‘Well-Known Companies’ Have Placed Orders for E-Cat Plants: Q&A With Andrea Rossi

I sent these questions to Andrea Rossi recently; his responses are in bold below.

1. Can you describe to us the working conditions inside the shipping container — for example the number of workers, the kinds of work people do, and the overall general atmosphere?

There are 10 persons authorized to attend that rotate in turns; we have engineers and blue collar workers; the atmosphere is of a harmonic team working for something whose importance we believe in.

2. Do you have much contact with the factory owner where you are working, and the workers there, and if so, what kinds of interactions do you have? How satisfied are they with the service you are providing so far?

We have not much interaction with the customer, since we just deliver heat at a rate that has been fixed by contract. Sometimes, when we have to suspend or decrease the amount of heat supplied for reparations, we obviously have to inform them as soon as we foresee or see the problem.

3. How will the results of the test in progress be published once the testing is over, and how will they be communicated?

The data related to the test are communicated to IH and Leonardo Corp. while the tests are in progress. They are confidential.

4. Will you publish your own report once the testing is over?

This will not depend only on me, because the publication will have to meet the agreement of all the parties involved.

5. Recently you mentioned that there have been over 170 breakages in the plant over the course of the current test. This seems like a lot. Can you explain some of the reasons behind these breakages, and are you surprised by the number of repairs you have had to make?

No, this is confidential.

6. Is the plant getting more reliable as time goes on, and you make repairs?


7. What are some of the most valuable lessons you have learned over the course of the testing so far?

This is confidential, so far.

8. Where and when would you expect to see the first E-Cat plants in action, if the current test turns out to be positive?

This one is already in action. The next plants will depend on the final results of the tests on course. I cannot make a scheduling until the final results (that could be either positive or negative) will be well known.

9. Are you still planning to sell heat from plants owned and operated by Leonardo, as well as selling plants? If so, do you expect these to be among the earliest working E-Cat plants?

Yes, and yes.

Is this because it will be easier for you to control the plants that produce the heat you sell? For security and maintenance?


Have you had orders for this service yet, since the advertisement by Hydro Fusion on Ecat.com?


10. What kinds of connections have you made with potential manufacturers, financiers and distributors as you plan for commercialization?

This is confidential, so far.

11. Do you have any well-known companies interested in becoming customers?


Have you had any orders so far from well-known companies?


12. How challenging do you think it will be to get safety certification for domestic E-Cats?

Very much.

What makes it such a big challenge?

The liabilities that the certifier has to take on his shoulders without a history of the product.

  • Daniel Maris

    A very interesting series of questions and answers. On the one hand we know Darden and co. must (it is reasonable to assume) be aware of these exchanges which gives us some confidencein the answers. On the other hand. There seems no prospect of a quick transition to a “public” technology. If IH are simply selling heat from a “black box” we are not a lot further.

    However, overall this seems encouraging.

    • deleo77

      I think the answer on selling heat to the customer at a fixed contract is the most informative of all of these. E-catworld is a public site and Darden (and Woodford Investments for that matter), will probably see this Q & A at some point, so I doubt Rossi would say a line about selling heat at a fixed contract to the customer if it weren’t true. It would backfire immediately on him with his investors, and a misstatement like that could get him into real trouble. So let’s say for those reasons it is a verifiable statement.

      That would mean a customer has been buying heat from IH for over 6 months at a fixed price. That price would have to be equal to, or more likely below, the rate that customer would pay for heat from a utility. If it weren’t, why would they sign that contract. If the e-cat weren’t producing the necessary heat for the customer over these past 6 months, the customer would likely tear up the contract and stop the test, because they weren’t getting the heat they are paying for. The only possibility left is that IH is selling this heat to the customer at a loss. So for every $1 at a fixed price that they are selling to the customer, it is costing IH a $1.10 to produce it.

      That leads to the recent moves of IH signing a lease of 20,000 SF for manufacturing development in NC and Darden saying he is optimistic about the results so far. Would those things be happening if IH were losing money on this fixed price contract? Sorry for the long post, but I think there are real dots to connect here.

      • ecatworld

        One thing Rossi said recently was that before he got involved with the customer they were using gas for their heating process. When Rossi got involved they switched over to electricity to run the E-Cat plant — and they are apparently still happy with the savings.

