Rossi: Industrial Heat has a ‘Model T’ Mass Production Strategy for E-Cat Plants

After Rossi referenced Henry Ford in response to the question I put to him yesterday about the E-Cat plant, I followed up today on the same theme.

Frank Acland
December 4th, 2014 at 8:04 AM

Dear Andrea,

Once you get this first plant operating perfectly, like Henry Ford, do you plan to make it your “Model T”, which you can duplicate on a mass production assembly line?

Kind regards,
Frank Acland


Andrea Rossi
December 4th, 2014 at 8:10 AM
Frank Acland:
Yes, that is the strategy. That is why this first industrial working plant is so important. It will be the Rosetta stone of our industrial know how.
Warm Regards,

Rossi talks about wanting to have one year of flawless operation before they can consider the plant “consolidated”, which seems like a long time (and for all of us waiting for something to happen, it is!), but based on what Rossi says above, it makes sense that they would be taking all the time they need to perfect this first plant, since you don’t want to duplicate a flawed model.

However, I don’t think we’ll see mass production kick in right away even if this first plant is a roaring success. It will take time and money and probably lots of orders before they would ramp up to real mass production — but a demonstrable working 1 MW plant that is shown to provide significant energy savings for the plant owner will surely be the best kind of marketing tool available to Industrial Heat.

  • Oceans2014

    keep them coming Frank )

  • Gerard McEk

    So they are somewhere working on the machines and equipment for this mass production plant, which will probably be build (in first instance) in China. However, if this machinery is so highly automated, there is no real need to do the production in China. I would say it is even less desirable from know-how point of view.
    I assume that the finishing touch (the secret fuel) will be done elsewhere (US or the country where it is distributed)?

    Time will tell, but I still wonder how they can prevent that the plant will be opened and an Ecat will be taken out for examination and other misuse. The Ecats in the 1MW plant are not hot cats, so they are maybe not the latest state of technology. If that is the case, so why that type was chosen for the tests?

    • Donk970

      They will have a very small window of opportunity where they can make a profit before everyone and his pet monkey comes to market with a competing device.

      • Obvious

        I’m going to try one with lanthanated tungsten resistors.

  • Why don’t they run 3 or 4 plants at the same time, maybe at different customers? This means more reliable data.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      That could be an appropriate intermediate stage. Since different customers might have different requirements and each operation site will have its individual conditions (and pitfalls), it would be rational to begin with small series production – even if it takes another year until mass fabrication starts. The competitors will face the same problems, thus I think that the risk to be overtaken would be reasonably low.

    • Omega Z

      I’ve done carpentry. Rule is measure once, cut twice. he he

      No, Measure twice cut once. if it fits, then cut the next 10.
      Other wise you could end up with 10 pieces of scrap lumber.

      mlwerner made a good post below.

  • Jimr

    It would be interesting for Rossi’s definition of mass production. I would say after one or two units have run successfully for a year they may produce 10-20 the following year, maybe 50 the next etc, etc.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Andrea Rossi
    October 23rd, 2014 at 12:53 PM

    “Frederic Maillard:
    I am not in charge for the commercial issues of IH.
    Thank you for your kind words,

  • Axil Axil

    Once money floods into LENR research Rossi’s factory will be obsolete before it is build. Progress in LENR R&D will be lightning fast. A LENR reactor with a high energy density will be superior to Rossi’s reactor. Such a reactor of three to five modules would not require 113 computers more or less to control it.

    The behavior of Rossi’s reactor during a meltdown shows that LENR is capable of producing 1 megawatt in one reactor. Instead of compromising the design of his reactor to compensate for a lack of control, Rossi should figure out how to harness and control the power produced during a meltdown in a single unit.

    Nothing succeeds in the reactor business like high power density.

    • Donk970

      I think you are basically correct in this. The first in to the LENR market will prove that it exists and can be harnessed. After that, particularly in view of the low capital costs involved, everybody and their pet monkey will be working on LENR devices for market. This is a market that will explode in the next few years.

      • and now you understand that people like Airbus don’t ally with teams having already a reactor, but with teams designed and motivated to work together…

        sadly the pioneer will be cooked… or not.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      There are two problems with the „high energy mode“:

      1 – Controllability
      2 – Radiation (especially neutrons)

      Both of them would make a certification impossible. At the moment, it seems unlikely that somebody – even with lots of funding – could solve these problems any time soon.

