Thank you both for your constructive and helpful responses.
Axil, thank you for taking the time to develop the technical aspects of the possible Ecat–smart inverter architecture.
Andrea, thank you for clarifying that such a grid connection should be possible, while the necessary authorizations, certified installation and grid-management requirements must be handled by the customer together with qualified experts.
For my part, I think it is best to wait with any further steps until the January presentation has taken place. The presentation, together with the documentation and specifications that will be made available then, will be the main basis for assessing the practical and commercial possibilities going forward.
Until then, I will be happy to continue following the development and discussion here.
Axil:
Thank you for your insight.
Answer:
Should be possible, but still we will not assume any liability for connections to the grid, directly of indirectly, as I already explained . Such connections must be authorized by the grid provider and made by authorized contractors,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I looked further into the Norwegian electricity rules, and there is an important point that improves the economic analysis.
Norway’s current Norgespris is **50 øre/kWh including VAT (40 øre/kWh excluding VAT)** through the end of 2026. However, that figure alone does not represent the full economic value of electricity generated and consumed at your own house.
Under RME’s plus-customer rules, electricity produced and consumed behind your own meter does not incur grid charges. Therefore, a locally consumed Ecat kWh can have greater value than simply the quoted electricity price because it can displace both purchased electricity and applicable grid-related costs.
The calculation should therefore separate two uses of the Ecat production:
**Ecat → house:** value is the avoided cost of purchasing that electricity, including applicable avoided grid costs.
**Ecat → grid:** value is the compensation received for exported electricity under the applicable agreement.
For the proposed 6 kW system, continuous operation would theoretically produce:
**6 kW × 8,760 hours = 52,560 kWh/year.**
At the projected Ecat price of **$3–$4/W**, the Ecat itself would cost approximately **$18,000–$24,000**.
To illustrate the sensitivity of the business case:
At an average realized value of **$0.10/kWh**, 52,560 kWh would be worth about **$5,256/year**, giving an Ecat-only simple payback of approximately **3.4–4.6 years**.
At **$0.15/kWh**, annual value becomes about **$7,884**, reducing Ecat-only simple payback to approximately **2.3–3.0 years**.
At **$0.20/kWh**, annual value becomes about **$10,512**, giving approximately **1.7–2.3 years**.
These are illustrations, not a prediction. The real calculation must include the actual Norwegian price area, household consumption profile, export compensation, grid tariff, inverter and installation cost, Ecat availability, conversion losses, financing, taxes and maintenance.
There is also a second point from my previous post worth emphasizing.
If the first installation is organized as a genuine commercial R&D project rather than simply a private home installation, Norwegian business tax treatment may be relevant. An eligible R&D project approved under **SkatteFUNN** can currently receive a **19% tax credit on qualifying R&D project costs**, subject to the program’s requirements.
That possibility should be investigated with a Norwegian accountant and the Research Council **before committing the development expenditures**. It should not be assumed that an Ecat purchase or ordinary home installation automatically qualifies.
The important conclusion is that the economics should not be evaluated using the electricity commodity price alone.
A successful 6 kW demonstration could potentially establish three things simultaneously:
Those three together are what could turn the first installation into the foundation for the commercial integration business I described in my previous post.
If you successfully demonstrate the proposed 6 kW Ecat/smart-inverter system and obtain the necessary Norwegian grid approval, I think there may be a business opportunity considerably larger than your own installation.
Your first system could be treated as a demonstration and engineering project:
**Ecat SSM DC source → certified smart inverter → house + grid**
You would work with Leonardo to obtain Ecat DC outputs compatible with the inverter inputs, while qualified Norwegian electrical/grid specialists would handle the inverter, protection, installation and grid approval, consistent with Andrea’s latest reply.
If the system works reliably and you establish that other Norwegian grid customers want it, you would then possess something commercially valuable: a tested Norwegian integration package.
You could potentially establish a business offering a standardized 6 kW system to other customers operating under the applicable RME and grid-provider requirements.
That package could include:
**Ecat + certified smart inverter + standardized DC interface + installation/commissioning + grid documentation + continuing maintenance and support.**
With sufficient sales volume, you could also negotiate volume discounts from both Leonardo’s Ecat partner and the smart-inverter manufacturer. A maintenance contract could provide recurring income while giving customers a single point of support for the complete installation.
There may also be a Norwegian tax advantage worth investigating **before beginning the development project**.
If this is merely equipment installed privately at your home, Norwegian tax rules generally do not allow the investment and operating costs of a home power installation to be deducted against income from selling surplus electricity.
However, if you establish a genuine Norwegian business whose purpose includes developing, testing and commercializing this Ecat/grid-integration system, qualifying business expenses may receive normal business tax treatment, with qualifying long-lived equipment generally depreciated according to Norwegian rules.
Even more interesting is Norway’s **SkatteFUNN** R&D incentive. A Norwegian taxable company with an R&D project approved by the Research Council can currently receive a tax credit equal to **19% of qualifying R&D project costs**, subject to the program requirements and limits.
Therefore, before purchasing the demonstration equipment, I would investigate with a Norwegian accountant and the Research Council whether development of the first Ecat/MPPT/grid integration system could qualify as a formal R&D project.
The distinction could be financially important:
**Private experiment → generally no deduction for the home-generation investment.**
**Commercial development project → ordinary qualifying business costs may be deductible/depreciable.**
**Approved SkatteFUNN R&D project → potentially an additional 19% tax credit on qualifying R&D costs.**
Do not assume that purchasing an Ecat or installing equipment automatically qualifies. The business purpose, R&D content, accounting, documentation and project approval all matter.
The economics are nevertheless worth examining.
At the projected Ecat price of approximately **$3–$4 per watt**, a 6 kW Ecat would cost approximately:
**6,000 W × $3–$4/W = $18,000–$24,000.**
At continuous 6 kW operation, theoretical maximum annual generation would be:
**6 kW × 8,760 hours = 52,560 kWh/year.**
Before inverter, installation, maintenance, financing, taxes and losses, the electricity value necessary to recover the Ecat cost in five years would therefore be approximately:
**$18,000 system: 6.9 cents/kWh**
**$24,000 system: 9.1 cents/kWh**
Your real calculation should use Norwegian electricity prices, self-consumption savings, export compensation, grid charges, actual availability, the final RME rules and the complete installed cost.
If the first installation proves both technically successful and economically attractive, the money and effort you invested in solving the engineering and regulatory problems would not necessarily benefit only your own house. It could become the basis of a Norwegian Ecat integration business.
I think the same commercialization model could eventually be used by others on this blog around the world.
Leonardo supplies the independent energy source.
Established inverter manufacturers supply certified grid-interface technology.
Local engineers and installers satisfy their country’s electrical and utility requirements.
Local entrepreneurs package those components into a supported product adapted to their particular grid rules and incentives.
Norway could therefore become one demonstration of a much broader model.