        BTW, if Rossi is working in the Miami area, the cost for electricity in industrial sites is around 7 cents per kWh — http://www.electricitylocal.com/states/florida/miami/

      • Agaricus

        The money received for supply of heat is of secondary importance, and IH is almost certainly carrying a considerable loss during this phase of development. R&D always costs a lot of money anyway.

        Against this, they have apparently developed a better design than the original version, solved many small problems, and are logging data that will be invaluable for further development – and which can be shown to other prospective clients.

        Any payment received for the heat the pilot plant produces (which would be wasted in a purely R&D setting) is just icing on the cake.

    • Agaricus

      As I’ve suggested on quite a few occasions, I think that either leasing of plant or sale of unit heat are the only viable business models, as these solutions remove any requirement for customer capital investment in an unknown technology, and give IH/Leonardo complete ongoing control of the ‘black boxes’, which would be operated only by their employees. Although Rossi appears to answer ‘yes’ to the suggestion that units may be sold, I believe that this is misdirection of the kind we have seen on several occasions.

      It’s aways useful when considering Rossi’s replies to be very careful about assuming which brief reply belongs to which question. A technique that seems to crop up regularly is to answer a compound question as if it is two questions, and to ignore a third completely, leaving the reader to jump to conclusions that aren’t justified. Ambiguousness seems to be AR’s stock in trade and care is needed in interpretation.

      There may be an example in this latest: Q. “Are you still planning to sell heat from plants owned and operated by Leonardo, as well as selling plants? If so, do you expect these to be among the earliest working E-Cat plants?” A. “Yes, and yes.” But there are actually 3 questions:- (1) Planning to sell heat? (2) Planning to sell plants? (3) Earliest working e-cats? Also the word ‘these’ is open to interpretation – does it refer to (1), (2), or both?

      • Brent Buckner

        Also, Rossi may want Leonardo to sell units, and optimistically state that he plans on it (F9), but that particular commercialization channel may not bear out.

      • Omega Z

        To your 1st paragraph, I agree. It will still be a while before it makes it to the individual. We already know there are issues to be worked out. I wouldn’t really want 1 if it needs continual maintenance. Let Big business pay that cost of improvement.

        As to the rest. Nobody reads to much into Rossi’s answers.
        OK, Maybe it happens. I’ll admit to once. 🙂

        • Agaricus

          It’s a game we have to play, as Rossi’s sometime cryptic and ambiguous replies are all we have to try to tease out what progress is being made. I swore off it, but like you I occasionally relapse.

          • Omega Z

            I only recall 1 relapse on your part.
            I got your back. 🙂

      • Frechette

        This business model reminds me of the days when buying a Rolls Royce the company provided the customer with a vehicle, a factory certified car mechanic, who also doubled as a chauffeur.

        Are we headed back to the Gilded Age?

  • theBuckWheat

    The only concern is the one that I originally expressed. That being until we have a thorough understanding of they basic physics of this process, there is a risk that it will either stop functioning or start to operate in a previously unknown region of its envelope that causes either a runaway thermal excursion or the emission of harmful levels of ionizing radiation. Until the physics are understood, the only course of action must be to gain as many operating hours as possible with as many units as possible that are carefully configured and monitored with that risk in mind.

  • magicsnd1

    At $.07/kWh, one megawatt of electric heat is $70 per hour, $1680 per day and $613k for the whole year. If Rossi is charging say 1/3 of that cost, it would take 2.5 years for the money saved to pay back the cost of the eCat system at $1m. That’s neglecting maintenance costs.

    So the service life of the system is also important. If it needs to be completely replaced after a year, it doesn’t make sense financially. This is another reason why the outcome of the current test is vital to the success of the enterprise.

    • wpj

      We really don’t know how much it costs to make the e-cat container system; this first one is clearly over-spec’d. I doubt that the would cost a third of that price to make.

    • Daniel Maris

      That’s right. It’s also crucial to know whether the system requires constant supervision and if so by how many personnel.

      • pelgrim108

        Alternative is: how many megawatts heat located in 1 site can 1 team supervise?

  • Haha…yes, now he says there will no results be published…who thought something other….


    • Daniel Maris

      I don’t recall anyone saying the results would be published. I am more interested in whether the location and nature of the facility will be revealed. From that we will learn a lot.

