When Does Andrea Rossi Hope to Announce his Test Results? (BroKeeper)

The following post was submitted by BroKeeper

When could the test results be announced? It is interesting Rossi’s hopeful expectation of the 1MW plant’s ending time from his recent comment to Prof. David H Bailey: “I do not know if at the end of this year of R&D and tests on course we will have positive or negative results.”

Twice he stated that the test phase will end “not before November 2015, not later than February 2016” (January 27th, 2015 at 7:49 PM & February 12th, 2015 at 5:55 AM). This suggests the test began no sooner than November 16th, 2014 (November 1st, 2015 – 350 days) and began no later than January 25th, 2015 (February 29th, 2016 – 400), assuming my math is correct. By this we can conclude the 1MW plant had to be in operation before the switch-over to the four 250 kW E-Cats from the original 110 10kw E-Cats.

A couple of the unknown factors are; how many of the 50 downtime days will have been used by the end of the test and how many days between the end of the test and the actual announcement? Responding to Frank’s questions about using 10kW E-Cats as backups Rossi asserts: “For short reparations it is not necessary to turn on the reserve. That is my safety boat if the ship sinks. This is the strategy.”(August 5th, 2015 at 4:44 PM). To paraphrase, the contractual operating days are not contingent upon when or which E-Cat type is running but only the plant as a whole.

John asked (August 1st, 2015 at 2:55 PM): “…you also stated that the current test with the new configuration of four 250 kW reactors began on Feb 20th. Does this mean that the clock is reset from this date and we should expect the end of the test at a later time than previously communicated?” Rossi’s response: “So far we are on schedule to finish within February 2016, but the term could be delayed: to know when we will finish the tests we return to the issue of the missed delivery of the crystal ball.” This response on the surface could appear to indicate the test would end in February. I believe he meant to say “So far we are on schedule to finish within February 2016 end date range.”

Otherwise this would be in contradiction to his latest comment above to Prof. David H Bailey. In conclusion the starting date, February 20th, of new 250 LT E-Cat could not have reset the operating days of the plant and offset the ending date range he promised.

Is there now any reference to indicate exactly when ‘at the end of this year’ he hopes to end and/or announce the test results? There may be. If you understand Andrea Rossi’s strong religious faith and convictions to give back to this world a special gift, then a specific day may be appropriate. Perhaps a bonus hint he shared with us within a response to my question of his thoughts on a gridless society: “Take your crystal ball from the pet shop, dial on it ‘what to do with an E-Cat in a gridless society’ and get your answer. As a bonus you can also ask about the weather on next Christmas Day.”

Of course this is all speculative and conditional [F9].

We all are our brother’s keeper

  • Jarea1

    No. i think this is not about confirming COP. This is about reliability of a product. How can you test if you can sell a 1 year valid product?. The statistic of COP is nice but i think they are quite confident about that now. The main problem is to know, how many spare/repair parts do they have to stock so that they can keep running all their clients in the commercialization phase.

    On the other side, i understand that if we don´t see this commercialization next year Rossi would have loose a lot of credibility. I say that because the typical fraud and smoke sellers keep putting excuses and procrastinating the execution with new models (in our case e.g. Ecat X). Therefore, the F9 disclaimer makes me nervous because it opens the door to say. We delay the execution one year more as a typical smoke seller earning money from investors.
    As i said, we need the product and we need to give Rossi the Nobel prize. I want to see that.

    • Observer

      What is the greater accomplishment; inventing the transistor or receiving the Nobel prize for inventing the transistor?

      We tend to confuse accolades with accomplishments.

      • Jarea

        I think society recognition is one of the pleasures that is hard coded in our brain. It will be his highest redemption so although i think the fact is obviously more important than the recognition of the fact, it has a great phsicology and moral impact, because it inspire others.

  • Bob

    The announcement can come at any time that Darden wants. A normal customer could have no say whatsoever as to when a manufacturer could release performance information about their own product. They could have control over whether their name or location is released, but not control product information or announcements. Plain and simple…. unless the customer is Darden himself. He could then very well state when the information will be released, not because he is a “customer”, but because he owns the product itself.
    I believe this artificial release date is not for the customer, not for Rossi nor for the “referee”. It is for Darden. Let’s face it, the cold fusion / LENR field is still unaccepted by main stream and the “free / over unity” field is ripe with fraudsters. Darden not only has money at stake, but his own reputation. HE is the one that is stating, “I want to see it run a year to make ABSOLUTEY sure”. He is not a scientist. He knows that he could hire someone to evaluate the theory or the COP etc. But he also knows that various tests have all been hotly contested. Therefore he is putting it to the one type of test he can assuredly believe in….. A very long term test under his control, his facility, his own people watching (i.e. referee) and using what really counts. The profit and loss at the end of the day. (test period)
    While Darden is certainly interested in durability, that is not his main interest. He knows that if something is real and really works, the durability is an engineering function and should be manageable. His main interest is not COP over 1 year. Whether it is COP > 6 or 10 or 20 does not matter. Is someone not going to purchase something if the COP is 5.75 instead of 6?
    Of course not. Does it have to be 20 for it to be revolutionary? Absurd.
    He is making this long term test to be 100 % assured himself that the technology is real and not some measurement error, slight of hand or misunderstanding. He picked a year because he can and wanted to. He can also decide next week that he has seen enough and make an announcement. He may stick to his original plan and wait 365 days and not one day earlier. He may give Rossi a Christmas gift and permit a Christmas announcement. The information can be released whenever he wants. Let’s stop fooling ourselves by this “customer is mandating” the information release F9!
    No, the secret customer has no real say in the matter except that the secret customer is Darden and the test is for Darden and Darden only. (Not to say that what is learned during this time will not be utilized. That is why the move from 100 reactors to 4 is no big deal in the contract. It is Darden’s contract with himself!)
    I hope for an early release of information. I hope even more for a release from I/H / Darden that all is well between them and Rossi. The recent patent app is encouraging, but Rossi’s post of late were a little discomforting. If Darden is in “control”, I am very encouraged and feel we really are about to see a revolution. If Darden is not in “control”, then as in 2011, we will not be seeing Home Depot heaters and many will be watching this site in 2021 for the next announced new model and release date that has prevented any commercialization of earlier models and tests. 🙁
    I am hopeful.