Before investing, I would investigate the RME requirements, obtain professional Norwegian electrical and tax advice, and determine whether the initial development project could qualify for SkatteFUNN.
Following your reply to Svein that there are several ways to send Ecat SSM power to the grid, while the customer and certified experts must assume responsibility for the inverter, authorization and grid connection, I would like to reduce our proposal to one very specific Ecat-side technical question.
As a concrete example, consider the Fronius Primo GEN24 6.0 Plus smart inverter.
It is a 6 kW, single-phase 230 VAC inverter with two independent MPPT inputs. Its rated-power MPPT voltage range is approximately 230–480 VDC, with a nominal DC voltage of 400 V.
Assuming the certified 100 W Ecat module has the 12 VDC output previously discussed, a possible 6 kW Ecat configuration would be:
30 × 100 W Ecat modules in series
= approximately 360 VDC
= 3 kW
= approximately 8.3 A
→ MPPT input 1
and
30 × 100 W Ecat modules in series
= approximately 360 VDC
= 3 kW
= approximately 8.3 A
→ MPPT input 2
Total Ecat power = 60 × 100 W = 6 kW.
The smart inverter and certified installer would then be entirely responsible for the AC/grid side. I am not suggesting that Leonardo assume responsibility for the inverter or grid connection.
My question concerns only the Ecat SSM architecture:
**Could Leonardo configure a 6 kW Ecat SSM system as two electrically independent 3 kW DC strings, each consisting of thirty 100 W modules in series and providing approximately 360 VDC at 8.3 A, so that each string could be presented independently to one MPPT input of such an inverter?**
If the exact 30-module series arrangement is not suitable for the Ecat SSM architecture, could Leonardo instead configure the modules to provide two isolated DC outputs having approximately these electrical characteristics?
This would tell us whether the existing certified smart-inverter industry can potentially provide the downstream grid interface while Leonardo supplies only the appropriately configured Ecat DC source.
Dr. Rossi and readers, on a non-technical aspect, it seems that the final world presentation of E-Cat technology may come at a very crucial moment, as oil supplies from established sources become increasingly unlikely. America is an incredible country and not always on the wrong side of history. Two decades ago an Amerccan analyst made an astute observation. ‘The stone age did not end because cave men ran out of stones, and the oil age will not end because the world runs out of oil’. My own recently published novel was dedicated ‘to authors and dreamers everywhere’. Dr Rossi was perhaps a dreamer, derided and mocked,described as a fraud. It has always been dreamers and visionaries who ultimately pointed to the future and were the heralds of true human and scientific progress.
An informative video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdu0iZvQs0
A TEC-G cell consists of two electrodes and a patent-pending electrolyte developed by HEIONTEC. Within the closed-cell architecture, this electrolyte enables a reversible electrochemical process in which electrical energy is generated and then regenerated using ambient heat. https://www.heiontec.com
Svein:
Thank you for your and of Axil’s suggestions: we take notice of them.
There are many ways to send the Ecat SSM power to the grid, but , as I explained many times, so far we do not want to take any liability about this application. The Clients who want to go this way will have to go through all the complex authorizative and technological issues with the help of certified experts and of the related grid management.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Sam Wilson:
It will depend from the specific situations: for high power and only for heating purposes the non SSM can be more convenient,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Your answer that the Ecat is an independent source of electricity whose generated electricity cannot itself be sent to the grid, and that a grid connection requires an additional solution meeting the grid provider’s requirements, together with Axil’s two recent comments, has clarified the issue considerably.
Axil has now proposed a specific architecture:
Ecat DC output → MPPT inputs of an existing certified smart inverter → house + grid
His point is that the smart inverter would perform the grid-interface functions, including current control, grid synchronisation, export limitation and anti-islanding, while the Ecat would remain an independent DC source.
There is also an interesting development in Norway. RME is proposing a simplified connection procedure for small renewable generation, with 6 kW AC for single-phase connections and 11 kW AC for three-phase connections. Importantly, the relevant installed power is defined on the AC side of the inverter. The proposal is specifically intended to make small distributed generation easier to connect to the low-voltage grid.
This makes me wonder whether Axil’s architecture could provide a practical route for a 6 kW Ecat:
Ecat → DC output → certified smart inverter → 230 V house/grid
The Ecat would not itself be connected directly to the grid. The inverter would be the controlled interface between the Ecat and the grid.
The remaining technical question seems therefore to be quite specific:
A: Can the Ecat provide a DC output with voltage and current characteristics that are compatible with the MPPT input of a commercially available certified smart inverter, allowing the inverter to control the power taken from the Ecat while independently controlling the power delivered to the grid?
If the answer is yes, this could potentially allow a 6 kW Ecat to use existing grid-integration technology rather than requiring the Ecat itself to become a grid-forming/grid-following grid interface.
B: Is this technically compatible with the Ecat architecture you are developing?
I have been thinking about your question, and there may be a practical workaround that avoids requiring Leonardo’s partner to develop a special solar-market product.
My July proposal assumed that Leonardo would configure one Ecat system with several DC strings corresponding to the independent MPPT inputs of a smart inverter. That requires cooperation from the manufacturer, and the solar/grid-connected residential market does not presently appear to be the partner’s main priority.
There may be another approach.
Instead of ordering one Ecat containing several externally accessible strings, each independent MPPT input of the smart inverter could potentially be supplied by a separately ordered Ecat system configured for that DC input.
For a four-MPPT inverter, the arrangement would be:
The number of Ecat systems would therefore be selected according to the number of independent MPPT channels actually required—one, two, three or up to four in this example.
The important requirement when ordering each Ecat would be to specify a DC output voltage and current range compatible with one MPPT input of the selected inverter. Leonardo could determine internally how its individual 100-W modules should be interconnected to provide that output. The customer would not need access to the internal diode/module connections.
This is an important distinction. We would not be asking Leonardo’s partner to enter the solar-inverter business or design a new grid interface. We would only be asking Leonardo to supply an Ecat DC source having electrical output characteristics compatible with a specified inverter DC input.
The existing certified smart inverter would remain responsible for the grid functions—synchronization, AC current control, export limiting, anti-islanding and the other requirements imposed by the utility.
There is still one technical question that has to be answered before saying this will work: Is the Ecat DC output compatible with the way the selected inverter controls its MPPT input?
That needs confirmation from Leonardo and comparison with the inverter manufacturer’s DC-input specifications.
If the answer is yes, however, this could provide the workaround:
Do not ask the partner to manufacture a special multi-string solar Ecat. Instead, order one appropriately configured Ecat DC source for each independent MPPT input that will be used.
That would preserve the smart-inverter solution I proposed in July while working within the Ecat products Leonardo is prepared to supply.
Your question points to an important limitation in the solution I proposed in July.
Technically, I believe the smart-inverter approach remains valid. My proposal was to configure the individual Ecat DC modules into high-voltage series strings, with multiple strings feeding the independent DC/MPPT inputs of an existing smart inverter.