      • Agaricus

        It’s difficult to see what IH could gain from releasing that information, and I suspect that the ‘customer’ might also be quite keen to see it kept secret for as long as possible. Rossi’s replies suggest that further contracts are already in place and are probably subject only to the results of the first ‘field trial’, so no publicity is needed at this stage, and revealing the location of the pilot plant might scare off future prospects, who might be equally keen on anonymity.

        • timycelyn

          I’d love to be able to convincingly argue against this, Peter, but I can’t. It makes perfect commercial sense to me, and I am coming to the realisation that the only way there will be a ‘big bang’ moment is if the news genie escapes from the bottle accidentally, in some way where it cannot be ignored – a news accident in other words. Otherwise I am strugglng to see a ‘dam collapse’ moment ever happening. Instead it’s just steady erosion and weathering, as the water slowly trickles away.

          For the conventional thinkers – the defenders of the old physics faith, the Pomps of this world – it will be an apparently extended lifetime. In reality, it is death by a thousand cuts.

        • Omega Z

          “Rossi’s replies suggest that further contracts are already in place and are probably subject only to the results of the first ‘field trial’,”

          And thus, Rossi’s emphasis on how important this test is. If it’s positive, Additional customers means revenue. Investors are willing to increase their investment when they see actual income start rolling in. Even tho profits may still be some way off, Rossi/Leonardo’s Budget will increase.

          As to publishing info. That will probably be limited & even then, it wont happen before June at the earliest(IMO). They(All involved) will want to study all the Data very carefully as it will effect investing.

          IMO, The information divulged will be limited, because they still have patents in the pipeline. The IP isn’t fully protected yet. However, I agree, as more plants are put into operation, the odds of info leakage greatly increases.

          I imagine that one wouldn’t want to be shut out of the inner circle has much to do with so few leaks to date. Cures/the Colonel being shut out probably set an example.

          NOTE: Followup plant setups will also be tests of a sort proving out changes that have/will be made in the next plants built. I would imagine a few of these will be put into operation before full production begins. Just to be sure most issues are solved.

    • Gerrit

      Rossi will not publish anything.
      Scientific groups will not announce any _real_ breakthrough.

      2016 will not bring any significant progress.

      I do not see an end to this story.

      • artefact

        I imagine they will only come out of the shades when they are foreced to by a real competitor.

  • ecatworld

    I don’t think this customer paid $1 million for this plant. They might not have paid anything for the plant this pilot setting, with IH covering all the installation costs, and the customer getting cheap energy for the opportunity for Rossi to run this test.

    • Guru Khalsa

      I agree with you that the customer probably didn’t pay anything for the plant. But IH payed for the plant and IH probably payed for the $.07 per kWh cost of electricity that the Ecat uses. IH is also paying for maintenance and repairs that the plant has needed.
      On the other hand the Customer is probably paying a flat rate per kWh of thermal energy per some agreed upon contract. In order for F9 to become F10 IH has to come up with a working model where in investors can recoup their money. So this one year test is probably being done at least in part to come up with a working model for commercialization.

      Of course I don’t know what the cost of the Ecat plant would be, the cost of maintenance nor the time frame where IH would like to see it’s initial investments recouped, nor do I know the savings the customer would like to see for the inconenience of an Ecat plant on it’s property. This is all speculation on my part but I think most of these assumptions are at least in the ball park.

    • Guru Khalsa

      I guess what I am trying to say is if you only consider the cost of the Ecat plant, the cost of installation and maintenance and the cost of daily electrical usage by the Ecat as one side of the equation. And you say IH is selling heat to the customer at a flat rate, which I thought this is what Rossi said their commercialization strategy would be, as the other side of the equation. Then there is a point where this would be successful based on certain parameters namely the timeline for recoup of initial investments by IH, cost of electricity, the savings the customer expects and the COP of the system. This could give a model for commercialization for future customers based on the assumption IH wants to sell heat.

      Some of these parameters can be guessed at as being reasonable from a business point of view. If we make reasonable guesses on things we are familiar with can we calculate something we have no experience with, namely the COP of the system.

      This is just an exercise in a thought process or maybe me spinning my wheels after too much coffee.