    • GreenWin

      Honestly Bob, can you provide your evidence that Mr. Darden is running this “very long term test under his control, his facility, his own people watching (i.e. referee)…” Kindly cite your sources and provide the documentation. Otherwise this is just Bob’s wild-eyed speculation.

      Why is a year-long burn-in so hard to fathom? Most software typically goes through a 12-18 month beta cycle. LENR is a far more complex system than most software development. But we get you’re highly frustrated you cannot dictate how Rossi/IH roll out their proprietary product.

      Might I suggest you join the MFMP team where you can help discover the underlying physics of LENR. There you can focus on creating systems and knowledge that will benefit consensus science. A win-win for you and MFMP!

      • Bob

        When in comes to the eCAT and Rossi, EVERYTHING that ANYONE says here is pretty much their “wild-eyed” opinion. Yes mine included.


        I gave my reasoning why Darden is the customer in this and past posts. Such as a customer would never allow R&D on a possibly nuclear reactor at a pubic work site.


        In any case, my responses are normally my opinion to other posts here or the post topic. That is what this blog is for. While the patho-skeps are pretty much weeded out (and rightly so) we are not sheep to be led by mere fluff either! So we exchange ideas and opinions in a orderly manner. This is not a religion where any spoken reasonable doubts are met with excommunication or burning at the stake! 🙂


        That said, this post was ” When Does Andrea Rossi Hope to Announce his Test Results?” thus my response…. it can be at whenever time Darden wants to and I then gave my reasoning.
        If points of my reasoning are not sound, I am more than glad to hear the returned logic. My reasoning is not given in a negative manner, simply logic as I see it where there is no real data currently available. All anyone has at this point is conjecture. So to state that my opinion is “wild-eyed” and that it is suggested that I “go elsewhere”, seems to point that you would have this site be nothing but the “fawning eyed” supporters with only encouraging words to say! 🙂
        (Which is fine for some!)
        I on the other hand welcome deeper thinking and understanding, which only comes by questioning everything! One does not advance understanding unless they question their current understanding. (Otherwise one falls into the same situation that some many current main stream physicist fall and deny cold fusion because “it simply cannot be”) One should not afraid to challenge one’s beliefs from time to time!
        Have a good day and please do not let me post bother you to much!
        P.S. I do support MFMP and have contributed financially to them. I wish I could physically be a participant but that is not feasible at present.

        • GreenWin

          Thanks for your reply Bob. But we do rely on evidence here – just as with the scientific method. Without evidence, we all are rather “pie-eyed.” 🙂

          • Arthur

            Which evidence exactly? This whole Rossi thing is pure speculation from day one. How long have us been waiting for this miracle to unfold? 5 years almost… or more? I can’t even remember.

            Every time, listening to Rossi, it seems that the revolution is behind the next corner… and everytime we look past it there is one more corner in front of us.

            Rossi can or can not have an actual working LENR device in his basement, i do hope he does, but it has got really frustrating to listen to his hermetic answers, his promises that keep accumulating… just to find that everytime we seem close to a definitive answer something happens that pushes it farther away.

            So what evidence are you asking for now? We have no evidence at all, we never had, we have only hopes and promises… why are you demanding it from Bob? Demand it from Rossi because, so far, we only got words. The only time we got something close to a real proof has been when they published that scientific report… and even that has been questioned… and that’s it.

          • GreenWin

            Dear Arthur, while my cupboard is all out of trol1 food, please read the following which may help you understand, “evidence”:

            “Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas — even if the test is difficult and means, for example, spending years working on a single experiment… Performing such tests is so important to science because in science, the acceptance or rejection of a scientific idea depends upon the evidence relevant to it — not upon dogma, popular opinion, or tradition. In science, ideas that are not supported by evidence are ultimately rejected.” http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_06

          • psi2u2

            ” is pure speculation from day one.”

            No it isn’t. Industrial heat paid him 11 million for rights of some sort to the e-cat. That is a fact. Many other facts, including the rush of others to pioneer the LENR energy niche, corroborate the conclusion that it is not “pure speculation.”