Rossi on Reactor Repair

Andrea Rossi continues to provide periodic updates on the state of the 1 MW plant, and sometimes he has reported that the plant is running at less than full power because they have had to take a reactor out of commission to perform repairs.

Yesterday, for example, he wrote: “Right now in the plant it’s 10.05 p.m. of September 1. The 1 MW E-Cat is working at 3/4 of the power because we have problems in one reactor, The other 3 reactors are stable and well.”

Rossi has said the same thing before, and I wondered whether the same reactor was breaking down over time, or if this was something that happens to all reactors periodically. In response to my question, and the same from another JONP reader, he wrote:

“Every reactor needs repairs now and again, and we are keeping record of all the reparations, to understand all the necessary modifications to be made to improve the technology.”

I suppose that one reason for having a year-long test of this first plant is to see how robust the reactor and its individual components are handle the wear and tear of industrial use. The records Rossi’s team are keeping will certainly be useful if they are getting ready for widespread production of commercial plants.

You would want to know the weak spots and do all that you could to minimize problems before having these plants in industrial use. That said, with any brand new product that gets heavy duty use, I would expect that there will be problems that crop after plants are deployed, but I think it makes a lot of sense from the Leonardo/IH perspective to do this extensive trial run — even if it does delay the E-Cat’s emergence onto the world stage.

  • Gerard McEk

    I do think it is a good working practice to fully test such a new process including all its interfaces and control mechanism during a year to capture the weak parts of the design. Although I can hardly wait until AR puts this on the market I totally support his approach.

  • Jimr

    I realize all new products must go through a testing cycle,but I would be hesitant to invest 1.5 million in a product with problems. I think the idea of Rossi doing his beta testing ( I sometimes think much of it is alpha testing) at customer cost and locations is not the best idea.

    • Omega Z


      At a customers business is the best setting to obtain real world results. It would be quite hard to simulate such conditions where you find the unexpected issues.

      Consider, If you simulate, you don’t know what conditions to simulate beyond those issues you’re already aware of. Oh, Also, if you obtain positive results, you already have the customer.

    • LarryJ

      Rossi has stated that IH intends to sell heat not reactors. The reactors will remain the property and responsibility of IH. This will also allow any industry to switch to the Rossi reactors without actually putting any money up. Just sign a multiyear contract and pay your monthly bill which would be lower than you had been paying. Any problems or technology updates will be managed by IH and require no input from the customer.

      Since these reactors have to be on the grid to operate it means that backup power to support the customers production would be available and the bill for the backup power would be IH’s. The customer just pays the contracted rate. That would allow IH to easily prioritize it’s maintenance issues. They could leave a malfunctioning reactor completely offline for months if they had more pressing issues and the customer would never know.

      It’s a great strategy for quick adoption but it requires a huge capital expenditure on the part of IH to build all this hardware. That’s why Darden has to be absolutely sure that these things will work within reasonable parameters. He knows that this will be the worst year his industrial ecat will ever have in the field. They will only get better from here on. If they can stand the anticipated maintenance cost by the end of the test then they are off to the races. If they can’t stand the anticipated maintenance expense then I assume they would extend the test until they did feel comfortable that maintenance wouldn’t kill them. A “Could be negative” simply means engineering issues and we are very good at resolving engineering issues.

      • ecatworld

        Actually, we don’t really know if IH is planning to sell heat. That model was posted on the Hydro Fusion site, and it was stated there that Leonardo Corporation was planning to sell heat . This would be in Europe, where Hydro Fusion is a licensee. Rossi said about this: ““The service of energy sale will be supplied after the end of the tests on course. About the Territories wherein this service will be supplied, due information will be given when opportune.”

        Maybe IH will follow the same pattern, but it’s not certain yet.

        • Omega Z


          At least one of Rossi’s posts indicated selling E-cats & heat. I would assume the sale of heat would amount to a lease or sale of an E-cat plant to a CO-OP which intern sells the heat & even electricity at some point. Industrial heat just selling heat doesn’t seem likely.

  • Bob

    Again the obvious…
    Placing a product on the open market does requires both durability testing and cost of operation confirmation. Running a 12 month test for this is not only understandable but I would think normal in industry.
    That said, durability and cost of operation testing has NOTHING to do with releasing information about the confirmation that a process or product works and is real. For example, Apple, Ford, Tesla and any number of other companies release product announcements long before the product is actually available on the market.