      • Axil Axil

        Controllability is supported with rapid, highly responsive, and robust heat transfer. I would suggest a lithium heat pipe design that are used in some nuclear reactors, One pipe can move 10 megawatts in a fraction of a second. A Rossi meltdown takes 10 seconds. If we can move heat in this timeframe, then we have controllability.

        Moving heat using water is so 19th century.

        LENR is an electromagnetic reaction where neutrons play no part in its causation. In a LENR system where we see no gamma radiation, we will not see neutron radiation, IMHO.

        Rossi does not use a hot cell to do his research.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          We do not yet know where the energy comes from. One could guess that there are primary, radiationless reactions and secondary reactions which produce much larger amounts of heat, but also hazardous radiation. If the second class is required to get the desired output, better cooling would not help much; otherwise, a reactor with high performance might be possible.
          I wonder how much time it will take until we know what is really going on.

        • Omega Z

          Rossi has reported Neutrons in 1 melt down a couple years ago when he was working along side Focardi.

          Possibly some were present this time, just not mentioned. That would create a certification problem. Something he would want to avoid…

  • LuFong

    Once again these are very naive comments by Rossi. It’s on par with we will take millions of orders, build them in a robotized factory, and sell the rest at Home Depot he was making 3 years ago. It’s hard to believe Rossi is saying this with any conviction.

    I believe IH/Rossi goal is to get as much IP as possible and then sell the rights. I am not faulting IH/Rossi for this–as owners of the the E-Cat they can do what they want–but it’s not the best way to develop this basic technology.

    • Bernie777

      Do we believe IH and Darden, his main goal is to do away with coal as a fuel. If you believe him they will sell their invention to a GE who can manufacture and market in the most expedient way. Or, maybe a GE already owns IH.

      • Omega Z

        Why would they want to lock in on 1 when they can license it for manufacture to many. Or in other words, Obtain Royalties from far more sales.

        • Bernie777

          Yes, as long as the manufacturer is competent

    • bitplayer

      Please explain why you believe these are very naive comments. All Rossi did was agree with a metaphor suggested by Frank. What in that justifies dragging out old laundry? The flimsiness of the textual evidence begs the question of your motives.

      Or let’s put in another way. How long ago was the last time you did something that you now consider the result of being young and stupid? At the moment I’m personally working on somewhere between a week and an hour. Do you have some special dispensation that causes you to not cut Rossi some slack?

      • psi2u2

        “What in that justifies dragging out old laundry? The flimsiness of the textual evidence begs the question of your motives.”

        Very good analysis.

        “Do you have some special dispensation that causes you to not cut Rossi some slack?”

        I have noticed, from the start of this saga, this has been a popular position to adopt. Church dispensation can do remarkable things for a person’s self-confidence if he is not careful.

      • Gerard McEk

        Tell me Thomas, why would a company invest in a bogus? Do you really think they are that stupid? I guess the difference in resistance can be and should be explained. Time will tell.

    • Omega Z

      I think they will license it for manufacture & settle for the royalties. As to Rossi, There is enough R&D to be done to keep him occupied for the rest of his life.

    • Job001

      Nah, IH is a “Brown site remediation” company, this fits in with revamping obsolete coal generation facilities, a good business plan, for instance.

  • mcloki

    Ramping up production is no problem. The only problem is demand. Once Rossi or other LENR companies show savings, environmentally ‘Greeness” mixed in with no reliance on unstable countries for Oil or energy this thing takes off.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    Even if there are a 100 viable Rossi competitors Rossi might still do ok. The potential market is a vast ocean. Many players can ramp up production for decades and never satisfy the demand.

    • bitplayer

      Yes. And there may be a tangled mass of sorting out which technology works best, with lots of dead-ends, restarts and recoveries of lost positions. Like the early automobile industry. “Just add money”.

      • NT

        And then the patent and IP rights wars…

        • psi2u2


      • Omega Z

        Some posters toss in a competitors name to stir things, But Like you, I see a benefit from different options for best applications. And Competition is good. Monopoly’s Not.

    • Omega Z

      Your Right Fibb.

      China has 1,450-Gw of capacity & want to double that by 2050/ 35 years.