The inverter would then control the current taken from those strings and the current delivered to the AC system and grid. This is essentially using the mature solar-inverter infrastructure rather than asking the Ecat itself to perform all of the grid-interface functions.
However, there is a commercial constraint that presently makes this solution impractical.
The string configuration cannot reasonably be created by the homeowner. It requires cooperation from Leonardo and its manufacturing partner so that the Ecat modules are supplied with the correct series-string arrangement, voltage range, protection, isolation and DC interfaces required by commercial smart inverters.
At present, that does not appear to be their market priority.
As I understand the current product direction, the partner is concentrating on the large commercial market, particularly systems in approximately the 1 MW class for grid/utility applications. The SSM product addresses a different market: customers wanting an independent source of electricity without depending upon the grid.
My proposal addresses a third market:
the existing solar/grid-connected distributed-energy market.
In that architecture:
Ecat DC modules → high-voltage DC strings → smart/hybrid inverter → home + grid
I believe this is technically attractive because the solar industry has already developed much of the expensive infrastructure required for grid interconnection: certified smart inverters, MPPT inputs, anti-islanding, export limiting, metering, protection and utility interconnection procedures.
But unless Leonardo and its partner decide to support this market by providing an appropriate DC string interface, the customer cannot implement the complete solution simply by purchasing an existing Ecat product and an inverter.
Therefore, my answer to your question today is somewhat different from the purely technical answer I gave in July:
Yes, a smart inverter can perform the grid-side power/current control. But no, I do not presently see a practical way for a customer to implement my complete multi-string solution without cooperation from Leonardo and its manufacturing partner.
The missing technology is not principally the inverter. The missing piece is an Ecat product configuration designed to interface with the existing solar-inverter ecosystem.
If that market eventually becomes a priority, I still think the architecture I proposed in July is a practical way to address it.
Would an Ecat non-SSM heater unit power a low voltage DC heat pump/air conditioner?
There seems to be a big market for low voltage DC powered air conditioners.
[2:] 12V Rooftop Air Conditioner for Truck Tractor Motorhome RV Camper, White
Heat Pump, Cooling Heating Ventilation Air Purification, 2200W Cooling 1000W Heating, Non-Ducted, DC 12V AC Unit
Price, product page
£509.99
[3:] 12V Mini Split Air Conditioner for RV, Truck, and Trailer Cabins – Quiet DC Cooling System for Parking and Sleeping
Price, product page
£186.99
Good morning, Dr. Rossi. It has been a while since we last spoke, but I continue to follow your forum.
I am following the development of the Ecat SSM with confidence.
You mentioned reaching 3.5 sigma; when do you expect to reach 5?
Will you be giving a presentation once the 5-sigma level is reached?
Or are you still fine-tuning the details of the non-SSM version, meaning the other one can wait?
Keep up the good work.
Your comments from July are becoming particularly relevant now.
On July 30 you wrote that the current NGU design was not grid compatible, and that the solution was to use existing smart inverters with microprocessor control. You also described a smart hybrid inverter architecture that could provide both household power and a controlled grid connection.
Andrea Rossi has now stated explicitly that the Ecat is an independent source of electricity whose generated electricity cannot itself be sent to the grid. He says that establishing a grid connection requires the agreement of the grid provider and compliance with its technological requirements and authorizations.
This raises the question I would like you to address:
How would your smart-inverter solution allow an Ecat to operate in parallel with the grid without a battery, while ensuring that the grid can never impose a load on the Ecat greater than the power the Ecat is capable of delivering?
In other words, where exactly is the power/current limitation implemented?
If the Ecat can continuously produce, for example, 6 kW, while the grid can accept virtually any amount of power, how does the smart inverter ensure that the Ecat remains a controlled 0–6 kW power source rather than becoming an electrical source exposed to an unrestricted grid need for more power?
You suggested in July that existing smart inverters could solve the grid-compatibility problem.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
As I said, the details and the instructions of the Ecat will be published after the presentation of the product,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
1. A battery, internal or external, for proper operation?
2. Or other external device for proper operation?
3. Or external control or intervention for proper operation?
Svein:
The Ecat is an independent power source whose generated electricity cannot be sent to the grid. To make such connection is necessary what I already answered in my former answer to yout last comment before this.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thank you for your answer, october 3, 2026 at 8;34 AM. I understand that export to the local grid will have to be carried out in agreement with the grid provider and according to its technological requirements and authorizations.
Since the Ecat is intended for possible grid export in Europe, I assume that its grid interface will have to comply with the applicable European grid-connection requirements, including the RfG requirements for generating units.
Would this also mean that the Ecat’s grid interface is designed to control and limit the active power/current delivered to the grid, so that the grid can never impose a load greater than the Ecat’s available generating capacity?
In other words, can the grid-connected Ecat behave as a controlled power source rather than as a voltage source whose output could be determined by the capacity of the connected grid?
I also understand that ENTSO-E is developing RfG 2.0, with evolving requirements for inverter-based generation, including Grid Forming capability.
Has the Ecat grid interface been designed with this future development in mind?
I would like to understand the functional difference between a non-SSM 12VDC 100w unit and a (successful) SSM 12VDC 100W unit. I understand that the non-SSM 12VDC 100W is less expensive than the SSM unit. If this is true, then there may be certain applications where the non-SSM is a better choice.
1. The output of the non-SSM unit has occasional output dropouts?
2. The output of the non-SSM unit has occasional output voltages above the maximum allowed voltage?
3. The non-SSM must be powered off, then on, before proper operation is restored?
4. The non-SSM must be disconnected from the load, then reconnected, before proper operation is restored?
If #1 is true, what the typical duration of the loss of output power (sub-seconds, seconds, minutes)?
I would like to suggest a systems-engineering approach that might simplify NGU manufacturing and substantially reduce the cost of SSM systems.
You have stated that the standard NGU module is 100 W and that the SSM version costs more because its circuitry is considerably more complex than the non-SSM version.
A 1 MW system based on 100 W modules requires approximately 10,000 NGU modules. Therefore, it seems that the greatest manufacturing advantage would come from making those 10,000 generating modules as simple, identical and inexpensive as possible.
Instead of manufacturing two substantially different NGU versions, could Leonardo concentrate high-speed production on one standardized non-SSM 100 W NGU, and move as much of the additional SSM functionality as possible to a centralized system-level conditioning assembly?
For example, a 10 kW system containing approximately 100 NGUs might have this architecture:
Common regulated 12-VDC operating bus → 100 standard non-SSM NGUs → common output collection bus → centralized energy storage/regulation/conditioning → regulated system output
The centralized assembly would therefore perform two functions. It would provide the required 12-VDC operating power to all of the non-SSM NGUs through a common bus, and it would collect and condition their generated output at the system level.
If the raw output requires energy accumulation and voltage stabilization before it can supply general electrical loads, those common functions might be performed once for the complete system rather than separately inside every NGU.
