1 MW E-Cat Plant Watch Thread [UPDATE #41 — 350 Day Test is Over, Mats Lewan's Sources Say Success]

Since there are beginning to be more frequent references to the 1 MW E-Cat plant that we have been told will be installed and be open to visitors at some point (perhaps this year, according to Andrea Rossi), I thought I would create a dedicated thread to the topic which I will update as needed, like I have done with the thread about the third party report. It keeps all the information together and I think makes things easier to find.

UPDATE #41 (Feb 18, 2016)

Mats Lewan hears the test was successful:

A comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics by Andrea Rossi announced that the 1 Year test of the E-Cat Plant has been completed.

Andrea Rossi
February 18, 2016 at 4:31 AM
Gerard Mc Ek:
The charge size has beene refined with the experience in thousands of experiments and, obviously, also on the base of theoretical considerations.
Yes, the test of 350 days is finished, yesterday the ERV has completed his tests.
Now it will take about a month to know the results from his report.
No more information about the 1 MW E-Cat that made the tests from now until the publication of the results will be allowed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

The ERV is the “Expert Responsible for Validation” who is apparently an outside independent entity with experience in nuclear engineering and testing.

So the charge substitution process mentioned below was not an interruption to the test, but signaled the end of the test, and presumably it will continue to be used.

Go to comments

UPDATE #40 (Feb 17, 2016)

In an update on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today Andrea Rossi stated that there is currently an important operation taking place with the 1 MW E-Cat Plant:

Andrea Rossi
February 17, 2016 at 7:44 AM
Blanche:
Wed Feb 17 2016, 07.43 a.m.
1 MW E-Cat : charges substitution on course
E-Cat X: in good standing, very promising
Warm Regards,
A.R.

I’m pretty sure this means that the charges used in the E-Cat reactors in the 1MW plant have lost efficiency to the extent that they can no longer be used. Rossi has said he had hoped that the charge could last for a full year, but it sounds like that’s not the case. This will mean that there will be more down time for the plant and will probably push back the ending date for the test quite a few days. Rossi has said in the past that it will take a few days at least to change the charges in the reactors.

Go to comments

UPDATE #39 (Feb 6, 2016)

We’re heading into the final stretch of Andrea Rossi’s 1 MW plant test, and while Rossi has reported loss of efficiency in the plant’s reactors, and some more leakages, the test still continues. Today we’re at day 348, so we could be just weeks away from the finish line and it sounds like they are nursing the plant all the way to the end. Here’s a Q&A on the topic today.

Hello Mr. Rossi,
i have two questions.

1) it is february now, the test phase of your 1MW plant should be almost over. When do you think it will be done?

A: Still do not know, up to the end. Anything can happen anytime to cause a delay.

2) what is going to happen, if everything is successfull, soon after the end of the test? Will we get to know who the Costumer is? Will we see new demos? Will other Costumers be able to buy a new plant? What?

A: If all will go well, we will start the industrialization process. No more demos will be made. Other plants will be sold. I do not know if the Customer will want to expose himself or not and this, obviously, will not depend on me.

Go to comments

UPDATE #38 (Feb 1, 2016)

It looks like the countdown clock we have been running on this site has been overly optimistic based on recent statements from Andrea Rossi on when the test might conclude. So I have adjusted the clock to the end of March, rather than February 29. Here’s a Q&A from the Journal of Nuclear Physics today:

Curiosone
February 1st, 2016 at 8:52 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi,
I understand that the tests of the 1 MW E-Cat will be co,pleted by the end of March: is this deadline still valid?
Thanks,
W.G.

Andrea Rossi
February 1st, 2016 at 9:07 AM
Curiosone:
If we’ll have not surprises from Her, I would say yes, it makes sense.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

UPDATE #37 (Jan 29, 2016)

Well that was a brief update. Rossi has updated his previous post. Maybe in his reply to me in Update #36 he meant that the trouble was over, not the test.

Andrea Rossi
January 29th, 2016 at 1:29 PM
Frank Acland:
It is over. Trouble resolved thanks to our great Team!
Warm Regards
A.R.

UPDATE #36 (Jan 29, 2015)<

Well, it seems the year-long test has failed. It did not make it to the finish line. Here’s what I asked AR on the JONP.

“Frank Acland January 29th, 2016 at 1:02 PM
Dear Andrea,
What do these troubles mean for the test in progress? Is it over, or will you need to bring in new reactors?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland

Andrea Rossi January 29th, 2016 at 1:29 PM
Frank Acland:
It is over.
Warm Regards

What this will mean to the E-Cat commercialization project now is an open question. Knowing Rossi he will not be giving up. I expect that Rossi will go on with his R&D on the E-Cat, especially with the E-Cat X which he has seemed very hopeful about, but by his own admission, the low temperature plant technology is not ready for the marketplace.

UPDATE #35 (Jan 29, 2015)

From a couple of new comments from Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, it sounds like things are not going too well with the 1 MW plant.

Andrea Rossi
January 29th, 2016 at 10:12 AM
René Bergeron:
at 10.10 a.m. of Friday Jan 29 2016:
1 MW E-Cat : troublesome, lowest efficiency, working on it. Not a good night, honestly.
E-Cat X: remade another to continue destructive tests
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Andrea Rossi
January 29th, 2016 at 10:14 AM
Elise:
Please, understand that to put in the markes an immature product in our case could be devastating.
There is nobody in the world that more than me desires to put massively the E-Cat in the market, but we are not ready. Too bad about sceptics.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

We’ve been hearing from Rossi about the reactors losing efficiency lately, and it sounds like the problems are continuing, and increasing. Rossi says that they do have backup reactors in place and we don’t know if he’ll deploy them. From Rossi’s tone here, it sounds like he’s going to be doing some rethinking about everything. I guess we’ll find out more what this means for the overall test.

UPDATE #34 (Jan 23, 2015)

Andrea Rossi has provided some interesting details about the current plant under test in this response to a question from Barty about the current test in progress:

Andrea Rossi
January 23rd, 2016 at 8:12 AM
Barty:
Your assumption has right of citizenship in the kingdom of logic, but we must be conservative.
There are many parts of the plant that need upgrading and the next generation of industrial plants (F9) will be different. I cannot give the details of the parts to be modified, for obvious reasons, but we are talking not just of plumbing and wiring, we are talking of internal structure of the reactors.
This plant belongs to the first generation, substantially it is equal to the plant tested in Bologna in the Winter of 2011; the next one will be different and I am already designing it (again: F9).
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Comparing this plant to the 2011 Bologna plant gives an indication of how many changes might be needed, since the design of that plant has been superseded. I think this is the clearest statement from Rossi so far about his assessment of the current plant design, and it is an admission that it really is not suitable for the marketplace in its current iteration. He has reported the need multiple repairs during the course of this test, and when he mentions changing the “internal structure of the reactors”, this would imply that quite a bit of work will be needed, and further testing, which brings up the question of whether there will need to be more extended testing, and how long it might take to get a satisfactory plant on the market.

Go to comments

UPDATE #33 (Jan 17, 2015)

Andrea Rossi has stated that there continues to be some loss of efficiency in the reactors of the E-Cat plant. He says he had hoped the fuel charge would be enough to last a full year, but as the test enters its final days it seems like the potency is decreasing somewhat. There appear to be three options at this point:

a) Keep going with the same charges in the reactors; Rossi says so far the COP is good enough despite the loss of efficiency

b) Change the charges; Rossi said this:

The charge, if necessary, can be changed, obviously delaying the term of the test end by the number of days necessary. We still have days spared of the allowed 400 days, so the validity of the test should not be compromised. So far, anyway, it has not necessary to change the charge.

c) Employ the backup reactors which are in standby mode; of this option, Rossi wrote: “that is another safety boat. In a military term: it is our “reserve” division.”

Update: Thanks to Gerard McEk for asking a further question about this:

“Dear Andrea,
You wrote that after a long night fight you have assessed the lowering COP problem.
Can you tell us if that means that the COP is back to normal, or were some other issues solved that were bothering you because of the decreasing COP?
Can you define when you consider the test positive?
Thanks and kind regards, Gerard

Andrea Rossi January 17th, 2016 at 12:26 PM
Gerard McEk:
The COP has slightly diminished its value, but we stopped the tendency to go lower, now it is stable.
The test will be defined positive or negative when the 350 days of operation will have been completed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.”

Go to comments

UPDATE #32 (Jan 14, 2015)

In the end, it is happy customers who will prove whether E-Cat technology is useful or not, and from what Andrea Rossi states here, it sounds like the current customer would like to extend its use of the plant after the conclusion of the test — which is an indication that they are happy with their energy savings:

January 14th, 2016 at 5:53 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,

Since the test period is soon over….

1. Have the Customer indicated a wish to extend the lease if test is a success (or buy the plant) ? AR: yes

2. If not extended lease, what is your further plans for the test plant? AR: if the results will be positive we will make more plants

3. Have you identified changes in the design that will be implemented when / if you start manufacturing on a broad scale…? AR: yes

Go to comments

UPDATE #31 (Dec 30, 2015)

As we approach the end of the year, over 10 months into the test it sounds like the reactors in the E-Cat plant are getting a bit fatigued. Andrea Rossi wrote a week or so ago that one of the reactors was showing less efficiency, and today he wrote this on the JONP:

Azzurra:
Time: 08.05 a.m. of Wed Dec 30st :
E-Cat 1 MW: another reactor shows a decrease of efficiency, but still has enough COP. The charges are starting to give evidence of consumption. Very interesting to study the phenomenon from now on.
E-Cat X: works, makes heat and electricity, is very promising.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Rossi has said that the charge in each of the four reactors was slightly different, and this was a deliberate move so he could observe differences in operation based on different formulas. From an experimental point of view this would be interesting to AR, but whether the plant is able to meet the goals for the test remains to be seen. AR has said that there is an option to replace the charges in a if necessary, but he said that was a complex operation that could take up to six days to accomplish. Also, there is still in place the backup bank of small reactors that have not been used for most of the test, but which Rossi has said could be employed if there was a need.

There’s some more information on the situation in this Q&A between Steven Karels and Andrea Rossi on the JONP:

a. Are all four 250kW reactors currently being used? yes

b. Are any reactors producing less than 250kW of thermal power? -can’t answer

c. As a particular reactor approaches fuel exhaustion, do you see increased control issues? no

d. Likewise, do you observe a decreased effective COP for that reactor? yes

e. Likewise, do you see decreases in the time of SSM for that reactor? yes

f. Can the other reactors have their output increased beyond 250kW to compensation for the reactors experiencing approach of fuel exhaustion? can’t answer

UPDATE #30 (Sep 21, 2015)

I asked Andrea Rossi some questions regarding the condition of the plant, and about the repairs that have been done on the reactors. I have included his responses after each question.

Dear Andrea,

You have made a number of repairs on reactors over the course of this long-term test.

1. Have you changed any of the fuel or charge in any of the reactors yet? AR: no
2. Are you using the same reactors as when you started? AR: yes
3. Have your repairs involved replacing components and/or materials surrounding the reactors? AR: yes
4. Have you been successful in your repairs in reducing the amount of problems with the E-Cats? AR: yes

I followed up with another question: “Regarding repairs you have had to make on your reactors again, are they mainly connected with materials degradation caused by long-term heat exposure?”

AR: I would say yes, and we learnt much about new mterials to be used instead.

UPDATE #29 (Sep 20, 2015)

Andrea Rossi was asked directly today when the 1 MW plant would be over and he gave this response: “The tests should end by February 2016, so long no major delays are caused by malfunctions.”

So that makes me guess that the total downtime so far has probably been between 1 and 2 weeks.

UPDATE #28 (Sep 19, 2015)

There’s some interesting information on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about the amount of down time that has been during the current test of the 1 MW plant. A reader asked Andrea Rossi about how many days the plant has been down since the test started on Feb 20th this year. These were the options to choose from:

1) less than but equal to 24 hours?
2) greater than 24 hours but less than or equal to 7 days?
3) greater than 7 days but less than or equal to 4 weeks?
4) greater than 4 weeks?

Andrea Rossi responded: “3”. This means that for the test to run 350 days in total, the ending would be pushed back to at least February 10th, and as far as March 3rd, 2016. And this means the counter I have been running is not accurate — I think I better take it down!

UPDATE #27 (Sep 18, 2015)

By my calculations, based on what Andrea Rossi said in update #26 below, the 1 MW plant has been running for 207 days now, and the test in progress is supposed to run for 350 days. On the Journal of Nuclear Physics today Rossi was asked that if the test were to end today, would he consider the results positive or negative.

His response was: “Positive with the potential risk to become negative.”

I take this to mean that the plant has been operating well, producing energy via the ‘Rossi effect’ at a significant COP — however it has not been running long enough for Rossi to declare final victory. So far, so good, but the 350 day milestone seems to be the finish line that has yet to be reached.

UPDATE #26 (Jul 7, 2015)

Today Andrea Rossi gave the first concrete answer to a question about how long the 1 MW plant has been operating. The question on the Journal of Nuclear Physics was “How many operative days of 24 hours each has the 1 MW E-Cat operated, from the start up to now? Can you tell us this?”

Rossi’s response was:

Andrea Rossi
July 6th, 2015 at 2:28 PM
JC Renoir:
136 days as of today.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

136 days is about 4.5 months. Rossi has said recently that they have had to shut the plant down on occasion to fix certain things, and we don’t know how much downtime there has been so far. According to Rossi, they are contractually obligated to have the plant run for 350 days in a 400 day period, so this would mean the plant will need to run for at least another 214 days. So by my calculations, the test can’t end until February 2016 at the earliest.