      That’s 2900-Gw of generators or 8700-Gw in E-cat reactors. Then there’s the other 75% of the World. Then there’s over a Billion cars, Umpteen zillion ships, planes, trains & desalinization plants. Cars alone will need about 300Kw of E-cat power.

    • Right, the error will be to try to block competitors (by patents, by preventing independent manufacturing…).
      If Rossi or another do that, he will be overtaken by more “open” competitors… better be copied than replaced.

    • Fortyniner

      Right. The task of fully meeting potential demand is probably beyond the planet’s manufacturing capacity, even if this – along with all necessary supply and distribution chains – is expanded as quickly as capitalism allows. The market will ensure that applications are met in order of profitability, which will hopefully correlate roughly with benefit to human society.

  • psi2u2

    My thinking exactly.

    • GreenWin

      Remember we have a deep cover shell corp that looks like NRG Energy as a new IH patent assignee. Big players are in game now. Because this planet is the most fascinating place in the galaxy. IMO. 🙂

      • Omega Z

        Hmm, I always though the grass looked greener in
        The Andromeda Galaxy. just waiting on my E-cat Warp drive.

        • Fortyniner

          Of all the planets I’ve ever visited, this one is my favourite.

  • psi2u2

    Yes, very revealing analysis, thanks.

  • Daniel Maris

    He can test it for ten years if he likes, but it would be nice to have some photos.

  • Bernie777

    We don’t know.

  • Bernie777

    We must remember Rossi is not making the decisions about manufacturing and marketing, or even how fast/intensive the research should proceed. If you had an invention like the one just tested by the third party scientists, would you limit your test installation to just one site? I would have at least 5 sites, and learning from each different application. “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I would keep my entire organization fully engaged and employed, without straining the top level of engineering to the breaking point. If one customer is all they could handle while still devoting the majority of their time to development engineering, than I would keep it to one customer. I would not try to scale my engineers to a less manageable number than the core of expertise required for the R&D. Top people are expensive and privy to inside information. I would want to own them. I would not bring more aboard than I could keep once production begins. Otherwise I would be developing assets for my competition, and that would be a freaking management disaster.

      • Bernie777

        There are many different manufacturing applications, one size will not fit all applications. It does not seem to me they are attacking all fronts of research. From what Rossi has stated his “team” is very small for as you say “reproduction work, application development, physics research……LENR formula…designs and fuels” and gas research. It just seems to me IH does not seem to recognize or want to recognize they have a game changing technology.

        • psi2u2

          Bernie, what is your experience with this kind of thing? And how do you know that IH is not conducting the kinds of research to which you allude? You seem to make many assumptions, not to mention *pre* sumptions that fly in the face of the many sober assessments here, all of them encouraging a more focused approach.

          • Bernie777

            You are right IH could have several installations ongoing and more research than I assume. I am basing my comments on what Rossi has said, in the past, if anything, Rossi has overstated what is going on.

          • Fortyniner

            Agreed. We can only go on what Rossi says. If we are being fed manure, then all bets are off.

          • bitplayer

            I reflect that IH may now be liable for Rossi’s statements, should they wish to monetize the IP in any way.

          • psi2u2

            Ok, good. Thanks.

    • Omega Z

      At least 5 sites.
      So if your design has a Major Frack Up, you have 5 of them to deal with or replace.

      Best to stick with 1. Then fix or improve that 1. You’ll get where your going a lot sooner then building many screw ups.

      • Bernie777

        You can’t tell me there are not several different viable approaches to building an E-Cat for different applications, and research and developing a product for the Hot Cat and power generation.

        • Fortyniner

          Yes, agreed – I’ve said much the same thing on several occasions. IH’s approach seems too linear/incremental – they should be experimenting with different designs in parallel. If they don’t have the resources for that, they should increase the R&D budget, bring in someone who does.

          • Bernie777

            Yes, well said! This is not some unimportant invention, this is going to save millions of lives.

          • Robert Ellefson

            Me too. Here’s a plea for parallel development that I made to Rossi in April of 2011, and his memorable response.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Actually, it seems they gone through quite a few iterations. The difference in the e-cat pictures of a few years ago compared to now is rather remarkable. So who says they not testing and playing with many different designs? In fact we quite much hear they are working on a gas-cat. So there’s been quite a few iterative designs in the last few years – perhaps too many! At a certain point you have to stop painting and start selling the painting you have.

