Rossi’s ‘Dream’ — Following the Automotive Industry Model

Here’s a quote from Andrea Rossi today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics regarding what he sees as being the more difficult work before him, if he can make it successfully through the current test on the 1 MW E-Cat plant:

“It is obvious that the sole real thing that will dissipate any doubt about a product is the product itself. Until we will not have diffused in the market our product anybody can doubt whatever he wants and maybe he is right. We are working hard to arrive to the product massively diffused in the market, but we need to complete the tests and after the tests, if they will confirm positive results, we will have to make an even harder work to pass from reactors handmade in a small factory to a major producing company.”

When Rossi speaks about creating “a major producing company,” it makes me think of industry giants who produce major pieces of industrial equipment such as tubines, trucks, cars, pumps, etc.

Rossi has spoken before about having arranged outsourcing of components for E-Cats to various industrial operators, and so I asked Rossi on the JONP if he envisioned his new company as being like current automakers who have factories “where parts manufactured by outside suppliers are shipped to the factory where the assembly of the final product takes place?” Rossi replied: “This is my dream…”

If Rossi is going to build E-Cat plants on a massive scale — and not simply license his technology to existing companies — it is going to require creating a new industrial powerhouse from scratch. No wonder he sees it as being harder work than what he is doing now.

  • Gerard McEk

    I do not understand Why AR wants to do everything by himself. There are so many companies able to do this for him and far more quickly and more efficient (like the automotive industry) as he will be able to do. For him it will be reinventing the wheel. It will be very time consuming and lead to endless teething problems and that will probably lead to less confidence in his technology.
    A question: Would IH plan their own Ecat factory, or would they be building that together with the Leonardo Corporation?

    • US_Citizen71

      I think that would depend on the licensing agreement. My gut feeling is that IH will be the ones behind the building of the non-prototype plants. I don’t think Leonardo Corporation has the capital to fiance a factory or supply chain for one.

    • kenko1

      Does anyone here know any Chinese? If the presentation IH gave in 2013 in China was acted upon, the production facilities for making E-cats is probably ,already built & functioning or waiting a ‘go’ from the powers that be. The market for E-cats in the US and Europe is hugh, but Chinas’ is bigger. But nobody knows because most of us aren’t in the Chinese mainstream. It wouldn’t suprise me if warehouses of core E-cats are already full.

      • HS61AF91

        It would pleasantly surprise me.

      • Owen Geiger

        That seems highly unlikely since Rossi is still regularly redesigning the E-cat. You can’t start mass producing something until the design is carefully worked out. It has to be durable and reliable.

      • Omega Z

        As I understand it, The agreement was just recently signed. So there is nothing built yet. Just preparations.

    • Brent Buckner

      You wrote: “”I do not understand Why AR wants to do everything by himself.”
      Googling “doing everything oneself” suggests that a fair number of people share that orientation.

      I expect that IH would plan their own E-cat factories – thus the investment from Woodford. They’d have plans for both China and the U.S. – the territories to which we are told they hold rights. It is not in the practice of industrialists, venture capitalists, and consultants (all of which Darden has been) to leave themselves at the mercy of brilliant inventors for the stage of commercial production.

    • Roland

      Steve Jobs micro managed product development for Apple from the outset by building a scale appropriate team at each stage of the enterprise, Rossi is hardly the lone inventor anymore.

    • Omega Z

      You need to reconcile your thoughts about this not just being Rossi.
      He working with VC capital. Ever seen such capital without strings attached. Especially when it involves Millions of dollars.

      Rossi has say so in the direction, but the money steers the car.
      Who’s the money. Industrial heat, and was it, Woodford or something like that. Oh, And Industrial heat included a dozen unnamed entities.

      Industrial heat(14) invested directly into Leonardo.
      Did (Woodford?) invest in Leonardo or by way of Industrial heat?
      Either way, they are also involved.

  • Zephir

    IMO Rossi doesn’t build anything: he is still sleeping in his first leaking E-Cat prototype. No robotic plants, no domestic units. Get real at least a bit…

    • psi2u2

      Maybe try reading a bit more so you know who your readers are?

      • Zephir
        • psi2u2

          Sorry but after what you’ve already said I find that my limited time is spent reading things from people who don’t have agendas like yours.