UPDATE #25 (May 2, 2015)

Andrea Rossi gave some information today about the plant that indicates that it will have to produce a COP of at least 4 based on the power rating of the resistors used in the plant:

Andrea Rossi
May 2nd, 2015 at 6:38 PM
The 1MW E-Cat does not have the power to supply 1 MWh/h of energy without the Rossi Effect. The total power of the resistances is about 250 kW, therefore by Joule effect we can give max 250 kWh/h of energy. This is why we have to study well the duration of the charges and, until we have not a precise idea, we have fixed in 6 months the fuellife. This time we have the possibility to try 1 year; obviously as soon as we notice a decrease of efficiency we change the charge.
Since we have 400 days at our disposal to operate 350 days, in this test and R&D agreed upon with the Customer, we have room for this experiment.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

In other words, if the plant is producing 1 megawatt with 250 kW of resistance heaters, it would be 400 per cent efficient (COP 4) if the resistors were powered continually — this is not taking into account the periods of self-sustain that Rossi has said are very long. All this points towards a COP well beyond the minimum of 4 calculated here.

Rossi also mentions here that they are going to try to run the plant for a full year on one charge, and not stop the experiment at the minimum 350 day mark. According to Rossi, in another post today, this will mean that the test will end in December 2015 at the earliest, February 2016 at the latest.

UPDATE #24 (May 1, 2015)

Here’s an interesting post from Andrea Rossi on the JONP that explains in part how the reportedly high COP is being achieved: by having one E-Cat drive another — this is the ‘synergy’ that Rossi has mentioned quite a bit. Using one E-Cat to power another has always seemed to me to have a lot of potential in terms of energy savings, and so it’s good to hear that Rossi and his team seem to be having some success with it.

Andrea Rossi

BroKeeper:
The ssm is enhanced by the fact that with the control system directing multiple reactors we can obtain a synergy between them using some of the reactors to drive others, where the driving ones ( mouse operation) are less than the cat ones. This way the ssm phases are substantially more that the driving ones. This synergy, obviously, is possible only with big plants ( so far).
I cannot give the numbers, as correctly Steven N Karels anticipated and, also, after consulting Orsobubu, I have to add that what we have now is not the final result, things can worsen substantially in time and the final results could be either positive or negative ( this last phrase could be substituted by F-Something).
Warm Regards,
A.R.

UPDATE #23 (Apr 22, 2015)

Below is a lengthy comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics by Andrea Rossi which gives a lot of details about the measurement systems in place at the 1 MW plant. I had not seen this post until now (it was a comment on a very old JONP post) — but it was published on April 3rd. One interesting aspect is that there is an appointed ‘Referee’ — presumably an independent party — who is keeping track of all the measurements involved, and who it seems will make the final determination about the COP.

Andrea Rossi
April 3rd, 2015 at 7:44 PM
Desmondet:
The measurement system of the 1 MW E-Cat is made by:

56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the water steam in different positions

56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the liquid water that flows toward the reactors in different positions

1 PCE 830 to measure the consumption of electric power, which has been installed between the container of the reactors and the electric power source of the Customer’s Factory, plus

the Wattmeter of the Customer’s factory installed by the electric energy provider

56 pressure gauges to measure the pressure of the steam in different positions

All the data are taken by the certified registration system made by the referee, who has placed the certified gauges to calculate the COP, and collected in his computer. All the referee’s gauges are certified and sealed.
Besides all this, there is the master Gauge, which is the manufacturing plant of the Customer, which needs 1 MWh/h of thermal energy carried by steam: if they receive this energy they pay for the plant, provided we give the granted COP, otherwise they do not pay. They measure with their instrumentation the amount and quality of the steam, but most of everything, they check the amount and the quality of their production and compare their costs using the E-Cat VS their costs with the traditional heaters. Their plant is the universal gauge and is, under a commercial point of view, the only one that really counts. So far the Customer is satisfied. Nevertheless, I have to add that it is soon to assume final considerations and we are aware of the fact that within the end of the year the results could be positive, but also negative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

So with a referee in place, I wonder if this could be considered another ‘third party’ test.

UPDATE #22 (Apr 21, 2015)

Another comment about sources visiting the 1MW plant currently under test by Rossi from the Sifferkol website run by Torkel Nyberg (see here http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/?p=626:

“I know first hand from very reliable sources that themselves have visited the Rossi/Industrial Heat E-Cat customer that the plant works very well. This has been verified both by measurements made by the customer and by significantly reduced electricity bills. The plant seems to be able to produce heat from electricity with a COP in the range of 20-80 depending on the level of self-sustain-mode applied. I guess that is what Rossi is working on right now.”

Mats Lewan now has updated his blog post (see update #21 below) to confirm that he has heard the same information as reported on the Sifferkol site. He writes:

UPDATE: Since a COP (Coefficient of Performance — output energy/input energy) ranging from 20 to 80 has been reported, I can confirm that I have got the same information.

UPDATE #21 (Apr 20, 2015)

Here’s an interesting comment from Mats Lewan from a new post on his animpossibleinvention.com site, that gives some confirmation about what Andrea Rossi has been saying about the performance of the 1 MW plant:

From credible sources I get confirmation of what Rossi states — that the plant is running very well — which means that we should expect important results presented at the end of the 400 day trial, backed up by a customer who certifies the useful power output and the measured electrical input from the grid. Such results will be difficult to challenge . . . Since these results will be presented before the next ICCF, this year’s conference may have been the last before a major breakthrough for cold fusion.

Mats has good connections when it comes to people related to the E-Cat, and I would not question what he reports here. He is certainly not one to hype things. He mentions here a 400 day trial. According to Rossi, the customer requires the plant to run well for 365 days out of 400. Rossi has said they won’t be able to report until November at the earliest, but if the rest of the run is smooth sailing with no major downtime, we might get a report by the end of this year.

UPDATE #20 (Apr 9, 2015)

The following brief quote below is posted with permission from an email exchange I had with Andrea Rossi recently.

The Lady E-Cat 1MW is stable and the COP is very high, because we are mostly in ssm mode. I am writing from inside the computers container.

UPDATE #19 (Mar 29 2015)

More encouraging words today from Andrea Rossi regarding the 1 MW plant:

The E-Cat this week has been good, with very, very extended ssm periods. I prefer to give data regarding the COP after the end of the test.
From inside the plant,
A.R., with Warm Regards

It’s hard to interpret exactly what Rossi means by ‘Very, very’ extended self-sustain mode periods, but it sounds quite emphatic, and suggests a fairly dramatic improvement in COP. I would guess that since the early guaranteed COP Rossi talked about in the early days of the E-Cat was 6, that they could be getting double that, or even more.

This ability to self-sustain is really the remarkable thing about the E-Cat. From testing we have seen so far, without a self-sustain mechanism, it appears that the E-Cat can get a maximum COP of 3 or 4 which is impressive and could be commercially useful in some situations — but the commercial appeal will really grow if you can cut your fuel expenditures by 75 per cent or more, which might be possible with extended self sustain periods.

UPDATE #18 (Mar 13 2015)

More from Rossi on the subject of update #17 today:

The ssm of the 1MW E-Cat is very long. It has been a terrific surprise, due to evolution of the charge and to the control system. I am not permitted to publish numbers before the end of the test, but I must say that the final results can be positive, but also could be negative, so we retain the data until the test is finished. One thing is for sure: I do not stay here 16-18 hours per day to sharpen the points to the pencils. We also have a new kind of gauge, which is the bill of the electric provider to our Customer, wherein are written the MWh he consumes per month ( the electricity source that feeds the plant has been insulated from other loads): the Customer makes a ratio between the thermal MWh we deliver and the MWh he pays for to the electricity provider and has the real COP. This is a measuring system not very sophysticated, but brutally true: the Customer is positively surprised from the results, so far, after a troublesome initial period. We hope the situation goes on likewise.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

The news sounds very positive from Rossi here — good to see the real COP being measured by the electric meter and the electric bill. That is all that matters to most people.

UPDATE #17 (Mar 13 2015)

Andrea Rossi made an interesting, seemingly off the cuff remark in a comment regarding the USPTO rejection of the his patent. He says that patent or no patent his work will go forward, but there is no reason not to try for a patent through the appeal process. At the end of this comment he remarks:

P.S. The plant is going well. Very long ssm periods. Very long.

SSM refers to self-sustain mode, when the E-Cats continue their reaction with external power turned off. The longer the self sustain periods, the better. The higher the COP, the more money the customer saves on energy, and energy savings is what the E-Cat is all about in the final analysis.

UPDATE #16 (Mar 11 2015)

I submitted a few new questions on the Journal of Nuclear Physics to Andrea Rossi regarding work on the 1 MW plant:

1. How many members of your team, beside yourself, are assigned full time to manage the production of the 1MW plant? AR: 1- here are two persons fix plus me. They work 8 -10 hours per day, I prefer to stay here 16-18 hours per day. When necessary we call reinforces.

2. If the plant passes the year-long test, how many people will be required to manage the plant?

AR: 2- none, the comtrol system will make it all, but will be necessary the presence in the factory of a specialist certified by us.

3. Have any of the reactors in the plant received a replacement charge so far? AR: 3- no and I hope the charge will last 1 year.

Although Rossi has not said when the test started, he says it will be over sometime between November and next February, so by calculations I think we are probably about four months into the year-long test, and so far the fuel charges seems to be holding up. Initially Rossi said E-Cats would need a charge every six months, but now he has higher expectations.

UPDATE #15 (Feb 25 2015)

It seems from the following question and response that the 1 MW E-Cat plant is running well:

Dear Andrea,

As you continue your year-long production testing on your customer’s site, is the customer able to carry on operations normally, or are you interrupting their production activity with your work?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland

Frank Acland:
The Customer has a back up, just in case we’d have interruptions.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

My own interpretation of this response (could be wrong) is that the energy used in the production process (whatever that is) is coming from the E-Cat. Rossi has mentioned that contractually he needs to have his plant operating 365 days out of 400, so there seems to be a certain amount of downtime acceptable to the customer, and from this response it sounds to me like the backup is not automatically activated during “pit stops”. Maybe if there was an extended E-Cat outage the backup would be employed.

UPDATE #14 (Feb 14 2015)

There’s no major news on this front, but there have been a few comments lately from Andrea Rossi regarding the 1 MW plant, which seems to be working away under the watchful eye of Rossi and his team. Here are few samples from recent posts he has made on the Journal of Nuclear Physics:

Andrea Rossi
February 14th, 2015 at 8:14 AM
Curiosone:
Yesterday we had problems with the control system, eventually fixed.
Today ( Saturday) I can see that so far all is ok.
Warm Regards
A.R.

Andrea Rossi
February 14th, 2015 at 8:08 AM
Joya del Sol:
It is not true that several years ago we were testing a 1 MW plant in the premises of an industrial Customer. I never said that.
We are doing it now. The future will depend on the final results of the tests on course. The results could be positive, as we hope, but also negative, as I have to say. This plant is the first commercial plant in operation in the world making thermal energy necessary to an industrial manufacturing concern, inside the premises of the Customer. This plant’s efficiency is not just measured on the base of scientific calculations, as happened up to now, but mainly on the base of the energy costs related to the manufacturing system of the Customer: what counts for the Customer are not the scientific calculations, but the money he makes ( or loses) using the E-Cat instead of a regular plant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Andrea Rossi
February 12th, 2015 at 5:55 AM
Bernie Koppenhofer:
Alexander Parkhomov replica is very interesting, though !
As I said, the tests of the 1 MW plant delivered to our Customer will end between November 2015 and February 2016.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

UPDATE #13 (Jan 9 2015)

Another Q&A with Rossi and a JONP reader today regarding the timing of the commercial phase of IH’s work, following the conclusion of the year long test of the 1 MW plant:

Q. You said that, in the most positive scenario, the commercial phase will likely start shortly after the end of the test period of the 1 MW plant. If everything goes as expected, again in the most positive scenario, how long should this test still last?

A. Andrea Rossi
January 9th, 2015 at 12:48 PM
Jack:
In the best scenario could be November 2015/ January 2016.
Wishes of a great 2015 also to you from our Team,
A.R.

With this being a ‘best case’ scenario, I think we might be wise not to expect major news from IH until 2016 at the earliest. We might be pleasantly surprised this year, but things of this magnitude generally tend to take longer than the most optimistic forecasts. We always seem to be waiting for one more test from Rossi and Co.!

UPDATE #12 (Jan 8 2015)

There’s precious little new information about the progress of Industrial Heat’s 1 MW plant that is apparently under testing at the moment at an IH customer site. Andrea Rossi is not revealing much on the JONP about it these days, but I did manage to get in a couple of responses to questions about it recently:

Q: In November you mentioned that the current 1 MW E-Cat plant you are working on has a volume of reactors of half a cubic meter (500 liters of volume) — which would mean a power density of 2 kW per liter. Today you mention a power density of 10 kW per liter (excluding heat exchangers). Is this for a different system?

A: Yes, the volume of the reactors has been reduced to about 1l/10kW

Q: So you have redesigned the plant as you have worked on it?

A: Not just me, but our Team did. (AR responding to another question on the topic): I can say that the ratio between volume and power has still room to be reduced. The tale of the Incredible Shrinking Cat is not yet at “The End”.

Q: How satisfied are you with the performance of the 1 MW plant so far?

A: I cannot give any information regarding the performance. I can say that I am optimist about the behaviour of the I MW plant along the 1 year test. I can say that nothing happened that could turn me pessimist. So far. I must add, under the permanent direction of Orsobubu, that the final output could be positive, but also negative.

The last comment suggests to me that things are going well for now. I think the testing of the plant began around September of last year, so I don’t expect any conclusive information coming from Rossi or Industrial Heat until September of this year, at the earliest.

UPDATE #11 (Oct 2, 2014)

Well that was quick . . . Andrea Rossi today responded to a question on the JONP about whether the problems with 1 MW plant were worse, or better than two weeks ago, saying:

Our 1 MW plant is a magnificence and an ouvre d’art: we resolved the problems we had ( so far…). We have a great team!

It sounds like a positive turn of events. Not sure if this will put them back on track to unveil the plant in the near future. Rossi has said on numerous occasions that the plant needs to run for at least one year before they can consider the situation ‘consolidated’.

UPDATE #10 (Oct 1, 2014)

Andrea Rossi was asked today by Timyceyln whether he thought it would be wise to get outside experts in to help with the heat control system for the new E-Cat plant, which is where he and others think IH might be having problems.