            Little occurred with the model-t for a number of years, and changes to the Wright Brothers plane looked rather incremental if you followed their progress everyday.

            The problem is most are not exposed to this incremental process of technology, and one day you wake up to see a plane flying, or out comes the iPhone.
            And for those not following this LENR story, when they wake up one day and see a news clip about “cold fusion” e-cat working in a plant? They have ZERO knowledge and sense of what we all felt for the past few years. They just see the “end” result (I call this the wedding effect – you don’t see all the efforts but just go and eat and have a great time).

            And likely even MORE iterations occurred then we know of. How big, how small, how many reactors will be placed in one box with a controller etc. are questions that were answered by MANY iterations (trial and error).

            They are tweaking a plant, yet ALREADY doing in parallel a gas-cat. So I think the iteration process and that of making changes in parallel looks to be rather “active” here. And who knows what other ideas they are working on?

            I suspect more capital could speed things up, but then again the Wright Brothers lost years of advantage in the marketplace since they were VERY hesitant to show people their flying machine for fear of competitors stealing their ideas and designs.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • psi2u2


        • Omega Z

          “You can’t tell me there are not several different viable approaches to building an E-Cat for different applications”

          This assembly would all have been optimized before it ever left the build shop with well known technology. Boilers & heat exchangers etc, are old tech & is pretty much a matter of configuration when assembled for the specific environment it is located in. A shipping container. This is but a boiler that happens to be heated with E-cats rather then gas or electric heating elements. About the only variations would be where external plumbing connections & controls are located. Whether you have 1 or 10, they would all be the same.

          The aim of the Pilot plant is about learning to control numerous(100+) reactors simultaneously in a stable manor under a variable work load. Having multiple pilot plants would make no sense. Especially given that they wouldn’t b sure the could control the reactors under variable load.

          This doesn’t even address the fact that each container would require a month or 2 to build. A month or so of shop testing run time & likely an investment of Million each with at least 5 techs for monitoring once installed.

          Obtaining a client for such a pilot plant itself is problematic given an unproven technology with a controversial history. The client would have customers to take into consideration. Will they be able to deliver product should things go awry. More then likely, will learn the Client is a business connection of Dardens. Likely received quite a deal in this pilot plant.

          • Bernie777

            Your comment, “This doesn’t even address the fact that each container would require a month or 2 to build.” Exactly my point, with an invention able to save millions of lives, they should have multiple build operations, there are probably 100’s of decisions of minor variations they could use. Why do you think we ended up with two atomic bombs from the Manhattan Project, fat boy and little boy after eliminating many other “build” alternatives; why do you think we ended up with three methods for uranium enrichment, electromagnetic, gaseous and thermal? This is not even discussing researching and building the Hot Cat for power generation. My point, this is far too important to leave to your methodical engineering approach.

          • Omega Z

            I understand what your saying.
            You miss my point. I’m talking about the Rossi Effect itself.
            The hardware is old tech & mostly a done deal.

            “The Rossi Effect” What if it quenches every time you apply a load or it tries to runaway when the load is temporarily absent. From Rossi’s posts, This does not seem to be a major issue, but controlling it in a manor that minimizes this & always recovers may be.

            In essence, It is about software control & learning predictive behavior for improving that software control. Having additional Pilot plants at this point would be detrimental if not just plain useless & a waste of limited funding. Darden/Cherokee managing 2 Billion$ in investment assets does not equal deep pockets. They have limited funding that “may” increase as certain technological steps are achieved.

            This 1 Pilot plant will likely provide them with 99% of the answers they need. At that point, you can justify setting up multiple plants for refinement purposes, but even that wont be easy. Corporations are cautious about production risks. But in this situation, you at least have 1 pilot plant to show them.

            As to “methodical engineering”, You wont get much business support without it. They wont throw out the old tried & true for maybe. That would risk business suicide. The may set up & take notice, but they will initially adapt new technology slowly. Stepping up adaptation once they become confident in it.

            Need to work on your patients. It’s going to take a minimum of 50 years to transition. Aside from just the economic limitations, there is a major shortage of skilled personnel. There is a 10 year waiting list today for power plant construction. We’ll get to yours when those are done. Take a number. There are 1000’s waiting just to take a number. They build only about 100 a year.

            Note: What they learn from this methodically engineered pilot plant is an absolute necessity to building Hot-cat electric Generating systems.