    • Roland

      In his earlier musings Rossi suggested that capital costs per watt would trend towards $.10 from the generally prevailing $1.00 per watt that has persisted for decades in the industry as improved efficiencies have continued to offset cost inflation.

      The recent consolidation of 100 10kW E-cats into 4 250kW E-cats supports this trend as the cost of the plumbing and control systems, never mind the complexity of maintaining 100 E-cats, should have led to significantly lower capital costs.

      Given that the individual capacity of an E-cat has increased by a factor of 25 in just a few months there is no good reason to assume that further increases in individual capacity have hit the wall; a single 1 megawatt E-cat could emerge quite quickly.

  • Agaricus

    Agreed. If a theory is good enough to allow the originator or an associate to build an O/U reactor then fine, lets hear it. Otherwise any theory of operation is supposition at best.

  • LuFong

    Rossi has said in the past that three groups are collecting data: IH/Rossi, the customer, and an independent entity. This doesn’t seem to square with some of his answers. One would think that IH/Rossi can produce their own data and report independently from the report signed off by all parties.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Rossi certainly can release some infomraton – but I am not aware he promised or stated he would. And if he did, no definitive time line was given.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Brent Buckner

        I’m not sure what information Rossi would be allowed to release, as I consider that he may be under an NDA with IH.

      • LuFong

        That’s certainly true but I am not aware of Rossi saying he won’t release information. He’s even on record and saying that even if the results are negative they probably will be released. Rossi has certainly given every indication that results will be released. What he hasn’t said is when and what.

  • Omega Z

    1st, Electric Power plants as well as large Industrial Manufactures get a better price rate. They buy straight from the well head(By Contract) plus pipeline transport cost. Those prices are very low as of now. 4 for breakeven.

    Presently, The Government is trying to dissociate this interrelationship by shutting down coal plants. If you can’t make wind/solar price competitive with fossil energy, force up the cost of fossil energy by reducing it’s supply. Thus forcing people to switch.

    Regardless, this production cost interrelationship will still exist. The consumer cost of electricity will go up only because of the supply/demand situation. Large Industrial Manufactures will get rates similar to before.

    The reason is simple. Power companies need them for base load stability. Without them, Even smart meters can not provide a stabilized grid without a stable base demand.

    If Rossi/IH achieve COP>=6, they easily achieve breakeven. If they achieve electrical production using LENR & all are powered by this electricity, then no other energy source can compare. Anything above COP>1 at that point is beyond breakeven.

    • Guru Khalsa

      I see what you are saying and it makes sense. I guess I was looking at it less from a theoretical point of view and more from a practical. For instance if it takes 3 kWh thermal to generate 1 kWh electrical as you say, A 1 MW plant would generate 333.3 kW of electricity. A COP of 6 would then mean the Ecat would consume 166.7kW of electricity to generate 1MW and the the 1MW plant would output 166.7 of useful electricity.
      I guess I was trying to figure out at what price could you sell this and would that income pay for the expense of the1MW plant, the maintenance needed over the life of the plant and other costs. But maybe there are too many variables for an educated guess.

      • Omega Z

        Yes, We’re missing the 3 necessary variables to guess. The cost of the 1mW plant, the average COP & a ball park figure of annual maintenance required. At this point, Even Rossi doesn’t know.

    • Frechette

      Actually the 3/1 ratio that you quote is too low. Siemens is selling combined cycle (gas turbine in series with steam turbine) electric power plants with an efficiency of over 60% making for a 6/1 ratio. GE has similar technology although the Siemens plant was the first demonstrated in Europe.

      • Omega Z


        I’m well aware of combined cycle. However, the average Plant operates at about 1/3rd.
        Even using the 1/3rd value when calculating “COP=3” for breakeven isn’t accurate. There is hardware, labor & profit to be figured in which means you would actually need COP>4 & possibly 5.
        There mostly talking points so the other know what your talking about.

  • Gerard McEk

    If I recall earlier answers from Andrea regarding publication of the results, I believe he said that all details will be reported and published. And if the customer would allow the plant in operation would be open to visit. There are three series of data: test report of Andrea/IH, the test report of an independent and well known entity, using his own instruments for measuring and the report of the customer (electrical energy bill in comparison to the gas bill). Not only would publication of this provide a great promotion for his plant, it would also provide a lot of confidence. I do not understand why he is now saying different things. Mabe we should ask.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      I don’t recall any statement about releasing test result at the end of the test. So results may be released, but I not aware of any time frame ever being stated by IH or Rossi.