Rossi replied:

In our Team there are specialists of the necessary fields and when we need support we ask it from external specialists of our trust. Obviously the control system are a vital part of the plant and your Group can be sure we have top level engineers that have designed it. Obviously we work only with persons who got the necessary clearance, beside the necessary professionality.

It’s interesting to learn that they are are reaching out to outside experts, too. There must now be a substantial number of people ‘in the know’, but his talk of ‘necessary clearance’ suggests that there are strict requirements of confidentiality put in place which would keep the news from spreading outside authorized circles.

UPDATE #9 (Oct 1, 2014)

A reader on the Journal of Nuclear Physics suggests that a positive report could put Rossi and IH under tremendous pressure from competition and the awakening of sleeping giants, including those who would want to steal the secrets of E-Cat technology. Rossi responded:

You have imagined the bright side of the moon. I should have to imagine the dark side of the moon. The consequences of a failure would be devastating.
In both cases, I will continue, as always, to pray God every morning and then put down at work, because in both cases much work will have to be done by our team. First of all, we want to see the 1 MW plant work well for a long, long time, and make profits for the company of our Customer. I have to focus on this, not on the sides of the moon.

It’s a good example of how Rossi sees his job. He doesn’t seem to spend too much time worrying about “what ifs”. His focus right now seems to be getting the 1 MW plant to run correctly, and I guess that the problems they have encountered with this project have heightened this focus. Failure in this first project would really set back the IH business plan — for who would want to deal with a company who can’t make a product that operates correctly?

UPDATE #8 (Sep 19, 2014)

I asked Andrea Rossi today on the Journal of Nuclear Physicsabout the status of the 1MW plant that he reported had been taken to the customer’s plant and he responded:

We are resolving problems, in a preliminary phase. It will take at least one year before considering consolidated the situation.

In a follow-up I asked if they were still planning on allowing visits to the plants in the near future. His reply:

In the near future is impossible. In future yes, but I cannot give a scheduling, because it depends on what the Customer thinks: we are not in the factory of Industrial Heat, we are in the factory of a Customer. Presently we have problems to resolve.

So it appears that all is not going smoothly with this first installation. It’s not clear what the problems are, and I’m not sure that Rossi will be telling us.

UPDATE: Thanks to Barty for asking on the JONP about the nature of the problems they are experiencing:

Barty:

We have a lot of minor problems; obviously I cannot give the particulars; also, we have to adjust the plant to the particular needs of the Customer, as you correctly said, therefore, as usually, from problems are born more problems. Lot of work to do.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

More from the JONP:

Dear Andrea,
What you have in your installation program are bugs which are uncovered in any first field test. Just look at Apple with their introduction of the I-phone6 or Boeing with the 787. Nothing unusual.

AR: Yes, exactly; anyway, in my life I have designed and installed hundreds of industrial plants, never had the luck to see one pass through the first period of several months without troubles. This is NOT an exception.

UPDATE #7 (Sep 19, 2014)

Here are some new questions and answers from the Journal of Nuclear Physics that have just been posted regarding the 1 MW plant production:

1) Are the automated production lines running properly?
AR: We are not yet in a situation that justifies an automated production line, but we have already ready part of them and the designs for the complete operation. [Rossi added the following after the initial post:] Obviously, before we launch a mass production we need first of all to evaluate the report of the Independent Third Party, the results of at least one year of operation of the 1MW plant in the factory of the Customer and the follow up of our R&D process. Probably you think all this takes too much time: you have not idea of the thousands of thousands of particulars you have to adjust; the more you work, the more you have to work because new problems are born from former ones. It is a permanent ( Hi, Orsobubu!) struggle.
2) Have you shipped 5 or more 1MW plants during Aug and Sept?
AR: No
3) How many man hours does it take to assemble a 1MW plant?
This information is not available to the public.

The answer to question 1 does not surprise me; I expect that IH is in a preparatory stage, but since there are probably not many orders for E-Cat plants, there is no need for mass production yet. I would also guess that there will be a need for qore investment before mass production takes place — in terms of manufacturing machinery, labor, distribution, installation, and maintenance. I would expect and hope that the IH team will be planning carefully how they introduce the E-Cat to the public which could lead to interest from industry and orders for their plants.

UPDATE #6 (Sep 12, 2014)

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Andrea Rossi made the following statement:

The 1 MW plant is in the factory of a Customer of IH. As far as I know, the Customer will not allow any video for the time being. IH has not jurisdiction in the factories of his Customers as for what is related to videos to be published. Eventually specific visits, as I already said, will be allowed, but it is too soon to talk about this. (emphasis added)

To the best of my recollection this is the first time that we have heard that the 1 MW plant has left the IH factory and is now on site at the customer’s premises where it will be put to work. I take this as good news; I am sure the plant will have been tested by IH, and if had been major operating problems, I don’t think the plant would have been shipped to the customer.

UPDATE #5 (Aug 20, 2014)

Andrea Rossi was asked on the Journal of Nuclear Physics what will be happening in September. He responded by writing:

“Our activity is in expansion, the team is increasing. Important events are on the verge to happen.”

UPDATE #4 (Aug 11, 2014)

Second update to this thread today — in another comment on the JONP today, Rossi I think indicates that things must be going well with the operation of the plant. He was responding to a comment about the name of the phenomenon and added:

I know that we have a consolidated explication about how the so called “Rossi Effect” works and the physical mechanirms that allow it to work. Otherwise, it could not work reliably in industrial applications.

UPDATE #3 (Aug 11, 2014)

To have the E-Cat working ‘reliably in industrial applications’ would seem to bode well for this first plant.

I asked Rossi today on the JONP about how things were looking behind the scenes from his perspective. He replied:

This is a period of top level engagement for what concerns the 1 MW plant, we are in the most critic moment; all our team is focused on it. About the Report, the waiting for it is a massive vibration in the field of anxiety.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

UPDATE #2 (Aug 2, 2014)

I put some questions to Rossi on the JONP about the 1 MW plant today:

1. Will the customer of the first 1 MW plant be involved in the testing of the plant before it is installed to ensure it meets expected performance standards?

– No, we have to respect the guarantees of performance we signed for and we will be paid if the guarantees will be respected. As it happens for any kind of technological plant.

2. Will the plant replace an existing heat source at the customer’s location, or will it be installed on a brand new production line?

– Brand new production line with a back up in case of problems to our plant

3. Is your work on the 1MW plant currently on schedule?

When Rossi says the plant is ‘on schedule’, I think this may mean that it will be revealed this year. Just the other day he said “Visits will be allowed when the Customer will allow them, maybe within the year.”

– Yes

UPDATE #1 (Aug 1, 2014)

A question posed on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today by Hank Mills got an interesting answer from Andrea Rossi:

HM: Regardless if the one megawatt plant satisfies the customer or not, how much did it cost to build in parts and materials. (This does not include labor but only the container, electronics, plumbing, reactors, etc.)

AR: This information is confidential for commercial reasons, so far. I can say, though, that the production cost in $/Kw is very competitive with the cost of power of traditional power and heat generation systems.

Even though the numbers obviously remain confidential, there could be quite a revelation here from Rossi in that he is seems to be tacitly admitting that they have done enough testing on the system to be able to run the numbers in terms of overall costs of E-Cat produced energy compared to other energy technologies. Maybe he forgot to put his ‘positive or negative’ disclaimer here.

In other words, you can’t calculate the production cost in terms of $/kw unless you know the amount of energy you are producing. If the E-Cat is ‘very competitive’ in comparison with traditional power and heat generation systems, it sounds to me like positive results from the 1 MW plant.

  • Owen Geiger

    “Maybe he forgot to put his ‘positive or negative’ disclaimer here.” Ha ha. That’s what I thought of right away. Maybe it was a mistake, but there’s a chance he’s throwing us a tidbit of inside info.

    • bachcole

      We all here are getting inside information. But the walls of secrecy is merely people’s disbelief.

  • bachcole

    This is very confusing to me, in general. If the number that we use for comparison is $/Kw, then we take the manufacturing cost, the maintenance cost, plus the cost for fuel, all over time and divide by the total number of kilowatts. The cost to manufacture can’t be all that great, not like a windmill or hydroelectric dam or nuclear power plant. (Of course, there is the cost of discovery and development, but I shall ignore that for the moment.) Assuming that the plumbing is good, maintenance should be very low. Fuel and fuel replacement should be very cheap. But we won’t know the amount of kilowatts, ever, since the dang thing will just keep going and going and going. So the actual $/Kw should be very close to zero. How does one calculate the $/Kw for anything that is likely to last for a very long time, like wind or solar.

    Perhaps there needs to be two numbers. The initial $/Kw, which would be manufacturing cost divided by power, and the ongoing costs of maintenance and fuel divided by power. Since the output is reliable, using energy as a divisor is unnecessary.

    Please correct me if I am mistaken here.

    • tobalt

      youre mixing up watts and joules

    • If the E-Cat plant costs $1M to build and runs at 1 MW then we have $1 per Watt. That will not change no matter how long it runs. MW (megawatt) is power and power does not sum over time; energy sums over time. If you run a 1 MW plant for 5 hours, you have generated 5 MWh of energy but the plant was running at 1 MW power the whole time. You have not generated 5 MW of power over that time; that’s nonsense — power is the rate of energy per unit time.

      A simple analogy: if you drive your car at 50 mph for ten hours, your car did not achieve 500 mph at the end of the trip. Instead you went 500 miles at a steady rate of 50 mph.

      And Rossi should have written kW, not Kw. Bugs Bunny’s adversaries often had ‘pronoun trouble.’ In LENR-land we seem to have recurring ‘unit trouble.’

    • HHiram

      Well, you wouldn’t say forever and ever, you would amortize the initial costs of equipment over a depreciation period – say, 10 years. That would give you part of the a periodic cost, to which you would add maintenance and fueling costs as you said. That would give you a total periodic cost (per month/year/whatever), based on how many kilowatt-hours of power were produced in that period. This would be valid for the first 10 years, and then after that (assuming the powerplant is still viable) the cost would only be maintenance and fuel.

  • Owen Geiger

    The capital cost will plummet once they start mass producing units, especially if China becomes a major partner.

    • If the nickel powder charge can be created inexpensively then these things are going to be dirt cheap. The E-Cat is relatively simple, compared to many other devices.

      There are some engineering challenges in scaling up to huge plants, but once those are worked through there is nothing about the raw ingredients or the manufacturing process that is going to make the costs spike. The only expensive part is the initial R&D, design and testing work and that’s what they are working through now.

    • Omega Z

      Capitol costs will ultimately be comparable. Only the energy produced will be cheaper.
      A boiler is still a boiler, Exchanger, etc. The E-cat reactors will likely cost more then the burners they replace, but I allow this cost being offset by other savings.

      In General, Power plants are built according to limitations. Nukes are always large due to it’s fuel characteristics. Fossil plants according to fuel transport. Pipeline/Rail tend to be expensive so you build near existing structure & again tend to be large. Due to size & cooling needs, they tend to be built near large bodies of water, Rivers, Lakes, Oceans. And now you have long distance power transmission lines.

      Nickel fuel eliminates all these limitations. They can be built smaller & at point of use. No long distance transmission lines, fuel delivered by “Drone :-)”, Small enough to be self contained(Evaporator/Condensers) where additional water is only for occasional topping off.

      I don’t think they’ll be economical for home generation outside of large complexes or high rises in the near term without other technological advances. Except home heating. Even these will be powered by cheap E-cat electricity, so cost would be greatly reduced.

  • tobalt

    at least $/kW might be the only thing that *could* be costly about rossis reactors. the $/kWh are very likely to be extremely low, as maintanence and fuel costs are very low.

    It’s good that he also mentions the installation costs now. That number is important particularly for the large scale investors.

  • Billy Jackson

    Here is my issue.

    The E-cat has to be more than competitive, It must be dominant. Just competative means that its not producing COP’s of +XXX (what ever number) .. If the plans are to sell 1 MW plants for millions then you need to not only be competitive but so dominant that their is no other logical choice.

    You’re knocking on the doors of the big energy companies, with a chance on cutting into their slice of the pie. while i give the green movement its due.. getting a check out of me for 7 digits thats “competitive” isn’t going to do it.. i can bargain with the energy company with the threat of moving away from them to a better alternative to get a discount..

    Either we are missing something, misunderstanding something, or 1+1 does not equal 2 in this equation.. someone came in a few months ago that had a pretty good rate of prediction with the inside scoop that the scientists that did the tests were leaning toward a COP of 18.. no true or not .. lets just use that number as a basis for now .. we can adjust to the true numbers later..

    18 x’s the energy out as in.. should be far more than just “competitive” .. i cant think of any scenario that uses large amounts of energy that i wouldnt want an E-Cat to lower the cost of the overhead… maybe this was just a poor choice of words. .its not the first..but “competitive” is not the slightest bit interesting for a device like the e-cat.. competitive changes nothing.

    • The first units of anything are typically the most expensive. Once E-Cat plants are standardized they should — from everything we’ve been told about them — be much less expensive than other energy production plants. That the first plant is already very competitive (and that’s kind of ambiguous) is actually great news.

      • Billy Jackson

        Hand built is always going to be more expensive.. the cost of mass manufacturing will lower overall costs this is a given.. when he says competitive, it leaves me unsure in which manner he is speaking.. competitive overall? Costs + Delivery+ installation + running over 2 years? .. or is the output competitive with current rates? if its output.. it leaves me very unexcited.. output is where the e-cat must dominate if its to stand a chance for mass market.. competitive leaves it out in the cold except for some niche environments.

        • But if Rossi said something unambiguous we would all be confused and disoriented for days. We must learn to love the ambiguity.

          • Billy Jackson

            since it says production cost of $/kw i am taking that as production of the output .. not construction of the device..using words like competitive casts doubts on the e-cats ability to perform as advertised.. while i know that we dont have anything official yet since we are all waiting on the latest test..its still highly disappointing that the word competitive is being used…

          • But the only continuous costs would be the nickel charge and any maintenance — both expected to be trivial relative to the initial plant construction and installation.