          • Bernie777

            Omega, Yes, I do understand where you are coming from, and you might be right if your thinking is limited to a billion dollars of total investment that will fund all necessary research, manufacturing and marketing, and have only committed a few millions to date. It is my opinion, this project is much, much larger and more critical than that, it is life and death to millions, dying as we write. IH has already suggested they are interested in much more than just the profit motive and protecting IP. I agree with Fortynier, If they (IH) don’t have the resources for that, they should increase the R&D budget, or bring in someone who does.”

            PS As I have said before, IH could be proceeding in a much more aggressive posture, I only have what Rossi says. As to the shortage of labor for power plants, could you send me some reference info on that, thanks.

          • Omega Z

            life and death

            All technological advances have been about life and death.
            It was in the past & will be in the future. Nothing has changed. Not even the urgency.
            Many have a great disdain for fossil fuels today, but without them, few of us would be hear today. You can rightfully claim that many people die from pollution & contaminants but most wouldn’t be here to begin with without them. We would still be living in the dark ages.

            They have allowed massive increases in food production, water treatment/purification and so much more that we take for granted. The use of fossil fuels have brought us to the edge of CF/LENR.

            Fossils have been the energy of choice since man 1st harnessed fire. I agree were past due for a change. I’m as “anxious” as you.
            But I’d rather it take a little longer & get it right, then to hurry & screw it up. P&F tho at someone else’s prodding tried to hurry up the process. Now it’s 25 years latter.

            As to IH, Darden hasn’t said much publicly, but enough to indicate things are taking place behind the scenes. Likely already in talks with the carpenter about building the house, but they can’t start till Rossi finishes the concrete foundation. 1 Rossi or 100 Rossi’s, Some things just take time.

          • Bernie777

            “All technological advances have been about life and death”??? I guess we have to agree to disagree, I don’t think we should just take it easy and say technology advances just take time, and wait another 25 years.

  • bitplayer
    • BroKeeper

      [Cherokee seeks to place a minimum of $25 million of equity in each investment, with no maximum, and we often enhance these investments by leveraging additional public and private funds to create valuable projects that benefit our investors, partners and the communities in which we work.]

  • bitplayer

    Aw, no picking on Frank please, unless you would like to set up and operate your own site. Or send him a generous donation for his time, effort and out of pocket costs. You think he’s making any money showing ads to the likes of us?

    • psi2u2

      He’s raking it in I am sure.

  • bitplayer

    Great idea! Go for it, Jack!

    • psi2u2

      Agreed. Fascinating proposition.

  • bitplayer

    So, is it your current sense that *all* of Rossi’s “excess energy” is illusory? And if so, is it just Rossi, or do you doubt all LENR excess energy?

    Since you offer your opinion, I’m assuming you would like it to be weighed into the mix, so I’m trying to calibrate what your view is, more precisely.

  • psi2u2


    • Omega Z

      I assuume that is sarc.
      I’ve only clicked an add maybe twice.
      Finger slip. Not that I don’t want Frank to benefit. I appreciate all his hard work I’m just not in the market for Anything… Maybe I should slip on purpose occasionally.

      • Omega Z

        Sorry, meant this on your post below. he he finger slip

  • Omega Z

    They wouldn’t buy it for $500 Billion. Likely they would license it for manufacture.

    AND “CEO can go to jail for fraud”
    No Wayyyy Jack. They would get a huge Bonus. Ask the Bankers.
    Precedent has been set…

  • Omega Z

    Question is, Do you want to learn to control 100 reactors of a 1Mw plant at low temps and maybe 2 bars of pressure or
    100 reactors of a 1Mw plant at 1000’C and maybe 50 or 60 bars of pressure.

    If something goes wrong, they may be no next time.
    Learn to Walk before you Run.

  • Oceans2014
  • theBuckWheat

    Until the basic physics of this device are fully understood and thoroughly tested, there is lingering risk that a device will behave in a manner that is unexpected. That could mean they stop working, or worse, find a region of the operating curve that either results in a thermal runaway or a harmful level of ionizing radiation. The only answer at present is to have lots of operating experience with heavy monitoring in a safe environment.