      I have several times noted that Rossi never stated anything
      about what would be released to the public at the end of the yearlong test. I think everyone “assumed” that would be the case.

      The countdown clock here also does not help as it gives the impression that at the end of the test we will receive some big announcement I seen nothing from Rossi that stated such information will be released to the public at the end of the test.
      Rossi confirming that no such release of data or test results was promised or stated is thus not a surprise to me.

      As for the “break-out” story?

      This will ONLY occur when one of two things (or both) occur:

      Customers start utilizing e-cats and go public as such.

      Time or 60 minutes release a story covering the technology
      and showing such plants in operation – and testimony from customers as to how happy they are will also help. (as noted, this is difficult since what company wants to spill the beans on how to save lots of money).
      To be fair, this year been great for LENR. We had Airbus,
      CERN and MANY more articles and announcements over the last year. So I do see
      the snowball starting to roll down the hill.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Omega Z

    Not True.
    Our medicine’s have unknown physical principle’s as do GMO’s
    We have & do use things with unknown physical principle’s all the time.
    Many we use with just a basic understanding.

    For domestic use, you merely need to prove it safe under specified use. Thus the disclaimers such as, Not responsible if products are used other then as how specified.

    A bigger issue is achieving a COP high enough to be cheaper then alternatives such as natural gas. With Government forcing the price of electricity higher, you’ll need an ever higher COP to be economical because it uses electricity to operate.

    • Brent Buckner

      But then the e-cat would be replacing something that the government is making more expensive (although its own input cost would also be higher). I suggest that you doublecheck your break-even analysis.

      • Omega Z

        For basic simplicity of discussion, this is based on a 1/3rd conversion efficiency. Reality is more complex, but you basically have a cost correlation between the natural gas & electricity. 3 for 1.

        3kW N-gas to 1kW electric. The E-cat would need COP=3 to breakeven with N-gas cost.

        Presently, the Government is in the process of manipulating the cost of Electricity & not the cost of natural gas thus breaking that correlation. Should they double the cost of the electricity, that would bring a new cost correlation comparable to 6 for 1. The E-cat would now need COP=6 to breakeven with N-gas cost.

        A different perspective- If you are producing the electricity to feed the E-cat with another E-cat generator, Based on cheap fuel, this no longer has any real significance. And as it produces no pollution or CO2, the Government would be hard pressed to explain price manipulation. It would appear they were against clean cheap abundant energy.

        • Brent Buckner


  • Asterix

    I’m curious about certification. SInce the eCat is a thermal device providing steam, one would have thought that part of its getting ready for commercial installation would be ASME certification. There aren’t many insurers or inspectors who would okay installation of a non-certified boiler.

    But I can’t seem to find anything at


    Can anyone else?

  • lars

    a little of topic, but have anone tetsed an e-cat replica with variations in electromagnetic fields as some theories say is the reson way it works?

    • Agaricus

      I believe MFMP are planning to try an EMP system, and Louis DeChiaro of NAVSEA mentions the effect of magnetic fields in enhancing or dampening LENR*, but none of the open-sourcers seem to be using a straightforward induction coil surrounding the reactor (correction welcomed if anyone knows better – with link please).

      * http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/06/louis-dechario-of-us-naval-sea-systems-command-navsea-on-replicating-pons-and-fleischmann/

      As this seems to be a basic component of Rossi’s LT system, It’s something of a mystery why replicators don’t seem to be routinely trying various oscillating EM systems.

      • US_Citizen71

        Most experiments have coils which should create a EM field,but my biggest complaint/observation of the public replication attempts is the use of a PID, which would prevent any stable and rhythmic magnetic field from forming.

        • Agaricus

          Heaters will only generate very weak fields at the supply frequency (assuming AC power), and the chances of this being optimal – or even in the right ‘ball park’ – are small. It’s only by decoupling heating and EM windings that the effects of oscillating fields can be properly investigated.