This could have a major manufacturing advantage. The NGU itself is Leonardo’s specialized technology and would be manufactured in very large quantities. The centralized conditioning equipment could potentially use low-cost, mass-produced, off-the-shelf power-electronics components already available from the solar, EV, battery-storage, industrial-power and inverter industries.
The manufacturing strategy could then become:
One simple standardized NGU manufactured 10,000 times + one centralized system-conditioning architecture
rather than maintaining separate manufacturing requirements for both non-SSM and more complicated SSM NGUs.
The same architecture could scale downward. A 10 kW system would use approximately 100 identical NGUs; larger systems would use more. The conditioning equipment itself could be modular and redundant as power increases, while the basic NGU generating module remains unchanged.
I recognize one important limitation: if some of the additional SSM circuitry must physically operate at each individual NGU to maintain the self-sustaining reaction itself, that function obviously cannot be centralized.
Therefore, my question is:
Has Leonardo separated the SSM functions that absolutely must remain local to each NGU from the common functions—such as the 12-VDC supply, energy accumulation, voltage regulation and output conditioning—that could potentially be performed once at the system level?
If that separation is possible, it could permit Leonardo to concentrate its highest-volume manufacturing on a single simple NGU design, while using comparatively inexpensive conventional power electronics to provide the additional functionality required by the complete system.
In systems-engineering terms, the principle is simple:
Do the specialized function 10,000 times, but do each shareable common function only once.
This might significantly reduce manufacturing cost, simplify high-speed production, reduce inventory and testing requirements, and make both small and large NGU systems easier to manufacture and service.
@Sam Wilson
Even a fridge which works with absorption would be a resistiv load. Also a ceramic hob, solid plate hob.
But not a fridge with compression.
Air conditioner or fan would not work with non-ssm, too. Because they are inductive load.
I find the most advantage and energy saving is non-ssm with infrared heaters. No expensive heat pump, no expensive laborer hours, no heating pipes or leaks. All is simple and cheap.
1. electric fan heater with a switch regulator
2. heater with a electronic regulator
3. infrared heater
4. cooking plate with a digital display
5. induction plate
with the non ssm ecat?
Your recent answers concerning the difference between the non-SSM and SSM E-Cat NGU raise an interesting commercial systems-engineering question.
You have explained that the SSM version costs more because its circuitry is much more complex, while the non-SSM version is limited to resistive loads.
For a large installation, however, a systems company might purchase a large number of the less expensive non-SSM units and connect them to a centralized energy-storage, power-conditioning and voltage-regulation system, followed by a commercial inverter.
There could be two important economies of scale.
First, as the number of non-SSM units increases, independent variations in their outputs could partially average together. Any additional stabilization resulting from operating a large number of units together would further reduce the amount of power conditioning required. Instead of duplicating complex conditioning circuitry at every generating unit, this function could be provided at the system level.
Second, such an architecture could potentially have an availability advantage. A large system containing many relatively simple non-SSM generating units could tolerate individual unit failures while continuing to operate at slightly reduced power. The centralized conditioning equipment could also be designed with industrial redundancy and made independently serviceable. By comparison, adding substantially more complex circuitry to every individual SSM unit creates many more complex assemblies whose failures could affect system availability.
I recognize that actual reliability would have to be established from field failure data; I am describing the potential architectural advantage.
If the price difference between the non-SSM and SSM units is substantial, these cost, power-averaging and availability advantages could allow an independent systems company using your non-SSM units to compete commercially with large installations based upon the per-unit SSM architecture.
Would Leonardo Corporation permit a company purchasing non-SSM E-Cat NGUs to develop and commercially sell such a centralized power-conditioning system, even if that systems-level solution competes with Leonardo’s SSM approach for large installations?
I am asking about Leonardo’s commercial policy for independent system integration, not requesting proprietary information concerning the SSM circuitry.
Claudio Varotto:
Thank you for your suggestion.
The description and the maintenance and use instructions of the Ecat will be published in the user manual at the presentation of the product,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Could you specify what the non-SSM E-Cat requires to operate and power a resistive load?
1) Specifically, what type of electrical connection must be set up upstream of the device for startup?
2) What circuit configuration must be maintained during operation?
3) Would the resistive load be powered even in a circuit configuration connected in series with, for example, a 180-volt DC output?
Answers to these questions would enable theoretical assessments regarding the potential use of a string of non-SSM E-Cats to simulate a photovoltaic input for an MPPT charge controller.
Adequate capacitance—provided by electrolytic capacitors—can act as a filter for the ripple introduced by the charge controller’s operation, effectively converting the system into a pseudo-resistive load; this would allow the setup to serve as a foundation for various applications, such as battery charging or feeding energy into the grid via a certified inverter.
Thank you for your attention.
Best regards.
Dear Dr. Rossi!
1) Can you estimate by what percentage the SSM version would be more expensive compared to the non-ssm version? Just approximately.
2) Could I also connect a kettle, infrared heater and an electric boiler to the non-SSM version? Does it have standard Europlugs?
Best regards
Urs Z.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi, when do you think that will be possible for you to decide if the presentation will be made with the Ecat SSM, or with the non-SSM ?
Cheers
Julia
Dr. Rossi:
I look forward to purchasing the NGU devices (SSM or not SSM) soon! God speed with the development and manufacturing.
A few questions about the non-SSM device. It might be a good source for providing lightning or heat or both. Can the non-SSM device:
1). Power a nonlinear restive device like an incandescent light bulb?
2). An arc light?
3). A fluorescent light?
4). AN LED light?
I look forward to your answer.
Dear Andrea and Axil,
Thank you both for your constructive and helpful responses.
Axil, thank you for taking the time to develop the technical aspects of the possible Ecat–smart inverter architecture.
Andrea, thank you for clarifying that such a grid connection should be possible, while the necessary authorizations, certified installation and grid-management requirements must be handled by the customer together with qualified experts.
For my part, I think it is best to wait with any further steps until the January presentation has taken place. The presentation, together with the documentation and specifications that will be made available then, will be the main basis for assessing the practical and commercial possibilities going forward.
Until then, I will be happy to continue following the development and discussion here.
Best regards Svein
lenr.wiki:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
David-UK:
Thank you for your support,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Axil:
Thank you for your insight.
Answer:
Should be possible, but still we will not assume any liability for connections to the grid, directly of indirectly, as I already explained . Such connections must be authorized by the grid provider and made by authorized contractors,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Svein,
**Update to my previous business-plan post**
I looked further into the Norwegian electricity rules, and there is an important point that improves the economic analysis.
Norway’s current Norgespris is **50 øre/kWh including VAT (40 øre/kWh excluding VAT)** through the end of 2026. However, that figure alone does not represent the full economic value of electricity generated and consumed at your own house.