          • Billy Jackson

            you also have the 1/3rd electric cost of maintaining the ecat’s reaction (remember the waves that spiked up and down to keep the reaction stable? they would turn it on and off which equated to about 1/3rd the energy)

          • True. That would be $0 though in the high COP scenario where the plant is generating electricity and a portion of the electricity is used for the E-Cat. It depends how they’ve designed the plant. That’s likely a bridge too far for this first commercial plant, which I expect will be heat-only.

        • mytakeis

          Perhaps by competitive he means it will be comfortably embraced by buyers, and not scary like you can not believe that so much power is to be had, or that there is not enough advantage over conventional devices to make purchase attractive. Competitive = economically acceptable.?

    • LENR4you

      The eCat would be:
      dominant if ROI <3 years
      competitive if ROI <8 years

      • Fortyniner

        And something to kill for if the first x takers get free installation, free maintenance and free heat for x months, in exchange for allowing a controlled number of qualified visitors including press.

      • Hope4DBest

        The problem being that no one knows how long an Ecat will last. It’s not just a matter of being a design with a COP of X, this is a new company. Will the final product be a Mercedes Benz or a Yugo?

  • mcloki

    It’s early. Why give it away for a huge discount. Companies will jump ship for a 15-25% cost savings. Maybe even less. So rather than not make that money. Rossi and IH will keep the cost artificially high to fund future development of the product. And only lower it when they are forced to through competition. Sorry guys this isn’t a hippie paradise. the e-cat will cost money, just like everything else. The direct benefits we’ll see will be in other areas like lower pollution and Better devices to buy. ie a better longer lasting electric car.

    • Maybe. Many businesses would. In this case that would contradict Industrial Heat’s stated goal of as wide a dissemination as possible.

      Many businesses would also opt for an initial market share surge in an attempt to maximize future profits (rather than near-term profits), stifle any competition, establish their brand and help open up what is almost an infinite market.

      • mcloki

        Not really a contradiction. Widely distributed and expensive are mutually exclusive.
        First Teslas are a good example. High initial price funds next generation development.

    • Billy Jackson

      some of that is offset by the life of the product.. its fine if initial investment is high. but overall return over time has to show a savings.. aka if they buy it for 5 million but it saves them a million a year ..that’s fine for a big business perfectly legitimate..after the 5th year you start to see a return of +1m per year/life of machine.. thats what makes it attractive and worth it. (and you are right .. people would faint at some of the monthly electric bills of the major manufacturers)

  • Paul

    If they want to sell an E-Cat keeping the price artificially high they will lose the race, like hundreds of other technologies in the past. They will win ONLY if also the price is a game-changer!

    • mcloki

      Only when they have competition. Look at Tesla, Honda. Now that there’s competition, prices will come down. I’m not saying that the prices won;t go down. I’m just saying that IH and Rossi won’t leave money on the table.

      • Paul

        No, because they have all media against them, if they want win they need make a price gap, believe me… I work in this field

    • Ophelia Rump

      What is the formula for determining artificially high price for a radically new technology?

      • Paul

        Simple, for the energy field. Only about 10% less the competiting technologies (in this case for producing energy) is artificially high. The price gap should be much greater for technologies not tested for years ion the market, like the E-Cat is. If you sell energy you have not problem of price, if you sell a product you need a customer attracted buy a low price otherwise he will not take the risk for a little saving, be sure…

  • In X years:

    Coal = Dead. Mining and transportation costs plus pollution concerns.

    Nuclear = Dead. High plant costs and radioactive waste. Safety concerns.

    Oil = Life support. Extraction costs and pollution concerns. Still needed for plastics and other uses though.

    Wind = Dead. Installation costs and intermittent supply.

    NatGas = Long sunset. Extraction and transportation costs; pollution and fracking concerns. It will not go down easy… though the construction of new plants should tail off once LENR plants are a common option, it will take a long time for home heating and cooling to be primarily LENR-based.

    Solar = Survivor/Complementary. Can provide small mobile sources of electricity on a scale LENR likely will not be able to match any time soon. Price has been plummeting and technology advances rapid. Large centralized solar plants will likely be retired as unnecessary.

  • Daniel Maris

    That’s an assumption on your part. It might be that the E Cat requires more maintenance. Modern coal burning plants don’t have many staff.

  • Billy Jackson

    Thank You Tobalt.

  • The E-Cat reactor could easily be engineered to produce all the heat and electricity for households or neighborhoods.

    The problem is certification for residential use. Rossi backed off his home E-Cat strategy when it became evident that hours and hours of experience with industrial E-Cat plants was a necessary precursor to doing anything on the residential front and getting the certifications/permissions for that market.

    • Christopher Calder

      Rossi has said that he still does not have electricity production. To me that means a COP of less than 10. If the Hot Cat is driven by natural gas instead of electricity, then the COP does not matter as long as it is high enough to justify the expense. So, even with a COP of only 6, a natural gas Hot Cat can generate electricity for home use if it is hooked up to your natural gas lines.

      I think Defkalion’s electrically driven design will have a COP over 20, so Defkalion’s Hyperion reactors should be able to generate electricity efficiently right away as long as the temperature is high enough.

      The Solar Hydrogen Trends device, if real, would probably beat all the other players and could be incorporated into homes, cars, aircraft, ships, trains, everything at lightning speed. I hope it is real, but we need one full third party test with the inside works revealed to the testers.

  • mecatfish

    I would like to see an Ecat log that I can put in my woodburner.

    • Otto1923

      No you wouldn’t. Burning nickel powder is toxic.

      • mecatfish

        No Silly, but the ECat core in my woodburner instead of burning wood. Seems like a simple retrofit.

  • Lux Terrea

    I think that this technology, once it becomes mainstream in power plant production, will be dismantled by the common man and recomposed in much smaller format that can be run in one’s basememnt or back yard shed. Even if gov’t regulations keep a residential or portable version illegal I believe garage engineers will eventually be able to build them and use them “under the table” so to speak. I know I would.

    • BroKeeper

      I think IH & Rossi are stratigizing to pick the easiest and quickest low hanging fruit to be first to capitalize on LENR and to be first to draw large revenue to ready infrastructure for much needed bigger domestic D-Cat R&D. It’s about acceleration to maintain leadership.

  • Barry8

    “… so far. I can say, though, that the production cost in $/Kw is very competitive with the cost of power of traditional power and heat generation systems.”

    I think Rossi just slipped as far as the “could be positive could be negative” business. I don’t care if the Ecat breaks even, it’s the proof of CF that will alter the world. Skepto scientist like Ernie Moniz from MIT, an energy advisor to the president will have no place to stand and will have to answer some tough questions. Young college students will begin a new CF generation and the world will drastically change. Right now how much profit the Ecat will make is getting ahead of the CF Bang.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      “Please, may I have a cup of tea?”
      Yes, if we don’t run out of tea bags.

    • Broncobet

      I agree. Just show a cop over one, that would start a process, of course the bigger the better, and better within six months than a year.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The description I read puts a single housed core in a four foot long by one and one half foot diameter Pipe. My guess is that unit would power five households, while idling. I am guessing 50kWhr to 100.

    But that is just my guess. Scaling this down is easy, scaling it up was the challenge.

  • Omega Z

    HM.-“how much did it cost to build in parts and materials.”

    AR.-“cost in $/Kw is very competitive with the cost of power of traditional power and heat generation systems.”

    If the question was understood & answered as such, This is a hardware verses hardware cost comparison. Not energy. According to A.R. it is cost competitive?

    I find this interesting & assume the 1Mw capacity contributes much to the reason it is cost competitive. Even with Fossil energy, the hardware is expensive at this scale. You’ll usually find Nickel alloy steel used in burner tubes $$$.

    However, If I should find latter that a 1Mw E-cat costs more then a conventional 1Mw heater, I will not be surprised.
    What “Competitive” means can be a matter of perspective.
    Even if it should costs say 20% more, the fact that it will produce large savings can Skew the answer to HM’s question.
    Thus, When A.R. says it is very competitive, His perspective could be that considering the cost savings, it is very competitive.

  • Omega Z

    Considering numbers put together for Green Energies replacing most fossil fuels, an optimistic guess-

    X=50

  • Ophelia Rump

    I am not being mocked or teased, but I am fairly certain that you are.

    • GreenWin

      That’s… very funny!

      • blanco69

        Witty put downs aside, I’m fairly certain I’m being teased at least. Two years ago we were talking about a new era of boundless, almost free, energy and and end to our long suffering carbon economy. Now we’re enthusiastically assessing a competitively priced water heater! A long, drawn out, tease in my book. Happy to eat my hat when the teasing stops and the facts start to appear.

        • ecatworld

          I think we’ve always known that the E-Cat is a heater which can heat water and make steam, etc — it will be no surprise to me if we find the first plant being used to make steam. One big question is how cheaply can you do it. If it is significantly cheaper than what people are doing now, I think it will be a revolutionary technology.

          The bigger issue in my mind is what this first plant will show. If large amounts of heat are generated by a previously unknown method of manipulating matter and only tiny amounts of fuel are consumed in the process, then I think we do have something I think can potentially disrupt the carbon economy. The first plant could be highly significant, but I think more interesting will be what will happen with this technology over time when people realize that a new way of creating energy is possible. If bright scientific minds and significant budgets are put into R&D we could see great progress made in the field.

          • bachcole

            When Rossi choose to go the commercial route, which I think was the correct decision, he also brought upon himself a higher standard for success. Investors don’t really care if the Rossi effect will revolutionize particle physics. They just want a product that will give them a good return on their investment. So, choosing the commercial route was NOT without it’s challenges and issues.

          • Jouni

            This is the most significant aspect. Even if the net energy gain would be little, will concrete working evidence only show that cold fusion is for real.
            Big public will not read any reports, but headlines from yellow press.
            Then only will politicians have to face the thing.
            Hope they already have been hinted, though.

          • Ophelia Rump

            I will go you one step further, IH should have the discipline to focus upon the nature of their product being the production of heat. They need to promote and support the experts in every other field to incorporate the IH products into well engineered technology of every nature.

            Industrial Heat can never do justice to the potential of the technology if it becomes distracted and tries to reinvent all of technology in it’s own image.

          • georgehants

            Ophelia, although not necessarily disagreeing, we must keep an open-mind to everything that we do not have clear Evidence for.
            Mr. Rossi, certainly and IH hopefully are doing all they can to make their Cold Fusion a success.
            Everybody will have their own ideas of how that should be done, but time for a little faith in them and leave any criticism until we are clear of any mistakes.
            In this corupt capitalist World the problems are legion.

          • Broncobet

            Why produce steam that has a hundred different issues. To begin ,produce hot water, the market for that is vast.

          • psi2u2

            Thanks again for such an excellent synoptic response to the naysayers.

        • GreenWin

          blanco, this is the standard response to “What’re we waiting for?” skeptics:

          Hot fusion: 63 years of promises, $250 Billion TAXPAYER dollars = ZERO, ZED, not ONE Watt of useful energy. A long drawn out tease in anyone’s book!
          “The Problems with ITER and the Fading Dream of Fusion Energy”
          http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fusions-missing-pieces-iter-problems/

          • psi2u2

            Uhu.

  • Ophelia Rump

    If we were to make the assumption that the controls system simply remained the same while the size of the reactor core increased to it’s present size, rather than having the surface of a six inch length of two inch diameter pipe, now having the surface of a four foot by 1.5 foot diameter pipe, then the COP might be guessed at increasing proportionately to the outer surface. With the assumption that the stabilization has remained the same. The COP might be derived.

    Length x Circumference
    Old hot cat outer dimensions approx
    6″ x 12.56″ = 75 square inches surface.

    Industrial Version Hot-Cat
    48″ x 94″ x 4512 square inches surface

    4512 / 75 = 60

    So if the Original Hot-Cat had a COP of 3, the current Hot-Cat might have a COP of 180. Presuming it is using the original control system which has not been scaled up, and that the heat dissipation requirements for the surface have remained the same per square inch.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Yes, I agree it is amazing. It is also a relatively small rate of flow considering the size of the energy reservoir. A mere fraction of a percent of the potential.

    Of course it is just a speculative number.

  • Bernie777

    This is going to be a problem, skeptics are going to say in comparison to what. There will be no direct comparison to the cost before the e-cat was installed. This kind of installation will give skeptics/bashers a chance to refute the results. Rossi/IH should have replaced an existing heat source so there is a clear before and after cost savings.

    • Omega Z

      Bernie
      In a production setting, there are no exact numbers. There’s to many variables. Doesn’t matter if you change it out for an old system or install it in a new line side by side another.

      That said, They do have very reliable expectations over a period of months. Even if it were a new facility with just this 1 production line. But your probably right. The skeps will have fun with this. They are of no concern in this setting. Only those involved in the trade can judge this. The customer will know if it delivers.

      This is also important to Rossi/IH. Simulated runs are one thing. Actually working in real world production is another. Under these circumstances, Positive or Negative really is an unknown to Rossi/IH.

      • Bernie777

        After six months the gas or electric meter will read xxxxx, what will they compare it to, a gas meter or electric meter from another plant? The owner will of course have a feel for the amount of dollars saved, but the ambiguity could have been avoided.

        • Omega Z

          I don’t think you understand what I’m saying.
          In production facilities, there are no constants. There are Only ballpark approximations & averages with fairly large +/- range.
          These numbers can already be supplied by equipment manufactures with years of history & circumstances. These are the numbers that Rossi/IH will compare to. The customer will only be able to give you ballpark statements. It appears to provide savings or substantial savings, but nothing precise.

          Where this projects biggest importance lies is in real world work. How does it respond when energy is drawn from it. The quenching effect we’ve discussed before here at ECW. If it can’t accomplish work under these circumstances, Even COP>100 is of no use. And the Skeps will really have a heyday.

          • Daniel Maris

            Isn’t this a staged process? The next step is I think to have a small scale pilot installation operating in real world conditions, to prove the concept.

            Then they will be scaling up and selling the product increasingly on simple commercial terms.