      • Agaricus

        Expanding on the above: The body of evidence appears to suggest that LENRs take place when the system is excited to a certain resonance frequency by entrainment to a ‘driver’ input consisting of an oscillating EM field. Extrapolating from this, the possibility exists that non-phased or anti-phase driver input may act to dampen down reactions. DeChiaro also states that this is the case.

        The resonant frequency will be determined by certain physical parameters, but as the method by which an EM field might gain traction in a reactor is not public knowledge, these are not yet clear. Two candidates might be (1) resonance frequency of the metal matrix electron cloud – the frequency at which the cloud resonates to give rise to phonons/SPPs , or (2) the rate of magnetostriction of nickel or, i.e. the natural frequency that optimises the expansion/contraction cycle of the nickel matrix.

        Whatever the mechanism, if the driver frequency is matched to resonance frequency then energy will be absorbed and amplified, and therefore can consist of a relatively weak signal, but if it is for instance a harmonic of the resonance frequency it will need to be stronger, in an inverse relationship depending on whether it is a 1st, 2nd or 3rd harmonic.

        Frequencies in between these values will probably have little effect, and only by varying them independently of heating currents will it be possible to establish optimal values. Controlled shutdown of the reaction might be possible by abruptly changing the driver signal to the antiphase of the resonant frequency (this might require a system designed to sense the oscillating field generated by the reactor in order to oppose it and so rapidly cancel it out.

  • Bob

    A few points of interest…
    1) “…and blue collar workers”. I find this interesting. I would not think a “blue collar” worker (assuming one that is not an engineer or similar) would be involved in the monitoring. Therefore, they would be involved in a more manual labor. What would the eCat have that required this much manual labor involvement? While certainly not unrealistic, just interesting.
    2) “..involvement with customer…not much”. Very odd. I am the general manager of a business. I have a reactor in or near my building that is of some unconfirmed nuclear process. My plant depends on the output of this untested plant. I am responsible for OSHA and production. “I believe I will not have much contact with this project!” ????? This is really perplexing to me. I have personally been general manager over (5) production facilities. I have overseen building of 2 manufacturing plants with this company. I was VERY involved in the construction. When we had major repairs to existing facilities, I was VERY involved. If had a possibly nuclear reactor prototype being ran in my facility, I would be VERY involved. Daily.
    If the secret customer is truly independent, this does not jive. It must be a Darden owned facility.
    3)”…meet the agreement of the parties involved” I am getting a little irritated by the continued statement. Other than location and company name etc., the customer would have NO say as to what performance information a manufacturer can release about their own product. The ONLY hold back / constraint on the release of information would be A) Rossi himself or B) IH / Darden. Rossi, simply come out and say so. This is silly, trying to paint a picture than his hands are tied by the “secret customer”. Again, this is a silly, cover my butt, statement.
    4) “..170 breakages” I had not heard of this. That is almost one negative event every two days. Understandably, this is a prototype. It will have issues. This amount seems very high however. I wonder if the “delivery requirement” of number of running days is in jeopardy? It would seem like it based on this number. I guess the plant may not have shut down on all of these “breakages”. However, I must assume in February, the F9 will be a negative based upon running days. This should not prevent data being released that a LENR process has been confirmed and only engineering durability needs resolved, but it will most likely be the reason to no release information. Even if it is a bogus reason.
    I believe Rossi tries very hard not to lie. However, I believe he also tries very hard to paint a picture that leaves MUCH room to not provide what has been previously hinted at. With this in mind, I place the following prophecy:
    Feb. 2016 :
    We will not have any public report.
    We will not know who the secret customer is. (Although I personally believe it to be Darden owned)
    The next chapter will be the xCat and development of a commercial reactor using it. F9
    Project test results released in 2017 -F9
    Is this bad? Not necessarily.
    Is it a fraud? Almost certainly not.
    Is it promising for a commercial product? Not very.
    Then :
    March – May 2016:
    A large, established company (Such as GE, Seimens, etc) or some large foreign company will announce they have been working on a CF/LENR reactor system. They provide serious test data proving it works. They release a schedule date.
    March – May 2016:
    The lawyer wars start.
    I hope I am wrong, but my opinion is fast solidifying on the idea that if LENR / CF is to become a
    commercial reality, it will be some other company than Leonardo to make it so. I still have some hope about Darden’s involvement, but it seems an odd relationship at best.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      I don’t see anything out of the ordinary here at all. I mean
      go to any industrial setting, and ask the employees when was the last time the
      hot water heater or air conditioning was serviced? They don’t touch that stuff
      at all.

