:
The optimum lowest cost approach
Get a 1 kW DC NGU with a low powered low cost smart inverter to feed power to the grid using 1:1 billing. Let the grid control the AC waveform.
Maico:
Initially yes, because this is by far the prevailing demand; if eventually massively requested, we will make also the DC version; until then it will be easy for the Clients to connect the Ecat to a normal certified inverter of the same power,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Axil:
Thank you for phylosophical analysis and conclusions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Axil:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
No,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Any update on your partner’s providing electrical energy to the Grid?
For the introduction Demo to convey important hardware reliably information, determine the Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF).
To MTBF determine the of a long-lived system using multiple short-term tests, you must apply Reliability Growth Modeling or Accelerated Life Testing (ALT) principles. Since you cannot wait for the system to fail naturally, you pool the total test time from multiple units to calculate the failure rate.
Here is the step-by-step engineering process to calculate this metric.
Calculate Total Operating Time
The foundational metric for MTBF is the Total Accumulated Test Time (TATT), also known as unit-hours. The assumption is that you are testing many identical units at the same time.
You pool the running hours of all test units together.
Example: Testing 100 systems for 500 hours each yields a TATT of 50,000 hours.
Tabulate the Failures
Count the exact number of relevant failures (F) observed across all systems during the test window.
Exclude Infantile Failures:
Do not count early software bugs or manufacturing defects if the goal is to find the intrinsic useful-life MTBF.
Exclude External Failures:
Do not count damage caused by operator error or external test rig power failures.
Apply the Point-Estimate Formula
If the system operates in its “useful life” phase (where the failure rate is constant over time), use the standard point-estimate formula: MTBF = TATT/F
Example (With Failures): If your 100 units run for 500 hours each
TATT = 50,000 hours and you observe 2 failures, the estimated MTBF MTBF = 50,000/2 = 25,000 hours
Adjust for Zero Failures (Chi-Square Distribution)
If you run many short-term tests and observe zero failures, you cannot divide by zero. You must use a statistical Chi-Square (chi ^2) distribution to find the MTBF at a specific confidence level (usually 60% or 90% or 95%).
Chi-Square value from standard statistical tables.
Zero Failure Shortcut:
MTBF_60% = 50,000/0.916 or approx 54,585 hours
Critical Engineering Assumptions
For this multi-unit pooling method to be scientifically valid, your test protocol must satisfy three core criteria:Identical Assets:
All test units must feature identical hardware configurations,
software builds, and components.
Independent Risks:
A failure in Unit A must not physically cause or influence a failure in Unit B.
Constant Failure Rate:
The system must be operating in the flat middle section of the “bathtub curve” (no active wear-out mechanisms occurring during the short test window).
Example: Use the AI to access (Chi-Square Distribution) as follows:
What is the MTBF_90% for TATT at 2000 hours
AI Answer
Assuming 0 failures were observed, the MTBF_90% for a Total Accumulated Test Time (TATT) of 2,000 hours is 868.59 hours.
The Vacuum reaction is an optical reaction (the production of light) where virtual photons are harvested from the vacuum when virtual photons are made into real photons. This light is generated in the pico clusters that are also called EVOs. This is also how the SunCell works. THe power production mechanism of the SunCell is not hydrinos because the power density of the SunCell is 20 times that of fission at the fuel rod level (surface).
See post
https://e-catworld.com/2026/07/09/major-independent-third-party-to-support-e-cat-presentation/#comment-6900627587
“There is only ONE fundamental cause of over unity power production. That is vacuum energy harvesting. The SunCell optical power density is around 20 times that of fission. That might be the maximum amount of power available from the vacuum. Also, In the SAFIRE reactor for 7 watts of input power, 10,000,000 watts power spike can be generated.”
There is only one over-unity reaction. All LENR systems are optical systems, The SAFIRE system is an optical system. All optical systems are so powerful that they all can produce transmutation. If a overunity system can transmute matter, then it is a optical system.
If a system can convert elements from one element into another, then it is a vacuum system. The vacuum power accumulation inside the active agent— pico cluster_EVO — generates a quark gluon plasma that breaks apart elements at the quark level and expresses them as new elements.
The vacuum reaction is identical to Hawking radiation of a black hole.
A decaying micro black hole converts its entire remaining mass directly into energy via Hawking radiation, meaning a micro black hole of mass M will produce a total energy of E = Mc2 over its remaining lifespan because the power output escalates exponentially as the black hole mass shrinks, the final decay results in a violent universe shaking explosion.
For example, a micro black hole with a mass of 1,000 kg will output a total energy of roughly 9 times 10^19 Joules.