          • Zephir

            You’ve full rights to do it – but this is basically the attitude, which delayed the cold fusion research by ninety years already. All ignored with people, who are too busy to study the opinion (“agenda”?) of others.

          • clovis ray

            Z man.
            I think you need to educate yourself on what is going on here,
            ‘cold fusion’, that old dinosaur was a loser, water based, misunderstood, experiment that went wrong over 25 years ago, scheeeh, get real.

    • Gunnar Lindberg

      it’s a pity Andrea in many ways acts the way you would expect from a scam artist. Too many secrets, doing everything by himself, even setting upp a big factorie for mass production. I will not be surprised if the location of the factorie will be a secret.
      Maybe Andrea thinks it does not matter, however, we understand that this strategy will delay the introduction of a teknik we so urgently need. Hopefully, IH will engage the proper industrial resources.

      • Zephir

        IMO the nature of cold fusion doesn’t enable any better strategy: it’s a simple physical system, which you can only heat it or cool it – so that everything which provides you advantage over competition is just a plain classification of all progress.

        But I do like the Steorn’s approach: it could also build a secret hidden plant for large scale batteries for cars, but nope – he is just selling USB charger. Right here and right now.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          The question is can (should) our planet wait while Rossi learns how to scale up and market his new fire.

          • pg


          • Zephir

            I’m sure, mainstream physicists and industrial lobby would wait for cold fusion another ninety years without absolutely any problem… They have nowhere to hurry, until their money are going – on the contrary, with increasing energetic crisis and oil depletion their income and profit can only increase.

          • Omega Z

            Mainstream physicists are actually the biggest impediment to LENR. Not Big oil. I need to add that this is NOT all physicists as some are very open to LENR. Good for them. That’s how science is supposed to be. Open to possibilities even if one is skeptical.

          • Brent Buckner

            You’re welcome to start your own research effort!

    • Omega Z

      This is a different container. Different E-cats.
      The original container had 106 10kW reactors of which a dozen sat on top. They wouldn’t all fit.

      The new container holds 52 20kW reactors plus the 4 250kW reactors all self contained without numerous holes cut into the sides.
      Get real at least a bit… 🙂
      If you survey the pictures on his site, you will see them assembling the new version of reactors in the container.

      • Zephir

        OK, but this is still workshop production. Rossi could continue with it for another ten years, until Industrial Heat will not decide otherwise. No robotized plant is apparently underway, despite Rossi talked about it multiple-times..

        • Omega Z

          Correct, there is No robotized plant at this time.
          What Rossi has said is plans are being lined out, a facility lined up and Bots are preselected with pre-arrangements for farmed out components. This can cut months off of setting up the plant if the pilot test is positive.

          Nothing can really be finalized until the test is complete. There could still be changes in the plan that they aren’t aware of yet.
          The confusion about this is because Rossi doesn’t always make that distinction in his posts. When you answer some questions repeatedly, it’s easy to do that.

  • ecatworld

    Bernie Koppenhofer

    Dr. Rossi: Do you agree, inventing the new fire was and continues to be a great, monumental accomplishment, but scaling it up requires the expertise of outside corporations that have “been there and done that”?

    Andrea Rossi

    November 10th, 2015 at 2:16 PM

    Bernie Koppenhofer:
    Same thing many said to Bill Gates.
    Warm Regards,

    • Zephir
      • ecatworld

        Thanks very much, Zephir — I put up a new post about this. Very interesting

        • Zephir

          Actually this patent looks quite general (as it’s common for NASA patents) and it mimics NANOR and similar composite palladium catalysts developed at MIT. It cannot have wide usage from industrial perspective, but it could have applications for NASA (thermoelectric generators for space-probes, where the high price of palladium is not critical).

    • Gerald

      I think dr Rossi is off right here. Bill Gates gave computers to the people where the big established companies think we didn’t need it. When the balls started to role they build a not so bad os2 but they were to late. Rossi now invented a great device to produce heat or maybe even direct energy, how People use it he has no control, he just has the advantage of being first, but big companies will catch up and take over. He has to give away some control and trust People to stay in control otherwise he will be remembered by ecatworld readers and likewise websides only. I think the choices he is facing now is maybe more difficult them inventing the ecats.