      They have a proto-type heating system on site that simply
      not their equipment. I fail to see how this is any different then renting a
      gen-set. The company and employees don’t touch or work on such gen-sets, and in
      most cases they not even allowed to touch such systems. Same goes for many
      kinds of industrial equipment rental.

      As for having people do maintains? Quite sure that an engineer
      from Lennox heating does not service your furnace – but certainly some kind of non-engineer (blue collar) would do as such. So replacing of a value, a gasket, piping, or
      even wiring certainly is not handled by an engineer in most cases.

      So when you were running your plant, did you work on your
      air-conditioning units? (did you know how they even work?).

      > I place the following prophecy:
      Feb. 2016 :

      Why you need to make a prediction? – Rossi said flat out that such information is
      confidential and that no promise was made to release such information in February
      or whenever. So someone tells you the sky is blue, or 2 = 2 and that is now some
      kind of predication or prophecy? For what need do you need to make a prediction on something that Rossi has already made clear?

      Perhaps next you call an engineer to fix your coffee pot?
      And who did at your plant maintain and
      repair the coffee system at your plant? Or were you aware of these coffee
      systems, and you checked them on a daily basis? Same goes for the furnace that
      provides heat for the building.

      Rossi simply supplying a industrial heating system – employees
      likely have no more awareness that this heating system is any different than
      their machine that makes coffee in the morning – and they likely no more do
      maintains on their coffee systems, their air-conditioning, and some equipment supplier
      that has provided them a new heating system.

      I doubt few if any employees at the plant are aware of
      LENR, and more so aware that the plant they have is something special. The
      heating system is property of an outside party and they maintain it. I suspect
      that few if anyone knows the heater is based on LENR. If no one is told that the heater then for what reason and HOW WOULD anyone even know?

      I fail to see any difference here then that of their on-site
      photo copier of which people in the building don’t repair or maintain either.

      As for the 170 “breakage events” they logged? Could range
      from a bad set of thermocouples, seals leaking, or even electronics
      overheating (and such repairs would be blue collar repairs). Or perhaps due to how the fuel is sandwiched between the wafers and how fluid is used to transfer the heat away and those structures are cracking? Perhaps fuel mixtures could be the issue that creates hot spots that damages those “fins” that allow transfer of heat away from the cores?

      We really don’t know the degree of such events, but then
      again we dealing with new technology.

      I can’t imagine anyone with industrial experience would
      see anything in the above out of the ordinary.

      I seen production lines take weeks to iron out the bugs, and especially
      problems arise in regards to sensors and signals used to control such systems.
      And such systems are NOT new technology like this but been around for 30+ years.

      However, as a few others here pointed out, competitors to
      Rossi will ALSO have to go through this process – every day Rossi is gaining
      ground on his competitors.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Bob

        This is NOT a regular water heater…. it is a possibly nuclear device that is untested nor understood. (At least as far as public science is concerned and thus the owner of the plant) So comparisons as such to regular equipment and everyday business is not applicable at the very least.
        Yes, when I was a manager I was very involved with any NEW and UNTESTED equipment being installed. Especially when it would effect production, quality and most importantly safety. I may not be turning the wrenches, but I had daily progress and status reports. I had safety checks, FMEA’s performed on production, quality and safety. Vendors providing equipment had to report on a regular basis, both as to cost, progress, performance and any issues off project target.
        If I was a plant manager responsible for the entire operation and this operation was very reliant upon a large heat supply…. and now my large heat supply was being supplied by 1) a relative unknown person 2) using a technology that main stream science says is impossible 3) has no history of safety, durability or even working
        4) Is a possible nuclear device….. I would be absolutely irresponsible if I was not closely involved in a daily manner.
        As far as why do I make predictions? This is a blog! People talk about the subject matter. They express their opinions. As long as it is not defamatory and has logic, why are some people so angered or defensive?
        I have actual experience about running and being responsible for peoples safety in a manufacturing environment. I do know what I am talking about and have walked that walk. Some may not agree, but I must say what I presented is very logical, not defamatory nor even ill will. It is valid.
        This is not the Church of Conformity, where if you pose questions, have doubts or point out inconsistencies, you are excommunicated! I find this drama very interesting. It has potential to be a history changing event. It also has the potential to be another Papp, BLP, Defkalion or any of the hundreds of failed over-unity devices. Who knows! 🙂

  • f sedei

    I would appreciate it to hear what others of you may know about Naval Research and NASA’s continued involvement and progress with LENR. They seem to be suspiciously low profile concerning the subject. Thank you.