    For an example to those who always ask for references … 🙂
    Can you purchase a new Tesla Home Power system yet? No. Have they announced it as being a real product. Yes.
    I am reminded that there is a distinct and very large difference between offering a product on the market as being industry capable and proven versus publicly announcing that one has a new technology…
    Tesla did not have a battery pack at a secret customer and that customer demanded “you cannot release any information about your product until we have ran it for 12 months and give you the approval”!
    There is a difference between releasing information on a technology discovery and offering a technology for sale.
    So I assume that IH / Rossi does not release technology discovery information because they want to stay “under the radar”. They do not want attention from potentially large corporations that could pose a real threat because of their engineering and financial muscle. They want to be ready for when the game starts. Sort of like some coaches not telling who the starting quarterback is going to be until game time. This makes sense.
    What does not make sense, is the contradiction to this philosophy of Rossi’s numerous posts about the technology. If they want to stay under the radar, why not do it! Why make these preposterous claims that nothing can be released until the customer gives the OK? Why make announcement such as the m.curie eCatX will be to market before the 1 mw plant, but then not even state the general parameters?
    While I enjoy the posts and bits of info leaked, it is this very trait that causes so many to not take Rossi seriously. It is all to common a path taken by free energy fraudsters. Rossi should really try to avoid the same appearance of those. It would be best for business! Most do not take Steorn seriously because of the way the release information and then never produce anything of value. Some even point to BLP the same way. Many view Rossi for the very same reasons.
    That is what is so puzzling. It is the contradiction in logic for a solid business plan if the plan is to stay under the radar. Very odd indeed. But then again, who knows? 🙂

    • Brent Buckner

      Perhaps IH would rather stay quiet, but signed an agreement with Rossi that does not muzzle him as much as IH may have preferred.

      • Bob

        Could be. That is why I was so interested in the relationship between Rossi and IH. If IH is in control, I feel much comfort and hope for the future of the eCat. If Rossi is in total control, I am concerned. It appears that he may be a very talented and hard working inventory, but from the surface, his business savvy has a lot to be desired.
        It is entertaining drama at least! The big issue thought, as many has posted here, is that the world needs a clean and affordable energy source. The introduction to the world in general, of such a revolutionary device, should best be handled by an entity with expert business aptitude and ability. Otherwise, the technology may never see the light of day. I truly hope that Darden has considerable say on the eCat story.
        Some believe that the Papp engine was real. Possibly even related to LENR. If the Papp engine did work as stated, Mr. Papp was a genius. However, if it did work, he was not so bright at business and the Papp engine has never came to use..
        It could also be that Papp was a fraud.

        • Brent Buckner

          Based upon Darden’s track record I trust that IH has sufficient rights that it will proceed just fine in the industrial space, perhaps limited to heating applications. I expect that will be enough to push a revolution ahead.

    • Mytakeis

      could be a ploy to keep competitors paying no serious attention to e-Cats?

    • Omega Z

      “Why make announcement such as the m.curie eCatX will be to market before the 1 mw plant,”

      Rossi didn’t actually say that. However, his statement could easily have been misinterpreted that way. Then people post it to blogs & it takes on a life of it’s own. In other posts Rossi gave a little more clarity. the 1mW will come 1st.

      Many of us call it Rossi speak. This is why I usually read Rossi’s posts more then once & try to look at it from different perspectives. English is a second language for Rossi. He is from a different geographical zone. These things matter & can easily lead to confusion. It is also common for him to use the wrong terms.

      Given a 40`x60` Morton building, I may call it my garage if I work on my vehicles or my work shop where I build things. The cubicle in the corner may be my office. Rossi building E-cats in this building may call it his factory & the cubicle his Lab. It’s all the same, but we each have different views of the word terms. You’ll find variations from country to country & even by regions.

      As to providing more info. Much of that additional info will become known with additional patents. Should Rossi provide some innocent appearing info, it could actually give clues to other details that they do not yet want known.

      Thus I really don’t see any contradictions.

      As to the Business plan, This doe not depend on Rossi, but a group of share holders(Including Rossi). What they decide to do depends on Rossi’s R&D and test results. I’m sure much has been discussed & even some preliminary actions taken, But everything is still in flux at this time. Or as Rossi recently said, they are holding the breaks on. That pesky (F9) thingy…

      “It is all to common a path taken by free energy fraudsters.”

      Seriously, If it is, It will go down in history as the most elaborate, wide spread and expensive in history. Having taken in probably more then 200 highly educated experts in the field, a dozen Universities, dozens of Government (ABC) agencies, energy companies & Corporations around the world.

      Least we forget, The most amazing trick of all. Others are obtaining results(excess heat) using information provided or leaked about his work. He should be awarded a Nobel for that alone.

      • Omega Z

        I’m aware of a few projects that went through rigorous simulations only to totally fail in the real world. Real world operations can throw curves you may never have considered.

      • Bob

        I did not mean to say that Rossi was a fraud. I was stating that he should take care not to create the same public image that the fraudsters often take. I believe Rossi has something. As you said, too many reputable people have been involved and none have come out with even a hint of negative findings. (Other than perhaps some inconclusive tests such as with the Navy).
        What I was attempting to consider, was that no one ever remotely considers Elon Musk a fraudster. If he speaks, “everyone” perks up their ears and listens. This has to do with his public image he has created. How he presents his products to the mainstream. While Rossi may not care so much about his public image, it will be a major key in introducing LENR to the main stream. This is where I hope Darden can take over.
        Edison was a “rock star” during his day. Some of his inventions where ground breaking (long lasting light bulb), but many were failures. (automatic ink pen)
        Yet the public was open to anything he presented.
        Tesla on the other hand, was probably much more a genius than Edison. Yet he was quirky and very bad at public relations. It took Westinghouse to take Tesla’s patents to market..
        100 years later, who was more successful? Edison or Tesla? Certainly Edison was by far more by most measures. Westinghouse went on to fortunes, while Tesla died pretty much broke.
        Whether we like it or not, The ability to deal with the main stream does matter.
        I really hope Darden wins out on this.