      • Omega Z

        “He has to give away some control”
        He already has. People just haven’t reconciled it into their thought process. Rossi has some say in the matter, but there is more then just Rossi.

    • Bob

      Not a good analogy.
      Bill Gates sold his first operating system to IBM. Microsoft did not start up until later. Then Microsoft bought out many smaller technologies and incorporated them into their product. Bill Gates most certainly did not “do it all by himself”. In NO way!.
      This theory about mass production keeping away the competition is full of flaws. Number one being :
      1) How many customers for need a 1 MW heat plant?
      2) How many customers will pay 1 million plus dollars for a 1MW heat plant?
      3) How many customers that need 1 MW heat and can pay 1 million plus for a technology
      that has not proven it’s durability and possibly even safety. It is most likely nuclear based after all. While we no of no radiation, Rossi himself said at high COP there is.
      4) How much will the government stifle this new nuclear reactor with OSHA, environmental and other safety tests. Do you know how long it takes to get a new car design approved!
      …. and other issues.
      My point being that there will be no HUGE economy of scale / sale for some time. Probably not until he gets a Home Base Unit available. By then, companies with real expertise in engineering, manufacturing and marketing will have left him behind.
      Bill Gates only rose to the top because his marketing strategy worked. NOT because he sold his operating system so cheap that no one else could compete. THEN because of the proprietary nature of the operating system, it locked customer into Windows. Thus less expensive systems such as Linux floundered. Why, because no one could purchase the add on’s or companion products because they did not exist. Same thing about Apple. Apple is good, but only to it’s captive market. While many think the product better, it still does not have close to the market share of Microsoft. It has nothing to do with “economy of scale”, it has everything to do with patent protection, market penetration and what companion products are available.
      There are not millions and millions of requirements for 1MW plants. Many to be sure, but not enough to make economy of scale a workable strategy. Home units yes, but then the design, cost and safety certifications are a long way away.
      Rossi, let IH do the production planning!

      • pg

        For what the 1million plus is concerned, I think that this figure is history. In Darden’s own presentation, he talks about a profit of around 5.000 USD per container, which is not compatible with a revenue of 1.5 Million dollars per container. So the industrial product will be substantially cheaper than that, I would say no more than 300.000 USD.

      • blanco69

        Great Post! Many of the massed produced strategy flaws revealed not by Cold Fusion, but by cold logic. Somebody should ask GE or Siemens what their total market for generation assets is. You have to pay for the r&d phase somehow.

        • clovis ray

          You think it such a good question, why don’t you ask them?

      • Omega Z

        Bill Gates “licensed” his first operating system to IBM. He received a payment every time they sold a computer whether it shipped with MS’s operating system or Not. He snookered them using their arrogance against them. IBM’s was of the belief that only hardware was of long term profit.

        1) How many customers need a 1 MW heat plant?
        An unfathomable number hard for most to even imagine.
        2 & 3) How many customers will pay a million plus for a 1MW heat plant?

        What matters will be cost/savings/payback period.
        We have no idea what it will cost. It has changed so much since that number was bandied about. It now has only 4 250kW reactors with 4 pressure gauges & 8 thermocouples, a computer & some plumbing instead of 106 reactors. Will easily fit a 4×6 foot box instead of a 20 foot container with 1000’s of fewer parts.

        4) Radiation was detected 1 time in a different reactor. They’ve since had runaway melt downs in the new reactors with “0” radiation at extreme COP since then. The new Reactors have already passed safety certification for industrial/commercial use. OSHA will be involved only in the setup in operation as with any new piece of equipment.

        Demand for 1MW plants. Unimaginable. Nearly everything in your home utilized low grade heat or steam in it’s making. Most of your food fresh or frozen. Meat packing along with the absorption ammonia chillers. All fabrics, pottery/ceramics, kiln dryers, etc, etc, etc. And many of these will require multiple megawatts plants at each installation. Rossi will have competition years before Rossi/IH could dream of filling the need.

        It would also be a small step going from industrial/commercial to large apartment complexes, highrise apartments, skyscrapers & office buildings as they would have technicians available. 1MW would heat/cool 10 to 20 apartments depending on the size. Single family and such will take longer(No techies present) & will be based on data collected from the earlier uses.