Under RME’s plus-customer rules, electricity produced and consumed behind your own meter does not incur grid charges. Therefore, a locally consumed Ecat kWh can have greater value than simply the quoted electricity price because it can displace both purchased electricity and applicable grid-related costs.
The calculation should therefore separate two uses of the Ecat production:
**Ecat → house:** value is the avoided cost of purchasing that electricity, including applicable avoided grid costs.
**Ecat → grid:** value is the compensation received for exported electricity under the applicable agreement.
For the proposed 6 kW system, continuous operation would theoretically produce:
**6 kW × 8,760 hours = 52,560 kWh/year.**
At the projected Ecat price of **$3–$4/W**, the Ecat itself would cost approximately **$18,000–$24,000**.
To illustrate the sensitivity of the business case:
At an average realized value of **$0.10/kWh**, 52,560 kWh would be worth about **$5,256/year**, giving an Ecat-only simple payback of approximately **3.4–4.6 years**.
At **$0.15/kWh**, annual value becomes about **$7,884**, reducing Ecat-only simple payback to approximately **2.3–3.0 years**.
At **$0.20/kWh**, annual value becomes about **$10,512**, giving approximately **1.7–2.3 years**.
These are illustrations, not a prediction. The real calculation must include the actual Norwegian price area, household consumption profile, export compensation, grid tariff, inverter and installation cost, Ecat availability, conversion losses, financing, taxes and maintenance.
There is also a second point from my previous post worth emphasizing.
If the first installation is organized as a genuine commercial R&D project rather than simply a private home installation, Norwegian business tax treatment may be relevant. An eligible R&D project approved under **SkatteFUNN** can currently receive a **19% tax credit on qualifying R&D project costs**, subject to the program’s requirements.
That possibility should be investigated with a Norwegian accountant and the Research Council **before committing the development expenditures**. It should not be assumed that an Ecat purchase or ordinary home installation automatically qualifies.
The important conclusion is that the economics should not be evaluated using the electricity commodity price alone.
A successful 6 kW demonstration could potentially establish three things simultaneously:
**technical feasibility + Norwegian grid approval + demonstrated economics.**
Those three together are what could turn the first installation into the foundation for the commercial integration business I described in my previous post.
Regards,
Axil
Svein,
If you successfully demonstrate the proposed 6 kW Ecat/smart-inverter system and obtain the necessary Norwegian grid approval, I think there may be a business opportunity considerably larger than your own installation.
Your first system could be treated as a demonstration and engineering project:
**Ecat SSM DC source → certified smart inverter → house + grid**
You would work with Leonardo to obtain Ecat DC outputs compatible with the inverter inputs, while qualified Norwegian electrical/grid specialists would handle the inverter, protection, installation and grid approval, consistent with Andrea’s latest reply.
If the system works reliably and you establish that other Norwegian grid customers want it, you would then possess something commercially valuable: a tested Norwegian integration package.
You could potentially establish a business offering a standardized 6 kW system to other customers operating under the applicable RME and grid-provider requirements.
That package could include:
**Ecat + certified smart inverter + standardized DC interface + installation/commissioning + grid documentation + continuing maintenance and support.**
With sufficient sales volume, you could also negotiate volume discounts from both Leonardo’s Ecat partner and the smart-inverter manufacturer. A maintenance contract could provide recurring income while giving customers a single point of support for the complete installation.
There may also be a Norwegian tax advantage worth investigating **before beginning the development project**.
If this is merely equipment installed privately at your home, Norwegian tax rules generally do not allow the investment and operating costs of a home power installation to be deducted against income from selling surplus electricity.
However, if you establish a genuine Norwegian business whose purpose includes developing, testing and commercializing this Ecat/grid-integration system, qualifying business expenses may receive normal business tax treatment, with qualifying long-lived equipment generally depreciated according to Norwegian rules.
Even more interesting is Norway’s **SkatteFUNN** R&D incentive. A Norwegian taxable company with an R&D project approved by the Research Council can currently receive a tax credit equal to **19% of qualifying R&D project costs**, subject to the program requirements and limits.
Therefore, before purchasing the demonstration equipment, I would investigate with a Norwegian accountant and the Research Council whether development of the first Ecat/MPPT/grid integration system could qualify as a formal R&D project.
The distinction could be financially important:
**Private experiment → generally no deduction for the home-generation investment.**
**Commercial development project → ordinary qualifying business costs may be deductible/depreciable.**
**Approved SkatteFUNN R&D project → potentially an additional 19% tax credit on qualifying R&D costs.**
Do not assume that purchasing an Ecat or installing equipment automatically qualifies. The business purpose, R&D content, accounting, documentation and project approval all matter.
The economics are nevertheless worth examining.
At the projected Ecat price of approximately **$3–$4 per watt**, a 6 kW Ecat would cost approximately:
**6,000 W × $3–$4/W = $18,000–$24,000.**
At continuous 6 kW operation, theoretical maximum annual generation would be:
**6 kW × 8,760 hours = 52,560 kWh/year.**
Before inverter, installation, maintenance, financing, taxes and losses, the electricity value necessary to recover the Ecat cost in five years would therefore be approximately:
**$18,000 system: 6.9 cents/kWh**
**$24,000 system: 9.1 cents/kWh**
Your real calculation should use Norwegian electricity prices, self-consumption savings, export compensation, grid charges, actual availability, the final RME rules and the complete installed cost.
If the first installation proves both technically successful and economically attractive, the money and effort you invested in solving the engineering and regulatory problems would not necessarily benefit only your own house. It could become the basis of a Norwegian Ecat integration business.
I think the same commercialization model could eventually be used by others on this blog around the world.
Leonardo supplies the independent energy source.
Established inverter manufacturers supply certified grid-interface technology.
Local engineers and installers satisfy their country’s electrical and utility requirements.
Local entrepreneurs package those components into a supported product adapted to their particular grid rules and incentives.
Norway could therefore become one demonstration of a much broader model.
Before investing, I would investigate the RME requirements, obtain professional Norwegian electrical and tax advice, and determine whether the initial development project could qualify for SkatteFUNN.
Regards,
Axil
Dear Andrea,
Following your reply to Svein that there are several ways to send Ecat SSM power to the grid, while the customer and certified experts must assume responsibility for the inverter, authorization and grid connection, I would like to reduce our proposal to one very specific Ecat-side technical question.
As a concrete example, consider the Fronius Primo GEN24 6.0 Plus smart inverter.
It is a 6 kW, single-phase 230 VAC inverter with two independent MPPT inputs. Its rated-power MPPT voltage range is approximately 230–480 VDC, with a nominal DC voltage of 400 V.
Assuming the certified 100 W Ecat module has the 12 VDC output previously discussed, a possible 6 kW Ecat configuration would be:
30 × 100 W Ecat modules in series
= approximately 360 VDC
= 3 kW
= approximately 8.3 A
→ MPPT input 1
and
30 × 100 W Ecat modules in series
= approximately 360 VDC
= 3 kW
= approximately 8.3 A
→ MPPT input 2
Total Ecat power = 60 × 100 W = 6 kW.