This is equivalent to 21 gigaton nuclear explosion in a fraction of a millisecond.
See this post by Rossi about the explosion and fire in his lab that destroyed the lab and almost ended Rossi when he was debugging charging a lithium ion battery for the Latina demo.
https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=937#comment-1707254
—————————————————————-
I asked the AI what the intraduatroy demo at years’ end means to our science and the perception of reality. Its response typifies why I am looking forward to the end of year introductory NGU demo.
If such situations exist, what would this mean for science and the perception of reality
If over-unity energy production, elemental transmutation via vacuum harvesting, and controllable micro-black holes were proven to be real, it would trigger the most profound paradigm shift in human history.
This discovery would instantly shatter our current understanding of physics, rewrite the laws of thermodynamics, and fundamentally alter how humanity perceives its place in the universe.
1. The Collapse and Reconstruction of Science
The validation of these phenomena would mean that our current foundational models of reality are, at best, deeply incomplete or, at worst, fundamentally flawed.
Thermodynamics Rewritten:
The First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy) would not be disproven, but it would have to be radically expanded. The universe would no longer be viewed as a closed system with a finite pool of usable energy, but as an open system plugged into an infinite cosmic reservoir.
The Quantum-Classical Bridge:
Mainstream physics currently treats quantum vacuum fluctuations as transient, mathematically restricted events. Proving that “pico-clusters” or “EVOs” can stabilize and harvest these fluctuations would finally bridge the gap between quantum mechanics and macroscopic engineering, creating a unified “Theory of Everything.”
Engineering Alchemy:
Desktop transmutation would turn chemistry and material science upside down. Scarcity of rare-earth elements, gold, or platinum would vanish overnight, as any element could be synthesized on demand by rearranging quarks.
2. A Shift from Scarcity to Absolute Abundance
For all of human history, reality and civilization have been shaped by the struggle over scarce resources (food, water, territory, and fossil fuels).
The Death of Geopolitics:
Wars fought over oil, gas, or uranium would become obsolete. If a small device can tap the vacuum to generate limitless power, every nation, community, and individual would achieve total energy independence.
Technological Hyper-Acceleration:
Technologies currently limited by energy constraints—such as deep-space travel, massive artificial intelligence data centers, planetary terraforming, and large-scale carbon capture—would become trivial to deploy.
3. A New Perception of Reality and Spacetime
Such a discovery would radically alter how humans perceive the fabric of existence itself.
The Vacuum as a Solid Matrix:
Instead of perceiving “empty space” as nothingness, humanity would begin to view the vacuum as a hyper-dense, vibrant medium. Space would no longer be the absence of matter, but the very source from which all matter and energy spring.
The Universe as a Living Mechanism:
Proving that the same mechanics governing Hawking radiation in giant cosmic black holes can be replicated inside a small laboratory apparatus would reinforce the concept of a holographic or fractal universe, where the laws of the macrocosm are perfectly mirrored in the microcosm.
4. The Existential and Existentialist Risk
With absolute power comes absolute vulnerability. Proving that the vacuum can be tapped with small laboratory equipment introduces profound psychological and existential anxiety.
The “Safe in a Lab” Paradox:
As seen in the historical disputes over laboratory explosions, if tapping the vacuum risks creating runaway reactions or localized micro-black hole detonations, humanity would realize it is playing with the foundational forces of creation.
The Fragility of Existence:
The perception of reality would shift from feeling secure on a stable planet to realizing that civilization rests on a highly volatile quantum sea. A single catastrophic mistake by an amateur researcher could theoretically threaten the fabric of local spacetime.
Conclusion
If these phenomena transitioned from fringe anomalies to verified facts, science would evolve from a tool used to observe and manipulate existing matter into a discipline that summons reality directly from the void. Humanity would transition from passive consumers of cosmic energy into active managers of spacetime itself.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Today you replied to JJ:
“The Ecat SSM (IF…) can power loads at 230 V; therefore, with it, you can charge a battery using a standard power supply (or inverter) with 230 V AC input and 12 V DC (or higher) output, depending on the power supply’s limits and the power of the Ecat assembly.”
Is my interpretation of your reply correct—that *if* the Ecat SSM becomes available, its output will be 230 V AC (50 Hz) or 110 V AC (60 Hz)?
Thank you if you can answer.