        And Note that Industrial heat is involved with Rossi on this. As many others, you fail to grasp that VC money comes with many strings attached including joint owning of IP(This we’ve seen) & control over the product & it’s manufacture.

        As to competitors, They have to develop their own IP and all the hurdles Rossi has had to jump, So will they including pilot plants, certifications and all. Nobody gets a free pass.

        • Bob

          Actually, there has been no safety certification for the 1MW plant.
          There was a certification done in Europe on a different design and it only stated that electrical and mechanical systems were compliant. If you read closely, it has little to nothing to do with a working reactor. In any case, There are no safety certifications for the current plant nor in the USA that I am aware of or see published.
          There are many uses for heat plants, just as there are many uses for autos that get 40 miles per gallon. So just as most people do not get rid of their existing car that only gets 20 miles per gallon, only a small fraction of industrial facilities with existing heat sources will pay $1 million for a new one. Regardless of the efficiency. Even if the ROI was two years, many smaller companies simply do not have the investment capital to spend on something that is already working. This reduces the number of possible customers tremendously..
          Apartments and residential customers are quite a ways down the line. Again, they do not have the capital to spend. Most apartments heat is paid by the tenant, so the owner has little incentive to spend $1 million. Then you have the running of the system. It is now a mature, “stand alone” system yet. Very few apartments will be converted.
          There will be demand, but not the millions for a scale of economy. If that were the case, there would not be a single car on the road getting less than 40 mpg. Or every company would have current technology that captures lost heat/energy etc. now. Even solar, geo thermal and wind can be cost effective in many places, yet there is not a great demand of scale for these. And they are stand alone sources requiring little oversight. Large installations of wind and solar are only done by government subsidy.
          My point is that a decent ROI does not prompt companies to spend big bucks in most cases, to replace working systems Often they do not have the available cash flow. This reduces the customer base dramatically.
          If the system is 6 to 1 on electricity, then it is probably closer to 3 to 1 on natural gas. This reduces the customer base even further.
          I am all for the eCat. I do hope Rossi is successful. I do not think his plan for economy of scale will work however. Just my opinion.

          • US_Citizen71

            For electrical appliances a EU CE certification is allowable for sale in the US, without a UL certification. I would assume this is true for the mechanical aspect of the plant as well. Since the plant is a heat-exchanger not a boiler/pressure vessel I am not sure additional certification would be required. As for ROI, as long as the savings equals or is greater than loan payments and the length of the return is not much longer than the term length of the loan an improvement loan either for a business or an apartment complex is a no brainer.

          • Gerald

            I agree. The first years/maybe a decade economics are not the winner. It has to be backup and insurances. If the ecat is part of my plant and ge or siemens don’t want to Be responsible for the working of the whole plant then the money savings don’t weight to the risks. In time and the tech starts to prove economics will be the key thing. For me personally the the only thing that would make me buy a thing like the ecat is getting of the grid and making me think I’m a little more free.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Microsoft has good marketing? Are you kidding me? Can you
        point me to some great Excel, Word or windows commercial that made you go out and purchase windows? Apple has great commercials and marketing. I cannot think of ANY marketing campaign from Microsoft that was memorable, was good or made ANYONE go out and purchase their product. In fact the way I see this is Microsoft did well IN SPITE of their horrible marketing. They did well because they had a great product at a great price.

        If Microsoft is so good at marketing, then off the top of
        your head, what marketing campaign you talking about? I cannot think of any
        marketing that was even good, let alone first rate from Microsoft.

        The simply matter is when you purchase a dell computer,
        you are paying about $50 for the OS – that’s going to last you 5 years.
        So $10 per year? Why at that price would anyone EVEN bother with a free OS like Linux for one desktop?

        The simple matter is people like and use windows. So consumer
        purchase billions of dollars of that stuff. And they purchase billions of Coke
        Cola also! (I tried every product, and I found Coke Cola is the best cola – especially for the price – so you might find one example of some great Cola, but Coke-Cola is a good product – thus they sell billions of that stuff).

        Windows on your Dell is so low cost that consumers never
        really care or will bother to jump to Linux BASED ON COST!
        I don’t believe the “average” consumer is locked into windows software anymore then what you find on a Mac, or even free Linux. In fact SO MUCH of software today be in QuickBooks or Facebooks can now be consumed as WEB based – your OS don’t matter! Yet consumers STILL purchase windows. The software lock in is VERY low for in regards to consumers and windows.