          • Fortyniner

            Exactly. It will almost certainly be a process water heater or boiler installed alongside and existing gas or oil unit, and arranged to switch back quickly in the event of a failure. The pilot will be /is festooned with instrumentation and logging equipment, and as the owner will have all figures on the cost of running the original unit, it will be easy to compare costs within a few percent.

          • Bernie777

            Rossi said this is an entirely new production line, there will be no “figures on the cost of running original unit”.

          • Omega Z

            49’er
            According to Rossi, the pilot plant is setup as a stand alone into a new production line. A 2nd 1Mw E-cat is situated for use should the 1st develop problems.

    • Ophelia Rump

      At some point, bashing something which is obviously working in a superior way becomes counter productive.

      The bashing only draws attention to the thing being maligned unjustly.
      Let them bash. An operating plant is well beyond the point of obviousness for anyone qualified to make an actual judgement. Products are judged on single digit superiority in efficiency every day. A product which returns double digit benefit will get attention. A product which gets hundreds of percent improvement will cause a gold rush.

      • situation is already obvious for many corps.
        simply they are like a chicken facing a knife… considering how they can use that for their business, without getting wounded.

    • Ronzonni

      Bernie, if the ecat works as advertised, there is absolutely nothing critics and skeptics can do to suppress it’s rapid development. Cheap, easily portable energy is simply too compelling.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      They could compare it to ITER.

      • psi2u2

        Lol.

  • Bernie777

    The decision to buy or not buy the E-cat as a heat source will be decided by a financial guy, black and white, there can be no ambiguity as to productivity, and the decision will be made based on Return on Investment.

    • the PR guy will also consider the pro and cons…

      the hard decision will be for those who will consider making a transition in their product line.

    • Martin Leonard

      ..and the politician: steam for the romans was a bridge too far. Lets hope we (the slaves) with the tools (internet) of today, can convince them we are ready to take the plunge.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Frank, Some confusion has crept into your numbering in the updates, you say:

    “UPDATE #4 (Aug 11, 2014)

    Second update to this thread today”

    The actual updates are number 1, 2, 4. Did you accidentally lose update #3?

  • bachcole

    “massive vibration in the field of anxiety” I had one of those early this morning with a really bad nightmare. Just kidding. (:->) But what does that mean? I am pretty sure that we are missing something in translation.

    • Ophelia Rump

      It is what happens when you frighten a physicist. Freud collides with field theory causing a cascade effect in the psyche.

      • Fortyniner

        A clash of prefrontal cortex with reptilian brain resulting in a destabilised hippocampus. Or what you said.

        • Ophelia Rump

          The hippos should never have been allowed on campus in the first place.

          • Fortyniner

            🙂 !

          • GreenWin

            Reading this is like having a Zoo in your head.

          • Gerard McEk

            :))!

          • Barry8

            Sounds like a “Tom Swifty”.

  • ecatworld

    This question has been asked in various ways numerous ways, and the answer given is always largely the same — e.g. “The work of the Third Independent Party does not depend on me, as I wrote repeatedly. I must ask that the discussions about the report are put on hold until it will be published. I do not know, and cannot know when it will be ready and cannot provide any better information. I understand your feeling, I am very anxious too, but we must be patient.”

    I don’t feel like pressing him again on the issue. But someone else might like to pose your question — you could ask on the JONP yourself.

  • hempenearth

    A bit off topic but if I was IH’s marketing manager I’d be opening the 1 MW unit to the public in Kittyhawk. Not sure though if Kittyhawk has much industry, but it is already famous.

    • bachcole

      I love the idea, but I understand that it may be too windy at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. (:->) Seriously, it may be too small. Kitty Hawk is known to me for only one reason, and other than that I never heard of the place. Anyway, the E-Cat could be bigger than manned flight. Perhaps somewhere in the Fertile Crescent where agriculture was first developed. I can’t help myself. Wherever the plant is, it should get a memorial plaque at least.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        I have the exclusive sneak preview of the opening.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHWs3c3YNs4

      • Ophelia Rump

        The Georgia Guidestones monument for the coming apocalypse would be a good location.

        The “Apocalypse has been cancelled tour”.

        http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/17-05/ff_guidestones?currentPage=all

        • GreenWin

          I’m with Yoko on this. This monument would be unnecessary if humanity listened to a remarkably simple message: “War is over if you want it.” Rather than the Apocalypse tour, how about a “Concert for Abundance.” Not to ask for abundance. But to acknowledge that “There IS enough.” If you want it.

          XO Yoko. 🙂

          • Ophelia Rump

            I hope you did not think I was supporting the apocalypse!
            Abundance sounds lovely, we can go with that.

          • GreenWin

            Understood OR. All together now. 🙂

        • Alan DeAngelis
      • GreenWin

        All wonderful suggestions. But I’m a sentimental human being, and I think it would be appropriate to demonstrate a 1MW e-Cat plant at University of Utah, where two of science’s most unsung heroes, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons had the courage to announce a disruptive finding in energetic physics.

        If such a venture is manifested you can put me down for a contribution of $1.000.00.

      • It seems that kitty hawk demo was ignored for years.
        what looks like E-cat power plant is the test in France that the army bought.

        kitty hawk is the TPR1, maybe TPR2 too, or some of the earlier test (the one who did not fail, but hard to know with all the FUD spread by mary yugo even on the sucess)…

        for a reference article on Wright brothers
        http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf

        • Justin Church

          Thank you so much. Great read brother…

    • Justin Church

      Personally…I think the 1MW system should be installed and publicly demonstrated in KINSTON, NC…

  • psi2u2

    ” rivers of safe clean energy…” Huh?

  • GreenWin

    Ronzoni, I guarantee some funding for you to go to DOE and ask Ernie Moniz, “*Why* unlimited fusion energy is taking so long and *when* it can be expected.” We’ve been financing it for 62 years to the tune of $250B tax dollars. That’s regular folks’ income tax dollars Ronnie. People who scrape day in and out to make ends meet. WTF Ernie???

  • Broncobet

    Yes he knows all about them that he can’t afford one. He didn’t have Siemens working on it for him. Rossi has quite rightly focused his efforts on just producing steam ,if he can do that well enough he’ll be a trillionaire and the world will be changed somewhat. Rossi was also right about mentioning a turbine, you can purchase one for cash unlike steam turbines that are custom made.They need high heat and are very efficient. Drying bricks would be perfect ,there are millions of things to do that require nothing more than heat. Think of our ancestors finding a forest fire and bringing fire home for the first time and we’ve been improving it ever since.

  • Broncobet

    I’m with you I don’t know either and I sweep it under the rug for now, if we really thought about it or had invested with this group it would be troubling.

  • Omega Z

    We’ve speculated that September/October may bring some news.
    Tho it seems like it’s been forever, The Time is almost upon us.
    Only a few weeks now.
    Fingers Crossed. Eyes Crossed, GHvW&%#*@GsIK.
    Wait? Eyes uncrossed.
    Sorry, That didn’t work very well. 🙂

    • Ophelia Rump

      I doubt they would hire people to sit around and drink coffee for more than six weeks.

      I have to believe the people they are hiring are for production and sales, so I think this confirms the September/October time frame, I actually think it moves it up a little toward the September side.

      • Omega Z

        sit around…drink coffee…six weeks…time…for.. lunch.
        Wait, What? Oh, Sorry OR, My eyes crossed again for a second. 🙂

        Rossi says things are about to happen, But, I’m curious about what Rossi will tell us. He has stated that no information will be forth coming until after the 3rd party report. mmm Maybe he’s heard something, but not saying.

        • Ophelia Rump

          I suppose it is possible they will remain silent publicly while they go into production and begin full commercial sales.

          If they did keep a low profile for launch, I would consider that a strong indication that they already have commercial customers lined up with some pre-orders. It might indicate they have enough work to keep them busy until the report. It would give them a chance to work out any kinks in the logistics.

    • Owen Geiger

      IH will likely want at least 2-3 months of data from the heater before going public, right? I still think publication of the TIP report, patent applications and VIP tours of the customer’s factory will all be around the same time for maximum effect.

  • Omega Z

    “Our activity is in expansion, the team is increasing. Important events are on the verge to happen.”
    Rossi/IH are increasing project size, scope & manpower.

    Food for thought. In the U.S.-
    Boiling water has been cheaper with N-Gas then Electric heaters for as long as I can remember. Add to that, In recent years, N-Gas has decreased in cost by about 60% or more.
    Presently, Electricity is increasing due to leveling up cost of Green Energy & is expected to continue.
    AND, The 1Mw E-cat is Electric powered. This would indicate the need of at least COP>3+ just to breakeven “NOW”. More latter.

    I’m Your Salesman. You want me to go out & sell Industry on using E-cat Heat. What’s My Hook. How do I hook them & reel them in for the sale. Is it Cop=6, 8, 10, what? Just something to think about. No one invests in new technology just to break even & especially when that breakeven gradually moves to the negative. Back to the beginning of this post. They are expanding…

    • Ophelia Rump

      Given that they have scaled up the size of the units considerably, if you were to presume that the control remains the same size and energy requirement, the COP might now be well over 100. Of course that is presumptuous; but within the realm of possibility.

  • Daniel Maris

    The news just gets better…

    The engine is fuelled…now, please, let’s have ignition.

    • deleo77

      Some people (i.e. skeptics) will say that Rossi has spoken of plants being factories before. But consider that Rossi is now an employee at IH, and IH has investors. For Rossi to make a public material statement such as this and have it be a total lie, would be a fraudulent act, and the investors could take legal action, even if IH is a private company. So I do believe Rossi that an e-cat is now at a third party site. The question only is, has it been started up, and if so, how is it performing so far?

  • Curbina

    I was thinking this morning that a shift of emphasis of Rossi’s talks towards the 1 MW plant would be a tell tale of the possible outcome of the report not being conclusive (which IMHO is the meaning of “negative”). Just a side note on this new comment of the 1 MW plant.

    • ecatworld

      I don’t think there’s really a shift of emphasis here — from my understanding there are two independent tracks going on here, and Rossi &Co. are concentrating on the on track they have control over.

      • Curbina

        Well Frank, I agree there has not been a shift of emphasis, but I thought that it was funny that he resumed talking about the 1 MW plant suddenly after some days not mentioning it much. Just an idea I had.

  • Fortyniner

    “Important events are on the verge to happen.” probably refers to this, NOT to any ‘launch’ events, including publication of the TIP. Good news, but hardly electrifying at this point. It may take a month to iron out any problems under ‘field’ conditions, and they will probably then want 3 months plus of solid cost savings and safety data to show to potential customers.

    I had hoped that they were a little further along than this news indicates, so I interpret this to mean disclosure some time after February 2015, assuming all goes well. I no longer believe that public awareness that there is an alternative to new nuclear power stations will come in time to stop binding contracts being signed in the UK, but perhaps the EU commission currently investigating Cameron’s back door stitch up will bring the nuclear house of cards down anyway.

  • psi2u2

    You don’t appear to know much about academic publishing. Peer review, followed by revision, takes a long time, even under the best and least controversial circumstances. The report is definitely NOT “taking so long.” I say this as someone with twenty years of experience writing and publishing academic articles in the humanities, the last six of them as the editor of a peer reviewed journal.

  • Christopher Calder

    A working commercial reactor that pays financial benefits to the factory owner will mean more than any scientific test. If people see they can make money with the Hot-Cat, they will want Hot-Cats of their own. Will 60 Minutes visit the factory? The factory owner should write CBS a letter and send an invitation.

    • Daniel Maris

      Aboslutely. This is, as Rossi says, the real test – just as it was for man made flight, for electric light and all the innovative technologies that have been introduced and were disputed to begin with, in varying degrees.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Profitability is all the banks will care about and in business that defines the boundaries.
      Without the banks, survival is difficult.

    • Omega Z

      TPTB came down real hard on the producer of that “60 Minutes” episode. People were reassigned, jobs threatened, Even cancellation of the show was threatened.

      They put the fear of God I mean Science into them.
      It will be a long time before any network producer sticks their neck out again on such a subject.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I can’t believe you forgot to mention employees.
    There will be whispers among families of employees about the new power source, which will ripple like waves upon a still pond forever outward in ever greater circles.

    • Owen Geiger

      There’s no reason to tell employees. It just a heater as far as they’re concerned. That’s all they need to know. The factory could turn into a zoo if they told everyone it’s a cold fusion reactor. I’m sure the company will want to prevent unnecessary distractions and chaos. The reactor is inside a shipping container, so the inner workings are kept secret. The installers are no doubt IH employees and so very few except upper management would know what’s going on.

      • Ophelia Rump

        It might be difficult to conceal the stream of outside executives come to tour the water heater. But yes, you have an extremely valid point.

        • Owen Geiger

          Right. At that point (after several months of gathering data) it will become public knowledge. That’s when TV crews, Frank and other VIPs are invited.

      • Sanjeev

        All an employee needs to do is google the name of his boss – Rossi, and he will know the truth.
        I think its impossible to simply tell those high IQ scientists and engineers that its only a heater. Even I won’t believe it.
        So why no leaks? Possibly a strict NDA and legal papers and lots of money stuffed into their pockets. Works well.

        • Owen Geiger

          I’m talking about employees in the customer’s factory where the heater is being installed, not IH employees.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Thank you!
    I never saw that quote before.
    That is a really amazing quote. I am surprised we do not see that more often.

  • Fortyniner

    Correct. Cameron and Energy Minister Ed Davey have pushed through a deal with French-based nuclear consortium AREVA (EDF), that includes about 17 billion pounds of taxpayer subsidies, including power prices of nearly 3 times the going rate, guaranteed for 35 years. The ‘case’ for taking this decision is so full of holes it would have been chucked out long ago, if were not for the disingenuous (the polite word) support of the UK Energy Ministry, and BBC propaganda.