    • kdk

      I’ve wondered about this since I heard of the addition of Lithium and the effects that had on the hydrogen bombs. But, it still seems that the mass involved would not be enough to cause a truly major reaction, unless a device was specifically built by somebody with enough knowledge to create them, which would still require much heavier elements or in much larger quantities… the thing about lattices and cold fusion is that explosions make more explosions less likely to happen, in general… i.e., these reactions wouldn’t be happening w/o the “hot spots” formed via pitting or some sort of electro-magnetic vortex/pulsing… Even Pons’ and Fleischmann’s reaction that went through the basement concrete ended w/o a major explosion. Still, in a while to come, the understanding which drives cold fusion will lead to more weapons, if people continue to pursue technologies capable of destroying planetary civilizations, in which case we will only have ourselves to blame, if somewhat later than we would otherwise. The understanding can also lead to many other beneficial technologies (superconductors have a striking similarity to cold fusion reactions), and at the end of the day, it will only be up to us whether we’ll self destruct or not.

    • Omega Z

      “The only answer at present is to have lots of operating experience with heavy monitoring in a safe environment.”

      Hence, They will initially be deployed in the industrial sector.

  • bitplayer

    While I’m not sure I agree with the sentiment, I appreciate the clarification.

  • bachcole

    Jack, if Rossi and all LENR is going to break the foremost paradigm of our age, then breaking a little tiny one that I didn’t even know about shouldn’t be too much of a problem. I don’t understand your point I guess.

  • bitplayer

    Yeah, I’ve had this disturbing vision of the 100 little eCat units, Hot Car or not, kind of floating around some big metal tube with twenty wires coming out of each end, kind of like one of those horror story network closets.


    So, considering it is likely that the eCat reactors ARE in some heavy flanged tube like the conventional boiler elements we’ve seen Rossi playing with, how might they be arranged in there?

    Certainly in some fairly rigid framework, with some kind of sub-guides for the wiring. Along the length of the big tube, are the 100 arranged in five banks of 20 each? Is the cross section something like a honeycomb structure? Is there some kind of heat conductive fluid, or just very hot air?

    A new game!

    • Fortyniner

      I think (I may be wrong) that Rossi has said its a water heater. My first guess was two insulated square-section sheet metal water tanks (running more or less full length along each side of the container) with 55 flanged tubes bolted into the upper and lower surfaces and neat looms of power and control wiring above and below each tank, plus a power/control panel on one end of the container.

      I will be rather disappointed if the arrangement turns out to be 110 separate heat exchange boxes sitting in racks on each side, surrounded by pipework and spaghetti, just like the 1MW LT prototype.

      • psi2u2

        Wow.I think Rossi should hire you as a designer.

        • Fortyniner

          Why t’ankee sorr – now I’m officially retired I’d do the job for free! In the distant past I worked for a couple of years as part of a team developing various novel ‘bioengineering’ systems, and enjoyed the design side of the job enormously.

          • psi2u2

            Cool. One of the things I enjoy about the discussions here is the broad diversity of perspectives that the discussants bring.

  • Fortyniner

    I think that like many of us, Frank is not fixated on any particular business model, just as long as the technology is commercially adopted and followed up by serious research within some reasonable time frame.

    • ecatworld

      Correct — My heart is not invested in any one business model

      Business decisions are being made by the people on the inside, independent of what we on the outside think or say.

      Maybe they read what people are saying and suggesting — I hope so, because there are a lot of interesting ideas presented here and elsewhere

      My intention is to follow the story where it takes us, and try to get as much information as possible about what’s going on.

  • Fortyniner

    The development path seems to be focused on integrating and controlling 100 basic units, but there doesn’t seem to be any indication that much effort has gone into ensuring that the basic unit has been optimised.

    As these are probably quite simple gadgets, I hope that many differing designs were tried, with differing fuel compositions, different ‘activation’ systems and so on, but it doesn’t seem that enough time elapsed for a team of only 16 or so to have done that. Unfortunately it’s a bit late to change much when you have packed a hundred units of your first design into a shipping container, then spent months getting them to work together.

    I would have been much happier to have seen at least three or four ‘pilots’, each using the 3 or 4 best performing prototypes, and developed by separate teams. Unfortunately it seems that resources didn’t run to that, and it may yet turn out that they put all their eggs in the wrong basket.

    Crawl, walk, fall over, walk, fall over again, walk, run.

  • psi2u2

    You said it, me.

  • Chris I

    It’s the only sane option available to them. If it will suffice.