The smart inverter and certified installer would then be entirely responsible for the AC/grid side. I am not suggesting that Leonardo assume responsibility for the inverter or grid connection.
My question concerns only the Ecat SSM architecture:
**Could Leonardo configure a 6 kW Ecat SSM system as two electrically independent 3 kW DC strings, each consisting of thirty 100 W modules in series and providing approximately 360 VDC at 8.3 A, so that each string could be presented independently to one MPPT input of such an inverter?**
If the exact 30-module series arrangement is not suitable for the Ecat SSM architecture, could Leonardo instead configure the modules to provide two isolated DC outputs having approximately these electrical characteristics?
This would tell us whether the existing certified smart-inverter industry can potentially provide the downstream grid interface while Leonardo supplies only the appropriately configured Ecat DC source.
Regards,
Axil
Dr. Rossi and readers, on a non-technical aspect, it seems that the final world presentation of E-Cat technology may come at a very crucial moment, as oil supplies from established sources become increasingly unlikely. America is an incredible country and not always on the wrong side of history. Two decades ago an Amerccan analyst made an astute observation. ‘The stone age did not end because cave men ran out of stones, and the oil age will not end because the world runs out of oil’. My own recently published novel was dedicated ‘to authors and dreamers everywhere’. Dr Rossi was perhaps a dreamer, derided and mocked,described as a fraud. It has always been dreamers and visionaries who ultimately pointed to the future and were the heralds of true human and scientific progress.
An informative video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdu0iZvQs0
A TEC-G cell consists of two electrodes and a patent-pending electrolyte developed by HEIONTEC. Within the closed-cell architecture, this electrolyte enables a reversible electrochemical process in which electrical energy is generated and then regenerated using ambient heat.
https://www.heiontec.com
Svein:
Thank you for your and of Axil’s suggestions: we take notice of them.
There are many ways to send the Ecat SSM power to the grid, but , as I explained many times, so far we do not want to take any liability about this application. The Clients who want to go this way will have to go through all the complex authorizative and technological issues with the help of certified experts and of the related grid management.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Sam Wilson:
It will depend from the specific situations: for high power and only for heating purposes the non SSM can be more convenient,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
Since you will make non-SSM Ecats, even if you have SSM E-cats, what advantages do the non-SSM have over the SSM? Can you elaborate?
Thanks.
Dear Andrea,
Your answer that the Ecat is an independent source of electricity whose generated electricity cannot itself be sent to the grid, and that a grid connection requires an additional solution meeting the grid provider’s requirements, together with Axil’s two recent comments, has clarified the issue considerably.
Axil has now proposed a specific architecture:
Ecat DC output → MPPT inputs of an existing certified smart inverter → house + grid
His point is that the smart inverter would perform the grid-interface functions, including current control, grid synchronisation, export limitation and anti-islanding, while the Ecat would remain an independent DC source.
There is also an interesting development in Norway. RME is proposing a simplified connection procedure for small renewable generation, with 6 kW AC for single-phase connections and 11 kW AC for three-phase connections. Importantly, the relevant installed power is defined on the AC side of the inverter. The proposal is specifically intended to make small distributed generation easier to connect to the low-voltage grid.
This makes me wonder whether Axil’s architecture could provide a practical route for a 6 kW Ecat:
Ecat → DC output → certified smart inverter → 230 V house/grid
The Ecat would not itself be connected directly to the grid. The inverter would be the controlled interface between the Ecat and the grid.
The remaining technical question seems therefore to be quite specific:
A: Can the Ecat provide a DC output with voltage and current characteristics that are compatible with the MPPT input of a commercially available certified smart inverter, allowing the inverter to control the power taken from the Ecat while independently controlling the power delivered to the grid?
If the answer is yes, this could potentially allow a 6 kW Ecat to use existing grid-integration technology rather than requiring the Ecat itself to become a grid-forming/grid-following grid interface.
B: Is this technically compatible with the Ecat architecture you are developing?
Regards Svein
Paul Dodgshun:
No, the non SSM can power only resistive loads, so far,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Svein,
I have been thinking about your question, and there may be a practical workaround that avoids requiring Leonardo’s partner to develop a special solar-market product.
My July proposal assumed that Leonardo would configure one Ecat system with several DC strings corresponding to the independent MPPT inputs of a smart inverter. That requires cooperation from the manufacturer, and the solar/grid-connected residential market does not presently appear to be the partner’s main priority.
There may be another approach.
Instead of ordering one Ecat containing several externally accessible strings, each independent MPPT input of the smart inverter could potentially be supplied by a separately ordered Ecat system configured for that DC input.
For a four-MPPT inverter, the arrangement would be:
Ecat #1 → MPPT input 1
Ecat #2 → MPPT input 2
Ecat #3 → MPPT input 3
Ecat #4 → MPPT input 4
The number of Ecat systems would therefore be selected according to the number of independent MPPT channels actually required—one, two, three or up to four in this example.
The important requirement when ordering each Ecat would be to specify a DC output voltage and current range compatible with one MPPT input of the selected inverter. Leonardo could determine internally how its individual 100-W modules should be interconnected to provide that output. The customer would not need access to the internal diode/module connections.
This is an important distinction. We would not be asking Leonardo’s partner to enter the solar-inverter business or design a new grid interface. We would only be asking Leonardo to supply an Ecat DC source having electrical output characteristics compatible with a specified inverter DC input.
The existing certified smart inverter would remain responsible for the grid functions—synchronization, AC current control, export limiting, anti-islanding and the other requirements imposed by the utility.
There is still one technical question that has to be answered before saying this will work: Is the Ecat DC output compatible with the way the selected inverter controls its MPPT input?
That needs confirmation from Leonardo and comparison with the inverter manufacturer’s DC-input specifications.
If the answer is yes, however, this could provide the workaround:
Do not ask the partner to manufacture a special multi-string solar Ecat. Instead, order one appropriately configured Ecat DC source for each independent MPPT input that will be used.
That would preserve the smart-inverter solution I proposed in July while working within the Ecat products Leonardo is prepared to supply.
Regards,
Axil
Dear Svein,
Your question points to an important limitation in the solution I proposed in July.
Technically, I believe the smart-inverter approach remains valid. My proposal was to configure the individual Ecat DC modules into high-voltage series strings, with multiple strings feeding the independent DC/MPPT inputs of an existing smart inverter.
The inverter would then control the current taken from those strings and the current delivered to the AC system and grid. This is essentially using the mature solar-inverter infrastructure rather than asking the Ecat itself to perform all of the grid-interface functions.
However, there is a commercial constraint that presently makes this solution impractical.
The string configuration cannot reasonably be created by the homeowner. It requires cooperation from Leonardo and its manufacturing partner so that the Ecat modules are supplied with the correct series-string arrangement, voltage range, protection, isolation and DC interfaces required by commercial smart inverters.