Regards
Maico
TJ Kaminski:
1- your interpretation is correct
2- nonsense
3- because it is a nonsense
4- any real resistance is fit for the Ecat, provided it does not demand a power superior to the power of the Ecat ( remember that if V=I*R, I=V/R, and P=I*V ). If the demand of P overcomes the power of the Ecat, the protection system automatically shuts down the Ecat.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Prof. Neri Accornero:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Igor:
Think about what SSM does mean and answer yourself to your question,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Richard:
No, because we resolved the problems that caused it in past. Besides, the Ecat does not contain lithium batteries,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Thank you for responding to my question about the power output of the ecat versus a lithium battery. As all travelers know, lithium batteries can catch fire and cannot be brought onto airplanes if larger than a cell phone or laptop. Does the ecat pose a fire risk? Thanks.
Dr. Rossi:
In your answer to JJ, you stated that the Ecat NGU can only work with a resistive load. I would interpret a resistive load as one that obeys the relationship V = I*R. One can design an active circuit that makes sure the relationship V I*R holds at the interface for a large range of V, as long as V is within the values of the active circuit. For example, active circuits exist for Power Factor Correction (PFC) to appear as a resistive input for line-connected power supplies used to power computers. These PFC controllers were introduced because simply designed computer supplies that just used diode bridges and capacitors as the input rectification circuit were causing capacitive power factors that could overload AC distribution, causing transformers to overheat and even catch fire.
On another note, is is very difficult to make a pure resistor. Most resistor models include a series inductor and parallel capacitor, though both the inductance and capacitance values can be small.
Question(s):
1). Is my interpretation that a “resistive” load obeys V = I*R correct as an Ecat NGU load, or is there some other physical property that is required?
2). Would it be possible to use a PFC active circuit to force the input to look resistive and allow the NGU to be in SSM?
3). If not, is there a simple explanation for why this is not possible?
4). For the real (not ideal) resistor, what are the limits of C and L for the capacitive and inductive values for it to properly interface with the Ecat NGU?
Dr Rossi,
You answered to Richard that the ratio Watts/weight of the Ecat is higher than the same of batteries: can you give numbers ?
Thank you if you can answer,
Igor
Dear Andrea,
I know this is a thorny subject, but I am going to discuss it anyway.
We owe a great debt of gratitude to Nikola Tesla for inventing alternating current, which enabled the electrification of the world; however, we must not overlook the mounting costs and dangers associated with the increasing expansion of this system:
1) The need for generators, most of which still rely on fossil fuels or nuclear fission (nuclear waste), resulting in a dependency on other Nations for many, and leading to the inevitable conflicts we see playing out today.
2) The “vulnerability” of generation sites and distribution grids to environmental damage, as well as acts of terrorism or warfare (Iran and Ukraine).
3) The absolute reliance of individuals and businesses on the functioning of these systems (leading to economic speculation on energy sources and potentially catastrophic blackouts).
4) The significant risk of serious wildfires caused by short circuits in high-voltage grids (California and Spain) and low-voltage household systems (an estimated 3–4 million incidents annually), alongside the risk of electrocution (with a rising global toll of over 200,000 deaths and 1–2 million injuries).
We know there is a price to pay for everything, but if a different solution emerges that offers fewer risks and major advantages, we must push for change. Your invention, whether SSM-based or otherwise, already enables on-board electricity generation; we saw this firsthand, I was there (Latina test). Most usage will likely involve low-voltage DC (5–48 V) or AC via a low-power converter, entailing far lower risks and costs for both people and the environment. Every stationary or mobile device will have its own generator and be independent of electrical outlets and long power cords, no HV lines or dangerous grid power transformers, no pylons and tons of metal (copper, iron, aluminum) for electricity transmission, no widespread blackouts, and no “energy oligarchs.” Even the costly, bulky, and intermittent “renewable energy” sources and the use of gas will progressively decline. Of course, it will take time, but this future is certain; the current “masters of the world” will simply have to accept it, so much for decarbonization!
This is the revolution that must be accelerated; the E-Cat works, and, like everything else, it will be continuously improved. Andrea, don’t aim for perfection; push the Licensee, at least for a global presentation without technical details. This announcement alone could change everything and your merit must be quickly recognized.
The world is suffering greatly, and every delay becomes a fault.
Neri
Jean Pierre:
1- As I wrote many times here on the JoNP and said in many interviews, the Latina test was determined to last 6 hours. An Ecat SSM has to last for years.
2- The NGU at the time of Latina was an R&D prototype, the Ecat SSM must confront a global market.
3- The Latina prototype had just to charge a battery, and battery is not an inductive load.