    With EDF in deep trouble with other new builds, the Chinese State nuclear companies have been dragged in as a fallback investor. If the deals are signed then cancelled, the UK taxpayer will then be liable for many billions in ‘cancellation fees’. Either way, the nuclear industry wins, once the deals are signed.

    http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2550775/nuclear_power_insanity_at_taxpayers_and_consumers_expense.html

    • Broncobet

      I just checked out the link the ecologist, total malarkey,pay no attention whatsoever to that site.They think well of Ralph Nader for example. If those people are against something I’m for it. I still don’t see how that GB edf makes sense though, both plants are way over budget and years late.I think you should have the Chinese build you a couple of CAP 1400’s for free. They would get a door to walk through to the European market.Remember this is clean energy and can run with almost no fuel cost for a hundred years, and GB will run out of power if they don’t plan for the future.The CAP 1400 is the one the Chinese want to sell, anyway good luck.

  • georgehants

    It is interesting for everybody that Mr. Rossi made the announcement of the completion of the third party tests to Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!

    • bachcole

      He was merely terrified that you were going chastise him for not being a real scientist.

  • Barbierir

    At the vortex-l mailing list there is a long surreal discussion between Axil and Jed Rothwell, the former continues to defend Defkalion with a series of inane, inconsistent and deluded arguments, while poor Jed tries fruitlessly to make him come to his senses. I find it very educational about the length we can go while trying to defend our beliefs.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
    Reviewing the events of the last 3-1/2 years I strive to be as impartial as possible, it is difficult because in real life the facts are rarely black and white but more in shades of grey. Overall I continue to agree with Frank’s assessment:
    http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/

  • Ophelia Rump

    I am no expert but I checked yesterday. Short term is down and long term seems average.

    Chart: http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/M

  • Omega Z

    Some wonder how you keep the employees of the customer from talking about this. How do you know they don’t talk about it. Something like-telling friends & family,

    Hey, they installed a new Siemens industrial water heater at the plant today. It’s built using surplus shipping contains to reduce cost. I’ve overheard management say this heater will save 1000’s of dollar$. I guess they must get these shipping crates just for the cost of hauling them off.

    • Daniel Maris

      I suppose you might say that about lots of things…how do pharma companies develop new drugs without their rivals getting to hear the details? How are new car designs worked on without becoming public? I guess with small teams in discrete locations, it’s not such a problem. However it is an interesting question.

      Also it shows how useless our mainstream media – a bit of investigating reporting could soon establish if Rossi was having us all on if they took a bit of interest.

      • Omega Z

        Daniel
        Have you seen how the car companies track test new cars to keep the design from being published by slick & nosy news people.
        They use foam overlays wrapped all over the vehicle to distort the shape & size.

  • Omega Z

    I used to.
    It’s tabbed on my old computer, but it has a case of the herpes of the cmos I’ve never gotten around to fixing.
    They made them edit certain references from the original broadcast, but I think an original version can still be found on the net.

  • Omega Z

    Note, “60 Minutes” tends to get in trouble every so many years.
    Long ago, they did an episode about the Philadelphia Experiment.
    The Government came down on them, sent in the FCC & threatened their broadcasting license and all kinds of things trying to stop the episode being broadcast.

    The last 5 minutes of the show 60 minutes/Dan Rather told the viewers about the Government ordeal, That a person who was supposed to provide them documentation didn’t show. Was found in his car setting in drive shot in the temple. Still had an attache cuff & chain on his wrist, but the briefcase was nowhere to be found.

    Back in the day, they use to do a viewers response from the previous week. So the next week I watched it to see what was said. That week they said nothing about the previous week as if the show had never aired.

    I’ve spent a lot of time looking for any reference on the net. Most all their old episodes are available, That episode is not one of them.
    This is something I would not believe had I not seen it myself.
    Twas a wake-up call.

    • Fortyniner

      Certain governments are indistinguishable from the mafia in their methods, although their reach tends to be an order of magnitude greater.

  • Daniel Maris

    If the Chinese built them on time that’s probably due to corruption and ignoring of safety requirements.

  • Ophelia Rump

    This was not even a confirmation that they have a production line. It sounds like further automation will be based on production demand and that probably makes great sense. Complete automation will cost many millions of dollars. I would like to know what their initial production capacity is projected to be. How many units do they hope to be able to ship the first quarter?

    • Daniel Maris

      I think setting up production will take a relatively short time. As far as I can make out the actual mechanisms involved are not that complicated – nothing like auto or plane manufacture for instance.

      What has to be shown first is how well they work in an operational setting. Do they require five guys watching dials all the time? Or can they operate automatically with little human input? Are they reliable? How much outage time is there? Is the energy production consistent and stable in an operational setting? I imagine those are the sorts of questions that need to be addressed before they move into production.

      Let’s hope we get the test results soon, as a lot more may become clear then.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Yes!

    • Fortyniner

      “…the results of at least one year of operation of the 1MW plant in the factory of the Customer and the follow up of our R&D process.”

      So mass production will not begin until they have a at least a year of data from the pilot plant, and then have carried out further R&D to incorporate lessons learned. I can only hope that Rossi is referring only to automated production (perhaps partly in China), and that smaller scale manually-assembled series production will continue openly from the time of disclosure.

      Given the crying urgency of the need, I can see that we are in for an extremely frustrating time, even after a pilot plant becomes available for inspection. The best hope would seem to be that disclosure will push others into openly entering the race, and competition will then force the pace of development. As I’ve previously said though, I believe that this will all take place only within a corporate environment, and CF will be quietly (and apparently, very slowly) introduced with minimal disruption of the energy cartel’s status quo.

      The garage experimenters of the world urgently need to get their act together before the walls begin closing in around this technology.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Hi Fortyniner, I am not exactly certain what you mean by “basic heaters” But I think they are not rushing product into market. As much as the world needs this, we need it to be done right. Surely they are more anxious to market vast quantities of great product than anyone.

        • Fortyniner

          I meant just simple water heaters, as opposed to generator sets or anything else that the tech may be capable of driving. I’m sure you’re right about ‘doing it properly’, in fact I’ve said much the same thing on earlier occasions, but (as I’ve also said) every day that goes by is one more day for others who are not so keen to put rocks on the road – or land mines.

          • Ophelia Rump

            They seem to be the only team with a horse on the track. They seem to have the blessing of extremely influential people. I think they will be OK.

          • Omega Z

            Some days 49’er, you just seem to get into a funk.
            As do many others.
            Patience is considered a virtue for a reason.
            It’s hard.
            I fully understand.

          • Fortyniner

            I have many virtues, and given time I’ll be able to think of at least one of them. Patience definitely isn’t on the list though.

            However, please don’t mistake anxiety for impatience. The fact is that there WILL be opposition by vested interests with no comparable technology, to the free introduction of CF, and it will be very serious opposition, acting directly on the ‘levers of power’ in politics and the mass media.

            The more time that is available for these interests to prepare ways of capturing and controlling the technology, and preventing its general dissemination, the more likely they will be to succeed. IMO, the results of the independent tests and the existence of the pilot plant can’t become public knowledge quickly enough, even if it will then take some time for production to begin in earnest.

          • we have to separate two very different opposition to cold fusion dissemination.

            the one we observe, the groupthink denial, is based on terror by the losers.
            groupthink is not based on interest, on oil of LB conspiracy, it is desperate mental defense by academic who want to hide their pathetic and hopeless failure.
            as Benabou explains, the more they suffer from their decision, the more they enforce it by terrorizing dissenters.

            once LENR will be public and the denialist will have became realist because they could not prevent realist to flee and could not harm them anymore the war will be between vested interest.

            then the oil companies, the big lobbies of ideology and finance will work hard to enjoy economic rent, or keep their old economic or ideology rent…

            the green, the oil companies and countries, the fission industry, the battery industry, the solar industry, the wind industry, the solar roof union, the roof workers union, the utilities workers union, the pylon builder industry, the offshore industry, the retirement fund owners, they will all try to be protected from that revolution, and obtain a monopoly on that technology…

            that will be the crony against real capitalism battle we see always…

            today the crony over-regulated capitalism owns the governments, whose existence is based on distributing rents to those who refuse to pay taxes with the money they take to the masses who accept it.

            I don’t see why things will change except if we move out bottom.

            for now I see that those who are ready to enter the LENR revolution, those who are candidate to fund R&D or who fund NASA or propose LENR-aware patents, are not specialized in energy… they consume energy, and they sell things that will not be sold differently if LENR get mainstream. their market will not be disrupted, just their technology… so no problem.

            Home Depot and Darty will sell E-cat for home, manufactured by Chafoteau&maury.
            Boeing will sell LENR plane.
            Moulinex will sell LENR home cookers.
            Whirlpool will sell LENR washing machines…

            don’t expect GE, Areva, Shell to do the job.
            Nor Greenpeace or WWF to help us save the planet.

            Today the only political party I know which silently plan to support LENR revolution made less than 2% in municipal elections, is pro-business, quite social, quite free-market, very pro-freedom (liberal we say in france, which of course they deny)…

  • Omega Z

    I’m not concerned with the manufacturing & such.
    “I” know this will take quite some time to emerge into the market & transition the existing energy structure. I’m quite sure many here are going to be disappointed in the amount of time it takes.

    I’m only concerned about getting a positive 3rd party report & a very positive & convincing report from the 1st customer. Everything else will follow of it’s own accord & time. With these 2 things, everything else becomes inevitable.

  • BroKeeper

    Automated Production will be dictated by market demand. Market demand is dictated by human requirements based on ‘Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs’. This begins in a prioritized pyramid structure with the most basic need at the bottom being Survival, then Security, Social, Status, and finally Self Fulfillment. Of all the spectrum of technologies/resources affecting all levels today is energy.

    Because of past restriction due to scarcity and hazards of most fuel sources this released LENR market pressure will be defined by multiple factors of each of these defined levels. Once the E-Cat is realized after the TIP report and Factory Tour it will be self evident across all manufactures the enormous market potential based on these human needs.

    Acceleration of requirements will be exponentially dictated by public demand. This in turn will further investment of science and innovative engineering that will hasten further realized
    applications to meet the higher level of said needs. Science will awaken its paradigm of theoretical awareness for greater changes; imagination will kick in new futuristic applications.

    This acceleration IMO will develop over the near decade into a dizzying rate. I only hope Cherokee/IH is preparing not only assembly line for the E-Cat but automated factories
    designed to replicate other E-Cat factories to meet the hastening demand for wide
    spectrum of purposeful designs for this anxious world.

  • Daniel Maris

    The context of this Q and A is automated production. I think that is important to note.

    What exactly are you “waiting” for?

    If confirmation by a reputable team of scientists, that should be within a few weeks.

    If you mean confirmation that the E Cat is working in an operational setting – well I would hope in a few months. There doesn’t seem to be any particular reason to keep a pilot installation secret – quite the reverse in fact. So if the pilot operation is kept secret that will raise serious doubts.

    But, looking optimistically at this, I would hope that following release of positive test results, we get a good flow of info on the pilot scheme in an operational setting.

  • jousterusa

    Rossi was not dissembling here. He is preparing mentally and physically for the challenge of mass production. But what we have heard so far suggests he will not be ready for the demand, and the high cost of production could well bankrupt him. Success is the toughest challenge any operation faces, because all kinds of costs – labor, machinery, programming, parts – all go up. This is also a tough time to get a loan, and he well may need one to keep IH afloat. The one good thing in this vision is that some costs are lower in China, and the financial controls executable by the government may temper some of the labor and other costs. But the early reports we’ve heard of high COPs may spark a stratospheric demand that no one can be ready for!

    • Fortyniner

      Remember that Rossi is now, on paper at least, simply an employee of IH, and as such doesn’t face further personal financial risk. IH is an investment consortium, seemingly with a number of backers, and is unlikely to need to approach banks for its funds. From their painfully slow cautious approach so far, I would guess that their business model will be one of continual growth, but beginning with limited semi-manual series production.

      As you say, demand is likely to make this a comparatively rapid process, following their ‘launch’.

      • jousterusa

        It’s hard to imagine Rossi as “simply an employee,” and yet I suspect he is also an investor in IH as well – perhaps his equity reflects the relatively small investment ($11 million) the company has made in light of the equity given to him. Nonetheless, you are correct that beyond any equity – or bonus amounts – I intended to identify him only in the context of the company he works for, sort of like saying “Bill Gates” instead of “Microsoft.” I apologize for the lack of clarity. BTW, I would note that under “What’s New,” Blacklight Power has also reported two successful fund-raining ventures, one of them over-subscribed.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Rossi announced the delivery last week, so it is probably not completely installed yet.
    Yes, depending on what you are waiting for.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Today, UN Climate Summit will commence in New York:

    http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/

    Wouldn’t that conference offer a good opportunity to present to the public a working LENR plant, including a 3rd party report that confirms that it’s real? This is, of course, just wishful thinking, which might make you feel better for a moment, but will eventually been caught up by reality. But in reality, shouldn’t the theory of AGW be a booster for LENR technology? To me, there seems to be a contradiction in supporting LENR on one hand, and persistently denying AGW on the other hand (independently of whether it’s real or not).

    • It remind me a theater play (or a book?) about Jesus coming on earth today…

      It seems that he first have problem with the priest who reject him as heretic, but I don’t remember the end… if someone understand which story I refer too…

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I’m not talking about belief or evidence, but of behaviour. If you want fossil fuels to be replaced by LENR as quickly as possible, it would be helpful to let AGW theory survive for a while – regardless of its correctness of or what you believe. It’s simply a tactical question.

    • Omega Z

      Prove without a doubt that the CO2 cause of AGW is bogus. AGW wont go away. They will just present Plan B, Then C if necessary.
      Follow the money path leads to redistribution of world resources(Money). From the 1st World to the 3rd World.

      Of all the 3rd world power plants they want to build as many as 25/30 percent could end up being Coal Powered. As to AGW supporters concern about appearances(CO2 & such), the caveat was added that they Corporations involved in building them would be required to install scrubbers.

      .Ultimately, Plan B will be introduced anyway to add urgency to their agenda.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        You are misinterpreting me, Omega Z. I’ve never stated that “the CO2 cause of AGW is bogus.” What I have tried to say is that supporting LENR, and opposing to AGW theory at the same time, seems to be somewhat counterproductive. I did not speak at all about myself.