  • LCD

    Would love to get a mass spec analysis on the weak reactor.

  • Paul

    I’m not expert of industrial development, but making a durability test on only 4 reators seems a little useless, because they’re not enough to have a statistics. So, the impressione is that they are losing time not testing tens of reactors on real industrial plants.

    • LuFong

      That is a very good point. Also Rossi approach of testing 4 reactors even for a year and then mass producing them is totally nonsensical. He seems to be trying to get from laboratory prototype to mass production too fast. Normally I would image a new product is slowly introduced in the market if only because it is very expensive to fix a mass produced product.

      I think he actually knows this but is looking to sell licenses to cash in quick.

      • Jarea

        So your point is that he is doing the last trick. He will sell licenses to collect all the money so fast as possible so that he can dissapears afterwards. You also guess that Levi et all and IH with Tom Darden are on it. Isnt ‘it? how do you clarify that they didn’t notice that all this is a fraud?
        There are other options, for example. There is a stopper (he has a block date from US government to protect his investions (bigoil/bigbank)). That is the reason why we see now the patents approved and not before. There is a a clear slow roadmap defined. Morally, too slow for this world. I have to remember that this technology was discovered in 2008. So the improvements have been done during all these years. Another option is that he is really doing COP and durability study. Why not with more ecats?. I think that is to protect his IP before the release. In any case, in that point, i am with you and that is something strange. I don’t like this special obsession to hide his device. I could understand that before the patent but now he has a patent and he should prepare a big demo.

        On the other hands, if you are right. If the licensees buy a license without a good insurance or the security that what they are buying works, then they are stupid. And that is not only applicable for the ECAT it is applicable to all invest .

    • Omega Z

      At over 4 months in, Rossi answered that the occasional problems they were experiancing did not involve the E-cat reactors. It is external problems. One was actually leaking plumbing.

      Regardless, If the issues are external, it likely requires the use of different existing external hardware. Nothing of real consequence. Just part of a beta test. The purpose of doing beta tests.

      Note that No product hits the market being perfect, but people expect the obvious issues to have been eliminated. At least for the most part.

  • Omega Z

    Redford, At this point it is NOT clear. The 1 year pilot(Beta) test is not yet finished. This is why Rossi retains the disclaimer (F9) may be positive or negative.

    It will not be clear until the issues are known. Does it just require different components or minor tweaks or does it require major changes.

    “This kind of thing can’t need more than yearly maintenance to be competitive.”

    If that were the case, not much would be happening in the manufacturing world. Things break down all the time & it doesn’t happen on schedules but random.

    There is much equipment used that needs daily maintenance. Some every few hours. When I was young, I worked a job where it was like whack-a-mole and that was normal operations.

    What is important is knowing what the issues are and knowing what you can live with & what isn’t acdeptable and what can be done to alleviate it.

    While posting, Ill add: Rossi’s disclaimer (F9) may be positive or negative.

    Many tend to assume that Negative is game over.

    It means no such thing. It would most likely mean or indicate there is a serious issue to be overcome to harness the technology. New boiler design, heat exchange system, or controller design etc…

  • Omega Z

    There are 52 smaller E-cats. I believe they are 15 or 20kW cores.

    Recall Rossi stating the 56 pumps, thermacouples etc… And some of us made fools of ourselves trying to figure out how they were possitioned & used. 52 small cats & 4-250kW cats explains the 56 of each item.

    Also, 3-250kW Cats can carry the 1mW load for short periods of time without engauging the smaller cats. This revelation does not surprise me as most things in the market are built with plus/minus capacity. And there was also 1 post by Rossi that seemed to imply this as well.

  • Omega Z

    You’re behind.

    Update. there are 52 small e-cats & 4-250kW E-cats.

    On occasion, 1 of the 250kW E-cats needs maintanance. To date acording to Rossi, this has had to do with external issues. Not the reactor cores.

    3-250kW units can carry the 1mW load for short periods so the smaller units aren’t necessary. They are only for emergency backup should more then 1-250kW unit goes down or 1 is down for an extended period of time.

  • bkrharold

    I thought Rossi said in a previous post, there was an extra standby reactor for such contingencies.

    • Omega Z

      Actually there are 52 smaller E-cats that can be used in emergency.
      He has also implied that the 3 remaining 250kW cats can carry the load for a short periods of time. i.e. they can produce more then 250kW each.

  • Omega Z

    I have used the term Beta as more people are familiar with the term verses pilot plant. The U.S. Navy uses the term shake down cruise for new ships.
    They all serve the same purpose. To detect any major issues before going mainstream.

  • Jarea

    I think they are planning to do that in 2 weeks according to Bob Greening