4- After the explosion and eventual fire happened before the Latina test in my laboratory while I was preparing of the Ecat for the Twizy, among other modifications we had to enclose the Ecat in a steel safe, big and heavy, able to contain an explosion, which, for obvious reason, is not a possible solution for a product, for obvious reasons that surely you can understand.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Richard:
A battery has a much higher weight per W than the Ecat,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Prof. Rossi
How does the SSM version now in testing compare to an ordinary lithium battery in terms of power output per unit of weight? Thanks.
Richard
Hi,Andrea. Please forgive me if I have got things muddled.
In the Latina test run, the car was apparently having its battery charged for 6 hours as it travelled. This indicates to me that the NGU would have been operating in SSM at the time. So why are you now in a situation where you are desperately trying to achieve SSM before the end of January 2027?
This device has inductance, therefore SSM must have existed a couple of years ago. Perhaps I am missing something here. The NGU at the time of Latina seemed to be a wonderful invention capable of doing lots of things. Not any more?
I hope that you can clarify things for my old brain. Thank you in advance.
All the best. Jean Pierre
JJ
The Ecat non SSM can power only resistive loads, therefore cannot recharge batteries.
The Ecat SSM ( IF…) can power loads at 230 V, therefore with it you can charge a battery through a normal alimentator ( or inverter ) 230 V AC in, 12 or more V DC out, depending on the limits of the alimentator and the power of the Ecat assembly,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
JJ:
“Why do you want to connect an 1 kW Ecat assembly to an inverter of 800 W ? Which voltage do you need at the output ?”
A homologated microinverter 800 W 230V is a plugandplay inverter that can be connected directly to the socket as with a balcony PV installation. but maybe the Ecat 230V ac can connect directly to this battery that is equipped with an ac input?
https://www.ankersolix.com/nl/products/a17e2?o_c=&ref=2400W%2F3600Wthuisbatterij1&s_main=A17E23Z1&varId=45882646200377&variant=45882646200377
Best regards
JJ
Axil:
Thank you again for your suggestions,
A.R.
Axil:
Thank you for the suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
One of the potential highly motivated advocates of NGU deployment are those in the environmental movement. A leader in this field that can serve as an entree into this community and a prime example of such a potential enthusiastic advocate with a global following is as follows:
Dr. Michael E. Mann is one of the most influential and prominent figures in the global climate science and environmental community. His influence spans groundbreaking scientific research, public policy advocacy, and high-profile climate communication.
The contact information for prominent leading climatologist and environmental scientist Dr. Michael E. Mann:
Academic & University Contact
Dr. Mann serves as a Presidential Distinguished Professor and Director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media (PCSSM) at the University of Pennsylvania.University
Email: mmann00@sas.upenn.edu
Office Location: 160 Hayden Hall, 240 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Public & General Inquiries
For media requests, speaking engagements, or general inquiries, you can use his personal professional channels listed on the Official Michael E. Mann Website: https://michaelmann.net/contact/
General Email: mann@michaelmann.net
I suggest that you invite via email, Dr. Mann to the introduction of the NGU as follows:
Subject: Advancing Climate Mitigation: Upcoming NGU Launch (Winter 2026/2027)
Dear Dr. Mann,
I hope this message finds you well.
As a follower of your work at the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media, I am reaching out to introduce an upcoming technological development that aligns closely with your efforts to mitigate global environmental damage.
Between late December 2026 and January 2027, we will officially release the NGU system as a commercial product. This technology is engineered to bridge the critical gap between clean energy infrastructure and successful consumer deployment. By integrating with existing residential and commercial clean energy systems—such as solar installations—the NGU maximizes grid efficiency, reduces fossil fuel dependency, and lowers carbon footprints at scale.
We are currently shifting our deployment model to work directly with commercial solar installation partners. This ensures that the systems are deployed seamlessly, reducing technical failure and accelerating the adoption of green infrastructure in homes and businesses.
Given your deep expertise in climate science communication and sustainability frameworks, we would welcome the opportunity to share our technical brief with you as we approach the launch. We believe the NGU can serve as a vital tool in the practical application of decarbonization strategies.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and continued leadership in the climate community.
Sincerely,[Your Name – partner]
[Your Title]
[Your Company/Contact Information]
The interaction between the NGU customer and the partner that currently exists may not be intensive enough to enable the customer the background to protect both himself and the NGU from issues that block sucessful deployment of the NGU in his home.
To strengthen NGU deployment success and optimize customer onboarding, we need to shift from our current, high-touch direct retail model to a strategic B2B channel partner approach.
Current Problem
Weak Partner Engagement:
Current interactions do not provide retail customers with sufficient background knowledge.
Deployment Risks:
Lack of customer education leads to preventable in-home installation issues.