        • Omega Z

          No, I understood, The Issue of clarity was on my part. Sorry.

          My point was AGW Proponents(Not the general supporters) would not want to join with LENR. It would be very disruptive of their true agenda. Thus their need for alternate plans (B,C,..) should the CO2 argument be quashed. Plan B=Methane. Plan C=aerosols; Steam is classified as an aerosol. LENR will by Their arguments in Plan C be a Greenhouse Gas Emitter. They are ensuring their agenda will continue regardless what anyone does.

          If you wish to obtain support from them or 1 of several other organizations that would appear to be a good fit, You should go to the lowly supporters & bypass their leadership(They don’t want a fix).

          My position on CO2 is from an economic viewpoint. It would become uneconomical to extract enough Fossil fuels long, long before CO2 would become an issue.

          I do believe in pollution, tho much of that we already have the technology to mitigate in an economical way.

          I have no issues with developing CO2 capture technology. If it can be done economically, It would be used/sold as a commodity. It has many uses. People would be shocked at how much CO2 we produce Intentionally every year.

          I believe we need to get away from burning fossil resources. Aside from becoming uneconomically sustainable in the near future, They have many feed stock uses we will sorely miss when their gone. Burning them having been a necessity, is such a useless waste of a valuable resource.

          Some friendly advice Andreas, Should you stumble upon a cheap, economical means to capture & sequester CO2 in a solid form, Just build it & spread it as fast as possible. DO NOT take it before the AGW Committee. I suspect that You & Your Device would become permanently Sequestered & Never, Ever, be heard from again.
          Your presence here at ECW would be sorely missed.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I any case, it will be very interesting to observe how different interest groups react when the LENR news come through. The first, spontaneous reactions will be the most telling, I suppose.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I agree, but not for all possible cases. If you had specific information and you knew that providing this information to the public would cause a disaster, shouldn’t you better withhold it? I admit that this stance implies problems. Especially, as soon as responsible persons or institutions have the ability to hold information back, there is always a chance that they will abuse it. In reality, this happens all the time – no doubt that it is morally reprehensible. But withholding information might be acceptable, and even advisable, if it prevents serious damage from the persons who would otherwise receive it.

  • Frank: Can you ask Rossi if the Problems are minor or major problems?
    Maybe they only have to adjust a few values to fit the customers demands.

    Thank you!

  • Jimr

    If it takes a year to fully resolve I assume it is not a minor problem. I don’t beleive that the Ecat is as far advanced as many of us would like to think. It is very possible that Brillion (as the SRI prof. said) is further advanced than Rossi, also the Chinese and others may be further advanced.

  • expendableawayteammember

    Sensor readings indicate Imperfections in the dilithium crystals, no doubt introduced by the Romulan ambassador.

  • Sanjeev

    This seems to be a major setback. If it can take one year to solve problems, it means that the plant is not really working….

    Since the regular Ecat is now a 4 year old tech, one would expect it to work flawlessly, even if at a low efficiency. Its all in dark, too much secrecy an sometimes conflicting claims are all very frustrating.

    I hope the hot-cat has no such problems and a working prototype will be ready this year.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Perhaps more likely, he meant that it would take about one year until every potential problem is known and under control. Regarding the momentary situation, he has already given an answer to barty, which sounds less dramatic. I suppose, Frank will provide an update shortly.

      • bob-v

        Sad situation.

        “This seems to be a major setback.” YES IT IS!
        So the masterpiece is probably back in IH’s factory of magnificence.
        Cool Cat for another year?
        Is there any successfully operating 1 MW plant on this planet? About the first “secret military plant”, A.R. reported 7000 operating hours for the first year and after this there was/is silence only.
        What about the blue container heating the IH factory, afaik no no comment from IH or A.R.

        • Omega Z

          The 1st was a military customer of which was likely analysis of the technology. Possibly this was NRL.
          In which case, you will hear about it in about 20 or 30 year. If Ever.
          This sort of thing takes place all the time & we never hear about it.

    • John Littlemist

      I suspect that the prototype plant producess a lot of excess heat, but not so regularly as required. I think there might be some difficult stability issues with the plant.

    • deleo77

      I don’t really understand. Why spend a year perfecting this specific plant to this customer’s needs? LENR is a general technology. It produces heat. If it doesn’t work for this specific customer then go to one where it does. One year? Sorry but this just doesn’t sound good at all.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        But maybe that other customer dislikes publicity. To make the sought-after public impact there are four requirements: (1) LENR has worked (2) for one year (3) in customer’s premises (4) who allows publicity. One surely cannot make public impact without publicity, and on the other hand if they would do it in their own premises instead of a customer’s, credibility would be lost.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      After taking into account also AR’s most recent comments, I understand it so that they completed and started to run the plant some months ago, but problems emerged which they are now debugging. And they have a requirement of running the plant for 1 year before calling it success. Since the plant is currently offline and undergoing modifications, even in the best case it takes at least 1 year from now to fulfil the requirement.

    • Heath

      He seems to be speaking more about tying it into the customer’s infrastructure as an alternate source of power. If you think about it I bet there are all sort of gotchas with each unique situation but nothing insurmountable.

  • GreenWin

    “I found the control of the front rudder quite difficult on account of
    its being balanced too near the center and thus had a tendency to turn
    itself when started so that the rudder was turned too far on one side
    and then too far on the other. As a result the machine would rise
    suddenly to about 10 ft. and then as suddenly, on turning the rudder,
    dart for the ground. A sudden dart when out about 100 feet from the end
    of the tracks ended the flight. Time about 12 seconds (not known exactly
    as watch was not promptly stopped).
    The lever for throwing off the engine was broken, and the skid under the
    rudder cracked. After repairs, at 20 min. after 11 o’clock Will made
    the second trial.”

    December 17,1903, Orville Wright’s diary

    • Bernie777

      Great post, makes you realize we are witnessing history, being able to react to Rossie’s/Orvile’s diary entries as they are made.

  • Rossi responded to my question where I asked whether the problems are major or minor:

    Barty:

    We have a lot of minor problems; obviously I cannot give the
    particulars; also, we have to adjust the plant to the particular needs
    of the Customer, as you correctly said, therefore, as usually, from
    problems are born more problems. Lot of work to do.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • EEStorFanFibb

      Well that is far less ominous sounding! Thanks

  • Alain Samoun

    Manhatan project took close to 4 years with the best minds of the time working on it, and they knew the basic theory.

    • clovis ray

      what a sad day in human history, when that mess was discovered.

      • Alain Samoun

        Clovis, it was just an example that a new energy application takes time.
        Of course, I will agree that it was a sad day to use it as it was used for.

      • BroKeeper

        1/26 years = just 3.8% more patience

        • clovis ray

          Hi, Bro k.
          i’m glad , you are here, buddy, and if your father fought, for freedom and , thanks goes to him, but we must also consider the innocent people that was wiped off the face of the earth, when their government was to blame, not the people,

          • BroKeeper

            Yes, the world has created a dizzying display of contradictions. I still believe all male leaders should wear only loin cloths.

          • it seems that classic bombing have killed more japanese than the 2 bombs and was not convincing enough to convince the emperor.
            even Hiroshima let him discuss about his own deity status. A painful replication of the third party test seems to have convinced the emperor that he have lost.

            More TNT falled on Dresden than the 2 nuke bomb…

            the good things with A bomb, is that your are not ready to play with that risk.

            note that the plan to defend Japan islands in a way of the tiny island in the pacific, even worst than stalingrad, was estimated to 3 million japanese losses (or was it the Us loses, with 10x more Japanese… don’t remember).

  • Ophelia Rump

    Get real.

    • Curbina

      Get Orbo?

      • hempenearth

        Its the wheal thing!

  • hempenearth

    What is the source of that information Guru?

  • Gerard McEk

    What I read between the lines is that ‘adapting the 1 MW plant to the customers needs’ may well have to do with the controllability of the plant (more-less energy to the customers process). I think the Ecat cannot be controlled very well (in energy output) controlling more than 100 may be extremely difficult. No doubt it will take time do deal with it but that’s life of an engineer.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    One should not make mountains out of molehills. Rossi is a perfectionist. When a perfectionist says that there are problems, people with less sense for accuracy and quality will think that there is a disaster. But the result might already be better than they could imagine. Besides, one year is a very short period for coming from a prototype to a product which is ready for mass fabrication. I guess any engineer with experience in the development of complex devices would confirm that.

    • BroKeeper

      1/26 years = just 3.8% more patience.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        For me (observing since March 2011): 1/3.5 y = 28.6 % more patience. So what?

    • C. Kirk

      Exactly! Mountains out of molehills………… Rossi’s latest post

      Andrea Rossi

      September 25th, 2014 at 12:39 PM

      Eernie1:

      Yes, exactly; anyway, in my life I have designed and installed hundreds
      of industrial plants, never had the luck to see one pass through the
      first period of several months without troubles. This is NOT an
      exception.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Major setback. ITER is about to take the lead.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The commentary is becoming manic depressive, grand highs and crashing lows.
    What a freaking roller-coaster, just let out a good scream and a few laughs and try to hang on.

    • BroKeeper

      LOL

    • Fortyniner

      Unfortunately, these days I seem to be suppressing mostly screams of frustration. I must try really, really hard to pretend that I’m a grown up…

  • Ophelia Rump

    It is an allusion to disillusion delusion.

  • C. Kirk

    Perhaps a hint by Rossi of the expected COP (x 10) when he answered a question of Alutam…..
    Andrea Rossi

    September 25th, 2014 at 2:32 PM

    Alutam:

    I don’t have problems, I have opportunities ( x 10)

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • bachcole

      Hey, James Tiberius Kirk, I am certain that he is NOT referring to a COP of 10. He is talking about having a huge number of opportunities, which he does.

      • Omega Z

        I do not have a problem. Just an opportunity.
        Rossi
        I do not have “X” problems. I have “X” opportunities.
        So he has many small problems to resolve…

  • Alan DeAngelis

    This sort of thing is par for the course. Here is the story of Frank Whittle’s jet engine.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83MlGnkIMKY

  • Mark Szl

    They must have known this for quite sometime and they said nothing. Only now this is coming out. Why? Maybe the report would save them so they have come clean at this moment.

    • Ophelia Rump

      The sky is falling, the sky is falling, look a piece hit me on the head, right here!

      • Fortyniner

        No, that was just a bit of someone’s overblown expectations falling back to Earth.

  • Gerrit

    what does Rossi mean with “consolidated the situation” ? A few weeks ago Rossi said that the plant will have to run for months before he considers it running stably. Now with the minor problems that have to be solved first, that consolidation point is pushed back several months.

    I don’t think that solving the minor problems will take a full year, but that it is referring to the whole phase of getting the plant intergrated and running for several months.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Maybe a few weeks ago the plant was running correctly since (say) 4 months, in which case the 12 month epoch was 8 months ahead. But then problems emerged, they have to be solved, the plant modified, and a new 12 month period must be started.

      • pg

        Hi Pekka, welcome back. Have you had any contact with people involved directly or indirectly in the TPR 2?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Hi, thanks. But no, I haven’t.

      • Fortyniner

        That would also be my take on Rossi’s words, and I hope that the engineering issues involved are not too profound. I can’t help feeling increasingly anxious though, about the ‘single track’ path of development that IH appears to be following. Surely a number of parallel development paths, perhaps under the control of competing teams, would be a more productive approach and a better use of R&D resources that must currently be standing idle.

        I hope that when the TIP report is published, through whatever channels, enough formerly doubting people are convinced of the reality of LENR that this provokes a flurry of replication attempts, and/or the emergence of ‘dark horse’ competitors who use the report results to increase their own credibility.

        • Ophelia Rump

          A fusion of the two. There will be competitors if they have to back-engineer the technology and find an alternative implementation.

          • Fortyniner

            Yes, I am sure there are probably many (ways of implementing HT LENR) and a wide range of minds will be needed to identify and explore even a few of them. Unfortunately, as far as we know, this simply isn’t happening. Rossi and his R&D team are seemingly focused on just a single technical solution, that may or may not be the optimal one.

            This is why I repeatedly express some frustration – not (just) because IH’s progress often seems plodding and linear, but because LENR – as the single most important technological development on the planet – seems to depend on a small team of 14 or 15 people going at their own speed, rather than on the competitive efforts of hundreds of major commercial research groups, which is what I believe is actually required.

            Perhaps things will change after the TIP report – but my gut feeling is that publication will take place with barely a ripple in either the complacent halls of academia or the pragmatic world of engineering R&D.

            Now I will scream and stamp my foot really hard….

          • John Littlemist

            Don’t worry, LENR does not depend on a single small team. Just to relief yourself, please read through this patent application by Etiam Inc.

            https://www.dropbox.com/s/46g0h84t93crjig/Etiam_oy_patenttihakemus.pdf

          • more than being few people, those few people don’t work together nor even help each others… that is loss of opportunity to go faster and better…

            anyway about the possibility of loss of the LENR technology, we have the essential information : it is possible

          • “to depend on a small team of 14 or 15 people working on a single project and going at their own speed”

            this is why the way to innovate should change.
            This project is done like 19th century invention… because corps are deterred by academics.

            I hope that when big corps will be able to work proudly on that subject, calling “friends”, and battling to be the quickest to deliver something that others will quickly exploit, and that will increase the value of what was just created … there will be tens of thousands of engineers working on various facets of the problem …

          • GreenWin

            I am greatly encouraged to see open dialog on ecosystems inclusive of planetary, solar system, galactic spheres. Perhaps the primary purpose of LENR is to bring planet Earth to a Kaku-Type One level. Higher standard of living for all human beings combined with abundant, sustainable energy will make the planet a reasonable candidate for Type One status. Thereafter we will need continuing help in evolving standards, education and conflict reduction. We are deeply appreciative for the guidance that has brought us this far. 🙂 It’s one heavenova ride!