        The simple matter is windows is cheap, convenient, works
        well and is very affordable. In fact so affordable that consumers don’t care
        about the cost of windows. (that’s why they not switching to Linux). This sounds
        exactly like Rossi’s strategy. It not the Rossi saying he will be the most low
        cost, but he plans a price point that consumers will not bother or care about alternatives – very much like the current situation with windows.

        I wait a link to a GREAT and fantastical marketing campaign
        by Microsoft that all the readers here dearly remember. I don’t know of any,
        and I cannot remember any. I rate Microsoft near DEAD last in the marketing
        game. Does anyone here EVER remember a good Excel commercial? Anyone EVER remember a good windows commercial?

        Microsoft did well much like VHS did well – they licensed
        their product to all takers where as apple kept production of the computer
        in-house just like Sony did with Betamax. The better product did not win here
        (Beta, or Apple), but the product that was made most easily available to
        consumers is what sealed the fate of success or not. It was not marketing, but
        in fact licensing that won this war.

        As for the market for 1MW plants? Any building in any city
        that is 5 stories high can use one for heating. Yea – the market is nearly un-limited size wise.

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Bob

          A closer read of my post states “…because his marketing strategy worked” Please note the word [strategy] and not advertising, commercials etc.
          Microsoft’s marketing strategy was to have a captured market, have as many companion products (including those of other companies) and to infiltrate the OEM market. As you state, you purchase a Dell PC and it comes with MS WIndows. (Not Apple, Linux, etc. but Windows) Dell pays for the advertising. Sounds like a great marketing strategy to me!
          Buy a HP computer from HP advertising, you get MS WIndows. Sounds like a great strategy to me. Buy any number of laptops from any number of vendors advertising promotions, you get MS Windows. Wow, what better strategy could one have? How is Rossi going to do strategy like this with 1MW heat plants? He will not. (in my opinion)
          Microsoft became one of the largest companies in the world, making it’s primary owner one of the richest men in history. Was this because they sold Windows at an economy of scale? No. Was it because Windows was the absolute best operationing system? Hardly. Was it because Bill Gates worked 14 hours per day in a container? I doubt it. (He may have worked long hours, I do not know)
          Microsoft achieved the above due to their marketing strategy. I still stand by my thought. Here’s your link.

          It states that Microsoft is #31 on fortune 500 list. One does not get there by accident. Since Microsoft products are not really the best nor the cheapest, I stand by my thought that their marketing strategy was top notch.
          Note the key word here is strategy, not tv commercials, not dancing girls in skimpy clothes. Those are advertising campaigns, not strategies.
          I work in manufacturing. I see every day old pieces of equipment that have newer models available that are faster, more precise and less down time. ROI is often 3-4 years. In most cases, new equipment is still often not purchased due to cash flow. I have a 20 year old furnace. A new one would be more efficient. I am not buying one very soon nor does the vast majority of others. As far as buildings in cities… they are owned by landlords who rent the facilities. They do not pay for the heat, the occupants do. The occupants are not going to purchase a new furnace (nor eCat) nor is the land lord.
          Yes, over time, there is a vast market. That market will not support an economy of scale at the beginning and is unlikely to in the future. What furnace company does anyone know of that has captured the market because they sell their product so cheap? None. What auto company has captured the entire market because they sell so cheap? None. (You get what you pay for as well. Cheap price, cheap car. )
          Economy of scale will not work is still my opinion.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Yes, I saw the word strategy BUT ALSO SAW THE WORD marketing.

            The definition of marketing is this:


            “Marketing is about communicating the value of a product,
            service or brand to customers or consumers for the purpose of promoting or selling that product, service, or brand.”

            We talking about Microsoft promoting their product. If
            they license it to someone else, then that’s not them or their marketing skill anymore, is it?

            Tossing in or TACKING ON the word strategy before or
            after the word marketing DOES NOT CHANGE THIS FACT!

            So, yes, you used the word marketing. The fact that you
            tac on strategy is moot.

            You are talking about licensing and distribution – not marketing.

            EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS BOOK AND correct term and ANY KIND
            of context will flat out tell you are not talking about marketing.

            > Microsoft became one of the largest companies in the world

            Again you using terms rather loosely goosy. They are only
            31 ranked if you ignore the rest of the world, but YOU SAID WORLD!!!

            Microsoft does not usually make the top fortune world 100.
            In fact they ONLY made the top 100 a few times in their history.

            Based on the Fortune WORLD ranking (since YOU USED the
            term WORLD!!), they are RATHER LOW and struggle to make the top 100.

            We see:
            Apple (5).
            HP (19),
            IBM (24),
            Amazon (29)
            Home Depot (33)
            Microsoft – (95)!!!

            Microsoft ranked 2015 at a DISTANT 95!

            So I not sure how you suggest they are one of the largest
            company when they struggle to make the top 100?

            I certainly agree they are large, but they are FAR BEHIND
            HP, FAR BEHIND Apple and even FAR BEHIND companies like Home Depot.

            I stand by the fact that Microsoft products are marketed poorly,
            and their marketing strategy DOES NOT CHANGE THIS fact.

            Their licensing and distribution in which their vendors sell
            their products are success, but then again Dell NEVER MADE ANY GREAT commercials about windows. Dell made great commercials about Dell products, but such commercials were NEVER about windows and selling you the benefits of windows or Excel or ANYTHING much about Microsoft.

            Buy a Dell dude never really talked about windows and why
            a consumer should purchase windows.

            You are talking about something 100% different here and
            you are NOT talking about marketing. And you are NOT talking about marketing strategy.

            And you cannot even find me a Dell commercial that sells
            you on windows – or Excel or any Microsoft product.

            Dell NEVER really did sell you on windows!

            Dell really never made any great commercials about
            windows or Excel or office either.

            Apple has great marketing. That why Apple DWARFS Microsoft
            and are ranked 5, while Microsoft is ranked a distant 95! (might as well
            compare computer companies, right????).

            So even if you attempt to spin this, then you would be
            able to show me great commercials about Excel or Windows from Dell – you cannot find as such. Dell sold on service, price and ease of on-line order – Dell never sold consumers on how great windows is or that they should purchase windows.

            So you still cannot find me any great commercials about
            windows, or Excel from Dell or any Microsoft vendor, can you?

            Microsoft success is in spite of marketing, not the
            result of good marketing strategy. You cannot find me any great commercials about Microsoft products from those vendors. So Dell NEVER made great Microsoft commercials either, did they?

            Apple has great marketing, and this is one big reason why
            Microsoft is RANKED SO VERY FAR BEHIND Apple in the Fortune list.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Bob

            It can be semantics. But we all have our points of view.
            Apple sells hardware for high prices. Hardware that has substantial physical material. So does HP. Microsoft sells intellectual property on a 10 cent CD and now most of it is downloaded. So they have no physical material. (Other than the small percentage of sales in tablets).
            So the cost of product is not really a direct comparison and thus the total sales for these companies are also not easily compared either. I guess one would have to know the bottom line to compare the two. Bill Gates is still an extremely rich man. Making #31 for selling something that has no cost of production is remarkable in itself.
            I guess different dictionaries have different descriptions. I looked it up and found the following on the first returned line:
            “Marketing strategy is the fundamental goal of increasing sales and achieving a sustainable competitive advantage.”
            Being in production, I have worked with marketing departments for several corporations. The asthetics of the product, such as color, smoothness and other attributes are all marketing calls. The packaging is a marketing call. Marketing if far more involved than simple advertising that I have been involved with.
            So regardless of what the dictionary you use is, the above fits my intention. So if it serves better, I will gladly change my wording instead of using marketing strategy to:
            “Microsoft has done an excellent job at the fundamental goal of increasing sales and achieving a sustainable competitive advantage”
            No one has came close to really threatening Microsoft in their position. They did not do it via “economy of scale”. Rossi made the comparison to himself and Bill Gates. I simply stated that Microsoft did not succeed due to “economy of scale”. They did it by ” the fundamental goal of increasing sales and achieving a sustainable competitive advantage” i.e. my term for strategic marketing. (Not advertising.)
            I apologize that I seem to have hit some sensitive nerve here. I did not mean to. But I still stand that the eCat and Windows is not comparable and that Microsoft did not succeed due to “economy of scale” as Rossi puts it.
            Have a good day! :0

        • Omega Z

          “I cannot think of ANY marketing campaign from Microsoft that was memorable”

          Just 1
          The Rolling Stones – Start Me Up

          The big problem with Linux, especially way back was there was to little that would run on it.