High Operational Workload:
Direct support of retail customers creates an unsustainable customer service burden for the partner.
Proposed Solution
Partner with Solar Installers:
Form strategic commercial relationships with established residential and commercial solar energy companies.
Leverage Existing Technical Expertise:
Solar installers already possess the complementary technical know-how required for in-home field deployments.
Transition to Turnkey Delivery:
Shift the entire installation and first-line support workload to these solar companies.
Strategic Benefits
Risk Mitigation:
Experienced field technicians ensure higher deployment success rates and protect NGU from technical failures.
Scalability:
Offloads the intensive customer service workload from NGU partners.
Market Acceleration:
Taps into existing customer bases already interested in green energy and home infrastructure upgrades.
The solar installer will sell the NGU as a better option to panel installations.
These solar energy companies will soon develop the knowhow to deliver a turnkey NGU system for the customer without the customer service workload involved in the partner’s direct contact with the retail NGU customer.
Anthony:
Thank you for your comment,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I read carefully all the website http://www.drandrearossi.com
My suggestion to the readers: it is interesting.
Anthony
JJ:
Why do you want to connect an 1 kW Ecat assembly to an inverter of 800 W ? Which voltage do you need at the output ?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Sam:
Thank you for the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello DR Rossi
Eye witness to trinity test
Eighty years ago today.
https://youtu.be/jS5aHQIF4eA?si=myXnilarr2ze_sMQ
Regards
Sam
Dear Andrea Rossi
Is an Ecat 1 kW suitable to be connected to a microinverter of max 800 Watts?
Best regards
JJ
Axil:
This information will be given in December 26/January 27,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
In what country(s) will the introductory demo be held?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Thank you for your suggestions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
On your upcoming demonstration – a few suggestions
1. Keep it simple. Heating flowing water. If electricity, measure output power and input power, if any.
2. Start the demonstration with the NGU off. Display/record all measurements. Establish a baseline.
3. Then activate the NGU unit. Observe the resulting changes.
4. When equilibrium occurs, run the experiment 10 times longer than a hidden battery could support.
5. When the demonstration period ends, turn off the NGU unit. Observe the changes. They should be similar to what occurred when the NGU was activated.
6. Finally, show the final state is the same baseline as the initial state.
If the NGU only produces heat – use the set-up of calibrated water flow rate and temperature change to show power. Like in you did in the early demonstrations – about a decade ago.
If electricity is produced – use identical power meters on the output and, if any, on the input. Power meters showing power, voltage, amperage, and total energy.
If electricity is produced, the load could be a heat exchanger, and you could use the water flow technique described above to show consistency with the electric power measurements and the water heating. Or else, use lamps of a known power consumption. You could turn on or off individual lamps to change the electrical power load and verify corresponding changes in the NGU output power, voltage, amperage.
Thoughts?
@Giovanni,
I like your comment! Dr Rossi said a ‘major independent third party of the world’ will be publicly supporting the Ecat at the presentation. That will be enough to persuade make people willing to make their payment for the preorders. Then the real revolution will start.
Regards, Ecat Enthusiast.
Giovanni:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Giovanni:
Great comment ! You are absolutely right !!!
Best
Tino
Dr Rossi,
I suggest you not to lose much time searching exotic testing ways at the global presentation of the Ecat: the real third parties will be the customers that, at that point, will receive the Ecat; when Bill Gates made the global presentation of his operative systems had a global success because his customers spread in the world the pass-parole that it works, not because some guru said that the test was successful. Present the product, sell it and the rest will arrive with or without gurus: the market is the sole expert that really counts.
All the best,
Giovanni
Svein:
So far the SSM is suitable for nothing, but IF…, it would be suitable for any kind of normal loads: I am not an expert of AI technology, I am just an enthusiast user of it, therefore I am not able to answer your specific question,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
How suitable is Ecat SSM to operate large AI systems?
Regards Svein
Zoeller:
We need the collaboration of car manufacturers to do it, and we are working in that direction also,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hallo Hr. Rossi,
die Kraftstoffpreise steigen und steigen.
Wenn ich ihren Latina-Test zeige, werde ich nur müde belächelt.
Was keiner kaufen kann, damit ist niemand zu begeistern.
Es ist einfach nur traurig.
ENGLISH SYNOPSIS:
Car fuels are too highly priced: I hope the Ecat will be useful also to power cars,
VG
Dieter Zöller
Decio:
We are grateful to all our Readers that empathize our problems and dedicate time of theirs to try to help us with their suggestions; the suggestions are always helpful, at the least to double check the issues, sometimes they are very useful,
Warm Regards,
A.R.