At present, that does not appear to be their market priority.
As I understand the current product direction, the partner is concentrating on the large commercial market, particularly systems in approximately the 1 MW class for grid/utility applications. The SSM product addresses a different market: customers wanting an independent source of electricity without depending upon the grid.
My proposal addresses a third market:
the existing solar/grid-connected distributed-energy market.
In that architecture:
Ecat DC modules → high-voltage DC strings → smart/hybrid inverter → home + grid
I believe this is technically attractive because the solar industry has already developed much of the expensive infrastructure required for grid interconnection: certified smart inverters, MPPT inputs, anti-islanding, export limiting, metering, protection and utility interconnection procedures.
But unless Leonardo and its partner decide to support this market by providing an appropriate DC string interface, the customer cannot implement the complete solution simply by purchasing an existing Ecat product and an inverter.
Therefore, my answer to your question today is somewhat different from the purely technical answer I gave in July:
Yes, a smart inverter can perform the grid-side power/current control. But no, I do not presently see a practical way for a customer to implement my complete multi-string solution without cooperation from Leonardo and its manufacturing partner.
The missing technology is not principally the inverter. The missing piece is an Ecat product configuration designed to interface with the existing solar-inverter ecosystem.
If that market eventually becomes a priority, I still think the architecture I proposed in July is a practical way to address it.
Regards,
Axil
Would an Ecat non-SSM heater unit power a low voltage DC heat pump/air conditioner?
There seems to be a big market for low voltage DC powered air conditioners.
websearch ’12V DC heat pump’ ’24V DC heat pump’
[1:] https://www.amazon.co.uk/12v-mini-split-air-conditioner/s?k=12v%20mini%20split%20air%20conditioner
RV Rooftop 12V 10000 BTU A. Motorhomes, Campers, Campervans, Trucks
[2:] 12V Rooftop Air Conditioner for Truck Tractor Motorhome RV Camper, White
Heat Pump, Cooling Heating Ventilation Air Purification, 2200W Cooling 1000W Heating, Non-Ducted, DC 12V AC Unit
Price, product page
£509.99
[3:] 12V Mini Split Air Conditioner for RV, Truck, and Trailer Cabins – Quiet DC Cooling System for Parking and Sleeping
Price, product page
£186.99
Gavino Mamia:
Thank you for your kind support.
We should reach Sigma 5 within November 2026,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Good morning, Dr. Rossi. It has been a while since we last spoke, but I continue to follow your forum.
I am following the development of the Ecat SSM with confidence.
You mentioned reaching 3.5 sigma; when do you expect to reach 5?
Will you be giving a presentation once the 5-sigma level is reached?
Or are you still fine-tuning the details of the non-SSM version, meaning the other one can wait?
Keep up the good work.
@Axil
Your comments from July are becoming particularly relevant now.
On July 30 you wrote that the current NGU design was not grid compatible, and that the solution was to use existing smart inverters with microprocessor control. You also described a smart hybrid inverter architecture that could provide both household power and a controlled grid connection.
Andrea Rossi has now stated explicitly that the Ecat is an independent source of electricity whose generated electricity cannot itself be sent to the grid. He says that establishing a grid connection requires the agreement of the grid provider and compliance with its technological requirements and authorizations.
This raises the question I would like you to address:
How would your smart-inverter solution allow an Ecat to operate in parallel with the grid without a battery, while ensuring that the grid can never impose a load on the Ecat greater than the power the Ecat is capable of delivering?
In other words, where exactly is the power/current limitation implemented?
If the Ecat can continuously produce, for example, 6 kW, while the grid can accept virtually any amount of power, how does the smart inverter ensure that the Ecat remains a controlled 0–6 kW power source rather than becoming an electrical source exposed to an unrestricted grid need for more power?
You suggested in July that existing smart inverters could solve the grid-compatibility problem.
Can you explain how?
Regards Svein
Steven Nicholes Karels:
As I said, the details and the instructions of the Ecat will be published after the presentation of the product,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Does the non-SSM 12VDC 100W unit require:
1. A battery, internal or external, for proper operation?
2. Or other external device for proper operation?
3. Or external control or intervention for proper operation?
Clorinne:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Axil:
Thank you for your suggestions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven Nicholes Karels:
1- no
2- no
3- n.a.
4- n.a.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Svein:
The Ecat is an independent power source whose generated electricity cannot be sent to the grid. To make such connection is necessary what I already answered in my former answer to yout last comment before this.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Thank you for your answer, october 3, 2026 at 8;34 AM. I understand that export to the local grid will have to be carried out in agreement with the grid provider and according to its technological requirements and authorizations.
Since the Ecat is intended for possible grid export in Europe, I assume that its grid interface will have to comply with the applicable European grid-connection requirements, including the RfG requirements for generating units.
Would this also mean that the Ecat’s grid interface is designed to control and limit the active power/current delivered to the grid, so that the grid can never impose a load greater than the Ecat’s available generating capacity?
In other words, can the grid-connected Ecat behave as a controlled power source rather than as a voltage source whose output could be determined by the capacity of the connected grid?
I also understand that ENTSO-E is developing RfG 2.0, with evolving requirements for inverter-based generation, including Grid Forming capability.
Has the Ecat grid interface been designed with this future development in mind?
Regards Svein
Dr Rossi:
Will the Ecat be manufactured also in the USA and in Europe ?
Thank you if you can answer,
Clorinne
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I would like to understand the functional difference between a non-SSM 12VDC 100w unit and a (successful) SSM 12VDC 100W unit. I understand that the non-SSM 12VDC 100W is less expensive than the SSM unit. If this is true, then there may be certain applications where the non-SSM is a better choice.
1. The output of the non-SSM unit has occasional output dropouts?
2. The output of the non-SSM unit has occasional output voltages above the maximum allowed voltage?
3. The non-SSM must be powered off, then on, before proper operation is restored?
4. The non-SSM must be disconnected from the load, then reconnected, before proper operation is restored?
If #1 is true, what the typical duration of the loss of output power (sub-seconds, seconds, minutes)?
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I would like to suggest a systems-engineering approach that might simplify NGU manufacturing and substantially reduce the cost of SSM systems.
You have stated that the standard NGU module is 100 W and that the SSM version costs more because its circuitry is considerably more complex than the non-SSM version.
A 1 MW system based on 100 W modules requires approximately 10,000 NGU modules. Therefore, it seems that the greatest manufacturing advantage would come from making those 10,000 generating modules as simple, identical and inexpensive as possible.
Instead of manufacturing two substantially different NGU versions, could Leonardo concentrate high-speed production on one standardized non-SSM 100 W NGU, and move as much of the additional SSM functionality as possible to a centralized system-level conditioning assembly?