          • Good lip-sinking from Mick (none of the guitars are plugged in).

  • HS61AF91

    The E-Cat train left a couple of years ago. It is only determining which stop is appropriate for offloading the end product.
    Get off at the ‘pessimism’ stop, the schedule is on time.

  • ecatworld

    Dear Andrea,

    It is clear you are intending to industrialize the E-Cat “in-house” rather than license your technology to outside entities. It would seem to me there are a number of reasons why you might choose this approach

    a) You are concerned about losing trade secrets and having IP stolen
    b) You think you can do it better than other industrial players
    c) You are concerned about your technology being buried
    d) You want to be able to adjust quickly to R&D advances
    e) You think you can save money doing it on your own
    f) You love your work and don’t want to lose control of the E-Cat’s destiny

    Which of these reasons (if any) apply in your case. Are there others?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi

    November 10th, 2015 at 7:25 PM

    Frank Acland:
    A bit of all of them, shakered, not stirred.
    Rossi, Andrea Rossi

  • Bob

    Yes indeed, I was there. 🙂
    You are correct about DOS, that is why I was leaning more on the Windows platform. DOS actually had a few competitors in the early days, but once Windows took hold, then the application requirement took over and doomed most other OS. Windows was not easy to copy and was fairly expensive. Thus my statement that Gates success was not via economy of scale.
    Many of Windows components were also modules purchased from other companies and then folded into Windows or at least other Microsoft products.
    Again, Bill Gates did not build Microsoft by himself setting in a shipping container 14 hours per day. I admire Dr. Rossi’s drive, I simply disagree that his approach will succeed. Economy of scale simply is not there for 1MW plants and he comparing the eCat to Microsoft/Bill Gates I do not think is a valid comparison.

  • Omega Z

    That’s it more or less.

  • Alain Samoun

    Well, my feeling is that if an LENR/CF product or products REALLY REALLY WORK,the impact on the market and society will be so big that nothing in the past will be comparable in matter of production and distribution.

    • Brokeeper

      “If you build it, they will come” – parraphrased from Field of Dreams

    • Roland

      The pace of adoption will be driven by inexorable economic advantage; the greater the disparity between energy costs with LENR versus other methods, (with full input cost accounting including subsidies, carbon taxes, real estate, transmission, capital requirements and environmental consequences) the more quickly this will unfold.

      If this cost disparity is large enough the pace of adoption will dwarf the PC revolution.

      • Omega Z

        This technology will likely be deployed in a micro grid fashion. Several power plants will be built at cities edge connected by a city wide grid instead of a highly centralized grid we have today.

        By using a local grid, LENR Power plants will always be powered should they become unstable. By scaling them to city needs, they will be able to ramp up and down according to peak & valley demand periods providing cheap energy. The waste heat can also be easily utilized instead of wasted making this even more economical.

  • Omega Z

    I believe the initial presentation was 2013, but I’m pretty sure I saw the signing date of the agreement was Oct 2015.

  • Omega Z
  • ecatworld

    Yes, the picture of Darden in Beijing comes from an event this October.

  • ecatworld

    No, there’s nothing to suggest that. I think the slideshow is probably unrelated to last month’s meeting.

    • EEStorFanFibb

      Ok I think I got confused from reading this:

      I probably didn’t see the date in this section:

      “Along with the slideshow there is an image on Cobraf which shows Tom Darden shaking hands with an unidentified official. Many thanks to “me” who posted below these links showing that this image was taken from the signing ceremony of the Baishishan International Innovation Park of China-US Science and Technology that took place in Beijing on October 18, 2015.”

      Seems to me the headline should have emphasized the signing agreement more than a 2 year old slideshow.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Does he mean the start of the Automotive Industry, personified by “you can have any colour as long as it’s black” Henry Ford approach, or the automotive industry of the future personified by “and, of course, all our patents are open” Elon Musk approach?