  • Matt

    The most important question is missing: Will this q&a game ever come to an end and will we ever see something real?

  • US_Citizen71

    He might be just producing heated oil or some other heated transfer fluid.

  • ecatworld

    I put some follow up questions to AR on the JONP:

    a) Will a report be published by some party involved in the testing of the 1 year testing period for the E-Cat plant, whether the results be positive or negative?

    a- It will be necessary an agreement between the parties on this issue

    b) Will this report be available to the general public, as has been the case with previous reports?

    b- same as in point a

    c) In addition to selling heat from your own plants, will you also be selling E-Cat plants to customers?

    c- yes, provided the tests will give positive results

    d) If c) is yes, will selling heat as a service come before you sell plants to customers?

    d- not necessarily

    • Bob

      Here it is again….
      “It will be necessary an agreement between the parties on this issue”
      I would like to ask for others to “educate” me on how this can be.
      1) Rossi / Darden/IH is the one party that has sole ownership of the eCat, it’s IP and marketing.
      2) The “secret customer” (almost certainly a Darden owned entity) is using heat provided by the eCat. We do not know if they purchased the eCat or are purchasing heat from the eCat. In any case, they do NOT own the eCat IP, patents nor marketing.
      3) A described third party monitor of which we know nothing about. Other than this monitor does not own the eCat, the IP nor the marketing. Most likely is being paid by Rossi/IH/Darden. Possibly by the “secret customer”, but unlikely.
      Therefore the claim that someone can nix publishing any form of data is truly b.s. The secret customer cannot prohibit publishing performance data, only their name and location. The monitor cannot prohibit the publishing of data. Again, perhaps his name and location, but not the data Rossi/IH collected. He was hired to provide such data!
      Therefore the only party that can deny publishing data is Rossi/IH/Darden. I wish he would simply state the obvious and quit this misleading repetition. “Leonardo Corp in conjunction with IH will decide whether data will be published or not” is the truth and is what Rossi should state. I believe stating otherwise really paints a bad picture of him, such as he is trying to “weasel out” or find an excuse not to publish data. He does not have to publish anything! He should simply say so.
      I do not quite know why this bothers me so much. Other than why is Rossi so guarded about not wanting to take responsibility for this? He owns the eCat. He can state,” I am not ready to publish data.” “I am waiting until I have a really unquestionable data set that the skeptics cannot pick apart” or even simply “I do not want to publish data at this time”. These are all valid, whether we like them or not. But giving the impression that “I would really like to publish data but my hands are tied by these vague and secretive parties” does him a great disservice to his reputation!
      Of the three parties involved, only Rossi/IH/Darden has the decision power to publish or to with hold data in any form. It could be very general data, very complete and detailed data or even no data at all. But it IS THIER decision only, not the monitor and not the “secret customer”.

    • LuFong

      Rossi has given a somewhat different answer regarding publishing a report if the results are negative. Earlier when asked, ” My question is even if the results eventually are negative, do you think that will there be a detailed report of the results?”, Rossi replied, “I suppose a report will be made.” (link: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=885&cpage=10#comment-1109454, http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=885&cpage=10#comment-1109457) While these are not mutually exclusive I understood Rossi’s initial response as “probably” and still do. As with all things Rossi, we have wait to see what actually happens.

  • Agaricus

    I’m reasonably sure that this will not change noticeably next year. But we’ve staggered on for several years on Rossi’s tid-bits, hints and the occasional nugget – so why not for another year.

  • Agaricus

    Yep. Even when someone else cracks the secret and brings a competing range to market, this is unlikely to change.

    The best hope for those who would like to see a ‘free for all’ in LENR development (myself included) is that a private experimenter or a group such as MFMP demonstrates kW-level power from his/her own design, and publishes the information fully. Until then, expansion of this urgently needed technology will be throttled by commercial iimperatives.