For example, a 10 kW system containing approximately 100 NGUs might have this architecture:
Common regulated 12-VDC operating bus → 100 standard non-SSM NGUs → common output collection bus → centralized energy storage/regulation/conditioning → regulated system output
The centralized assembly would therefore perform two functions. It would provide the required 12-VDC operating power to all of the non-SSM NGUs through a common bus, and it would collect and condition their generated output at the system level.
If the raw output requires energy accumulation and voltage stabilization before it can supply general electrical loads, those common functions might be performed once for the complete system rather than separately inside every NGU.
This could have a major manufacturing advantage. The NGU itself is Leonardo’s specialized technology and would be manufactured in very large quantities. The centralized conditioning equipment could potentially use low-cost, mass-produced, off-the-shelf power-electronics components already available from the solar, EV, battery-storage, industrial-power and inverter industries.
The manufacturing strategy could then become:
One simple standardized NGU manufactured 10,000 times + one centralized system-conditioning architecture
rather than maintaining separate manufacturing requirements for both non-SSM and more complicated SSM NGUs.
The same architecture could scale downward. A 10 kW system would use approximately 100 identical NGUs; larger systems would use more. The conditioning equipment itself could be modular and redundant as power increases, while the basic NGU generating module remains unchanged.
I recognize one important limitation: if some of the additional SSM circuitry must physically operate at each individual NGU to maintain the self-sustaining reaction itself, that function obviously cannot be centralized.
Therefore, my question is:
Has Leonardo separated the SSM functions that absolutely must remain local to each NGU from the common functions—such as the 12-VDC supply, energy accumulation, voltage regulation and output conditioning—that could potentially be performed once at the system level?
If that separation is possible, it could permit Leonardo to concentrate its highest-volume manufacturing on a single simple NGU design, while using comparatively inexpensive conventional power electronics to provide the additional functionality required by the complete system.
In systems-engineering terms, the principle is simple:
Do the specialized function 10,000 times, but do each shareable common function only once.
This might significantly reduce manufacturing cost, simplify high-speed production, reduce inventory and testing requirements, and make both small and large NGU systems easier to manufacture and service.
Warm Regards,
Axil
@Sam Wilson
Even a fridge which works with absorption would be a resistiv load. Also a ceramic hob, solid plate hob.
But not a fridge with compression.
Air conditioner or fan would not work with non-ssm, too. Because they are inductive load.
I find the most advantage and energy saving is non-ssm with infrared heaters. No expensive heat pump, no expensive laborer hours, no heating pipes or leaks. All is simple and cheap.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Is it possible to use a
1. electric fan heater with a switch regulator
2. heater with a electronic regulator
3. infrared heater
4. cooking plate with a digital display
5. induction plate
with the non ssm ecat?
Best regards, Richard
Dr Rossi:
I read all the website http://www.drandrearossi.com
Magnificent
Cheers
Tony
Sam Wilson:
Any resistive load,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Axil:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steve D:
0- wrong
1- yes
2- the module , yes
3- both the modules od SSM and non-SSM have the same power limit of 100 W, so far
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
0)The non SSM 100W will output 12VDC.
1) Will there be a SSM (“IF”) version to also output 12VDC?
The difference being?
2) non SSM delivers 100W continuous power?
3) SSM delivers any power up to 100W?
2026-10-03 05:46 Steven Nicholes Karels
1. Will NGU non-SSM 100W 12VDC units be available, even if SSM is successful? A.R. Yes
Thank You
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Your recent answers concerning the difference between the non-SSM and SSM E-Cat NGU raise an interesting commercial systems-engineering question.
You have explained that the SSM version costs more because its circuitry is much more complex, while the non-SSM version is limited to resistive loads.
For a large installation, however, a systems company might purchase a large number of the less expensive non-SSM units and connect them to a centralized energy-storage, power-conditioning and voltage-regulation system, followed by a commercial inverter.
There could be two important economies of scale.
First, as the number of non-SSM units increases, independent variations in their outputs could partially average together. Any additional stabilization resulting from operating a large number of units together would further reduce the amount of power conditioning required. Instead of duplicating complex conditioning circuitry at every generating unit, this function could be provided at the system level.
Second, such an architecture could potentially have an availability advantage. A large system containing many relatively simple non-SSM generating units could tolerate individual unit failures while continuing to operate at slightly reduced power. The centralized conditioning equipment could also be designed with industrial redundancy and made independently serviceable. By comparison, adding substantially more complex circuitry to every individual SSM unit creates many more complex assemblies whose failures could affect system availability.
I recognize that actual reliability would have to be established from field failure data; I am describing the potential architectural advantage.
If the price difference between the non-SSM and SSM units is substantial, these cost, power-averaging and availability advantages could allow an independent systems company using your non-SSM units to compete commercially with large installations based upon the per-unit SSM architecture.
Would Leonardo Corporation permit a company purchasing non-SSM E-Cat NGUs to develop and commercially sell such a centralized power-conditioning system, even if that systems-level solution competes with Leonardo’s SSM approach for large installations?
I am asking about Leonardo’s commercial policy for independent system integration, not requesting proprietary information concerning the SSM circuitry.
Warm Regards,
Axil
Can we connect any off-the-shelf resistive load to the non-SSM E-Cat? Or does it need to be made specifically for the non-SSM E-Cat?
Thanks.
Claudio Varotto:
Thank you for your suggestion.
The description and the maintenance and use instructions of the Ecat will be published in the user manual at the presentation of the product,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Julia:
End of November,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Urs Z.:
1. No
2. Any resistive load
3. Yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jean Paul Renoir:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Could you specify what the non-SSM E-Cat requires to operate and power a resistive load?
1) Specifically, what type of electrical connection must be set up upstream of the device for startup?
2) What circuit configuration must be maintained during operation?
3) Would the resistive load be powered even in a circuit configuration connected in series with, for example, a 180-volt DC output?
Answers to these questions would enable theoretical assessments regarding the potential use of a string of non-SSM E-Cats to simulate a photovoltaic input for an MPPT charge controller.
Adequate capacitance—provided by electrolytic capacitors—can act as a filter for the ripple introduced by the charge controller’s operation, effectively converting the system into a pseudo-resistive load; this would allow the setup to serve as a foundation for various applications, such as battery charging or feeding energy into the grid via a certified inverter.
Thank you for your attention.
Best regards.
Dr Rossi,
Still possible to hope that the presentation will be made within February 2026 ?
JPR
Dear Dr. Rossi!
1) Can you estimate by what percentage the SSM version would be more expensive compared to the non-ssm version? Just approximately.
2) Could I also connect a kettle, infrared heater and an electric boiler to the non-SSM version? Does it have standard Europlugs?
Best regards
Urs Z.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi, when do you think that will be possible for you to decide if the presentation will be made with the Ecat SSM, or with the non-SSM ?
Cheers
Julia
Anonymous:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Axil:
No, the certified module is only the one with a power of 100 W
Warm Regards,
A.R.