          • for me LENR bring mostly locality and smaller quantum capital requirement.
            oil, nuke , taylorism, electric grid, are demanding huge capital, thus huge corps, huge monopolies.
            It demand also huge states which support those corps.

            the future is sharing platforms like uber, blablacar, ebay, airbnb, lenr CHP, with individual lending their own tiny capital to the community… as it happen in emerging countries today.

            the state is to disappear and to be replaced by city-state, canton-countryside, and big loose federation (like switzerland not like EU).

            nation is dead as you can see with individual people following terror, scientific or political directive from far away…

            why would you need a big state if you have bitcoin, airbnb, ebay, uber, to ensure insurance, charity, law and police taxes that the local district agree on. zone ca even agree on basic income paid by trade platform taxes… of course have to be tiny and proposing insurance to avoid people flee from the system…

          • GreenWin

            Fortyniner, I think we can be sure that this entire field of study and invention is quietly well populated by industry, military, and academia – under various pseudonyms. Scientific lexicon allows for all manner of disguise, e.g. “gas loaded metal hydrides,” “nanoplasmonics,” “condensed matter nuclear physics,” “Rydberg matter clusters,” “Bose Einstein Condensates,” etc.

            Since all these areas provide useful new products like transmutations and excess heat – they must be the focus of over-the-horizon R&D folks. What I see evolving is a fully tiered, masked technology transfer underway. At the topmost tier will be milspec applications, primarily Q-order naval propulsion and APUs. Below that we”ll see commercial scale heat and generation products like those discussed by IH. Also in this tier will be transfers to State entities to address environmental issues, e.g. Russia – large scale desalination, China – industrial power generation, India – microgrid distributed generation, etc.

            We can also expect to see different flavors of these “LENR” condensed matter systems e.g. DGT, E-Cat, Brillouin, BLP, STM, Etiam, Mitsubishi/Toyota/GE-commercial, etc. Mike McKubre flatly stated that no one entity would monopolize this technology. I believe he’s correct. But have a good yell and stomp – Lord knows the skeps have been wailing away for the last 4+ years. Difference is, they get paid to whine. We don’t. 🙂

    • Omega Z

      All part of 1 year.
      Rossi posted just a while back that he would be very occupied during September possibly around the clock for several days at a time.
      I don’t think anything has changed. Just additional details.

  • GreenWin

    Why is there air, ronzonni?

  • GreenWin

    Gee Al, why’ve you got to be so negative? 🙂

  • jousterusa

    After the big 1.5% sell-off on Wall Street yesterday, I have to wonder if the government and the media will try to squash any anxiety over cheap energy when the TIP is made public. That kind of question would be absurd a few years ago, but now we know how profoundly the levers of the Information Age are manipulated by the NSA and other government agencies. Theoretically, they could have an algorithm that wipes any mention of the E-Cat and LENR off every website in America – or they could just have the interests of Big Oil and Big Gas and Big Power working on them. While I expect a very gradual blossom of awareness to open in the public mind as the news seeps in to nurture it, rather than a huge splash such as the Pons-Fleischmann announcement precipitated, the potential shock to world energy markets could be more substantial than a nuclear weapon in the Straits of Hormuz. How will governments around the world, OPEC and the affected companies react to that? The day after Pons-Fleischmann, they sank the Exxon Valdez and caused the biggest oil spill in history on the pristine shores of Alaska. For them, it was a small price to pay to remain on the top of the energy heap. Will they try something similar again, hoping to steal our thunder and scare the public as they organize the academic lynching party to hang Rossi in effigy?

    • Paul

      The oil problem is that current crisis is stopping investments for new drills, forcing to shortcuts in future. Regarding the public perception, I think it will not be a problem, because a smart research among public information on the web seems to show a link between an US giant, a “carrier Enterprise” for using Rossi’s words and the E-Cat or at least with Cherokee and IH. I am referring to a company linked to the US giant and where wiork 14 people, exactly the number mentioned by Rossi this summer…

      • Andreas Moraitis
        • Paul

          Have you still doubts? A press release we leave to the other readers will close the circle. The giant is linked also to the US Navy, in particular to the nuclear submarines, I cannot say more being military secret.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Unfortunately, all this is old news, including the press release you mention. However, when Rossi spoke with regard to his US partner of a “carrier”, I spontaneously thought of GE, due to their contribution to the production of aircraft carriers for the U.S. Navy. But without a confirmation I prefer to stay cautious. An official statement from GE would surely have a higher impact than a dozen 3rd party tests or research papers.

          • Paul

            In one of my previous post, I have given you an info which is not on the web, but you didn’t noticed it. However, due to the military secret, it will not be confirmed in public by anyone. I do not refer to the company’s name. You can easily understand that, for revolutionary technologies like this, military research for applications always anticipates research for civilian applications, like the effort made by IH. You cannot think that this last is possible if the first is not already guranteed in some way… That’s all for today.

          • Heath

            An excellent point and very true. The military would always come first with something like this and we’ve known for years that they (the Navy, Airforce, NASA, etc) have been very interest in Rossi’s development. Sometimes I think they brought Rossi to Darden initially.

          • BroKeeper

            They all know the name of Andrea Rossi.

      • JDM

        So as to say that if one cannot invest in IH, perhaps the second best investment might be HII?

        • Paul

          On the short term, it could make sense to invest on the “giant”, at the NY Stock Exchange, but I expect a strong thundestorm hit the stock market in 3 to 15 months since now, so I would not invest on it for this reason.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            So it cannot be Bechtel, since their shares are not publically traded. When it comes to submarine propulsion, the next candidate would be Babcock & Wilcox. Although perhaps one would not call them a “giant”:

            http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-us-navys-nuclear-propulsion-contracts-04752/

          • Paul

            If you find on Wikipedia United States nuclear reactors you will find the candidates. If you search the press releases related to Pogens you can draw your conclusions. US Navy has also a lab specialized on Lenr research, it is possible to find much material released by this lab, but not regarding the E-Cat, so the top US stakeholders perfectly know the value of this technology.

          • Paul

            Sorry, United States naval reactors, not nuclear reactors

          • JDM

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine
            Latest class of subs use S9G powerplant.
            S=Submarine
            9=9th generation
            G=GE
            Subs built by Electric Boat and NNS (a division of HII)

          • JDM

            As a side note, NNS also built the original USS Enterprise carrier.

          • Paul

            We are talking of propulsion, not of the overall ship, so you can throw away two names. You can see also google Nuclear Marine Propulsion by mragheb, and look for Virginia class…

          • JDM

            One would think the shipbuilder would have to be intimately involved in a new propulsion source, no?

          • Paul

            No, normally they are different, and in other countries and other Navvies it is the same. The military ships are an assembly of parts made by different manufacturers… The project is made by Navy or by a general contractor, which choose the producer for every important single part according to its needs for the single class of ships. So Virginia class, Ohio class and so on normally are different regarding the companies involved.

          • Heath

            So Westinghouse or GE? And GE would be a giant…

    • Ophelia Rump

      Is a 1.5% sell off highly significant?
      I gather that is some kind of signal to you.

      • jousterusa

        No, it is not “highly” significant, but you always have to worry at this time of the year near the end of the month that a big sell-off may accelerate on Friday and burst open like a fat water balloon on Monday morning. I don’t think that will happen right now – maybe later in the month – but the decline yesterday was significant enough to raise concern and ro keep our eyes open, especially since it was predicated – according to the analysts, who are often wrong – on global unrest. If it truly was the cause, it’s strange since Saudi and UAE jets successfully attacked a lot of the ISIS refineries where their money is “manufactured,” so there should have been some relief. War can always create great volatility overnight, and investors may be pulling back with awareness of that.

        • Ophelia Rump

          The Ebola is more significant than the war right now, Ebola will fight the war and win, you might consider that. The CDC and WHO have been burying the data for most of Sept, after the rate of spread went from a multiplier of 2 a month to 3.7.

          They are stating a current multiplier of 2.5 is being used monthly, but to match the data points in the CDC predictions I had to use 3.

          What it all means is that the CDC is hiding the fact that they probably are too late to stop this from going out of control. The WHO is either going dark with the numbers, or have no idea what is happening now.

          If you use the real worst case scenario 3.7 rather than 3 then by January there are over 5 million cases. The difference is not significant except that it shows how quickly this is becoming impossible to stop.

          Most of next months victims are already infected, and by November there will just be too many to handle. They have one month to stop this cold, or Africa is down to 30% population or less, and the rest of the third world probably goes with it. If couple of infected reach Mecca for the pilgrimage and you can picture the rest.

          You might think that .75 million dead is a lot better than 2.5 million dead by Jan, but the truth is with exponential growth that by the time the numbers get high enough to run out of victims there is only a month or two difference.

          I am not faulting the CDC. They used a number high enough to motivate the response they need, and tried to keep panic potential to a minimum. Wall Street may have a lot of adjusting to do between now and the spring. There are probably 40K infected now without symptoms, doubling every 15 days. In one month 40K isolation unit beds will not be enough, and all order shattered.

          • clovis ray

            Hi, miss O,
            That was a thoughtful comment, president Obama gave a good warning to the people of the world yesterday, if you haven’t seen it you should, if you care about this very very important subject, he laid out what the u.s. is doing, and that we can’t do it alone, the u.s. can not fix this by themselves, the world has to help.
            you can find his address to the oboli conference at the u.n.
            on C-span,

          • Ophelia Rump

            Yes, thank you I saw it. In truth, it seems only the Africans can actually implement any meaningful resolution. If they can maintain order and organize a rapid response with international aid.

          • Paul

            I analysed the WHO’s data on Ebola 2014 by myself. Extrapolating them linearly, gives a prediction of about 20.000 infected (and half deaths) at the end of this year (the guess was made at the beginning of August, now the situation is slightly worst so I guess a recalculation would double the previous numbers). The WHO does not make projections. CDC make its projection with 2 hypothesis: the infected are now 2,5 those WHO estimates and a future exponential growth. However, from the actual data that I have processed 3 weeks ago the growth is not clearly exponential (it is something like a steep line only in Liberia, while the other countries are less problematic regarding the growth rate), so CDC’s projection represents a worst case scenario, which like all the extreme scenarios is highly improbable. You can also do your own projection here: http://www.healthmap.org/ebola/#projection. This does not mean that the situation is not extremely dangerous, because when (not if) the first people will became infected in a Western country, we could have panic and a big stock market fall, for the Sars there was a 30% fall in 2002.

          • it is drammatic, but people react better to drammatic situation than to simple troubles.

            in previous Ebolat outbreak the vector of transmition was traditional medecine exchanging blood and alike… bad hospital with bad practive did the job too.
            currently there are some scandal with awful hospital and still the traditional medecine.
            both are dying, so they are eliminated.

            quickly after in previous outbreak the locals started to forget traditional and colonial /NGO medicine to used simple medieval practice. forced quarantine and burning houses.

            in western organization we have all the similar stupidity called “precaution”. Taleb explains well that when you are in good health you should not take any risk with medicine , even to slightly improve you health… it can make things much worse while curing few.

            however for really deadly risk or disease, you should not be afraid to nearly poison you… chemotherapy , radiotherapy are ok for a deadly cancer, not for acne.

            I see that some started to test immunization and antiviral without the usual 10years process…

            precaution principle is something so new and unverified that applying it lead to not applying it … too dangerous facing real evil or simply the future.

          • jousterusa

            Even the conservative prediction of 1,425,0000 cases I saw last night on NBC News is awfully scary – and where does it go from there? I think it is extraordinary that an American president has had the foresight to understand how important it was to stop the spread of Ebola that he has dispatched 3,000 troops to build 17 facilities to care for the victims. I think this pretty much unprecedented in human history!

      • as far as I hear of it it is linked to Dollar getting more expensive and risking to hinder exports.

        • Omega Z

          It has much to do with the Fed’s preparing to turn off the printers.

    • Omega Z

      What a person should really be concerned with is if LENR technology can be implemented fast enough to counter a decline in economically accessible energy.

      In Grade school, We were taught that the U.S. had enough coal reserves to last 500 years. 25 years later it became 250 years. Today it’s 100 years. Projections always tend to be based on a static situation. There not. The U.S. both increased use of & exports of coal. And Energy demands will continue to increase around the world.
      Note that even tho the U.S. has been switching from coal to N-gas, Coal production as of yet has hardly been effected. Exports have increased offsetting much of the switch.

      In 40 years, the situation will likely be quite dire. Regardless of wind/solar energy. I only hope society can achieve a teeter totter situation with LENR introduction offsetting fossil fuel peek & decline.

      People give big oil to little credit. They are well aware their days are limited. You don’t need to run out of oil to be out of business. Just to costly. You won’t sell much gas at $20 a gallon & without large Volume’s they go broke. Big Oil will have little concern of LENR. By the time it effects them, it wont matter much. More likely they will look for investment opportunities in LENR or other opportunities opened up by it. Investments are investments. Product don’t matter all that much.

      In the U.S., we hear the talking heads spout the U.S. has 1000 years of N-gas reserves. Based as usual on a static situation. Coal is our primary source of electrically. When it’s gone, you switch to N-gas. Same with oil. That 1000 year reserve shrank substantially & along with exports & continued demand increase things start looking shaky. 100, 200 years at most. If the numbers are correct to begin with. These are after all just educated guesses on what we may be able to access economically.

      • jousterusa

        Yours are some very educated guesses, and I thank you for your thoughts. They do reveal a “fly in the ointment,” as they say, with respect to Rossi and IH’s plans as we know them. If there is a wholesale conversion to E-Cat technology (and ro competitors’ products, like Blacklight’s, for instance – then the cost of maintaining a supply sufficient for demand may become too great for some refiners. In that event, our government oil reserves could help. But the flaw is that Rossi doesn’t plan to provide E-Cats for residential uses except in a second stage, and has not yet started any serious research (at least that I’m aware of) on the use of E-Cat technology in cars. You could see gasoline producers and stations go out of business before E-Cat or Blacklight’s CIHT-cell vehicles come on line. The home E-Cats would replace more residential natural gas consumption than oil consumption, I think, and NG is unlikely to face shortages. But conversion will, as you say, necessarily entail some major dislocations in the energy markets.

        • Fortyniner

          As long as the majority of vehicles need petrol and diesel fuels, enough demand will remain to continue to provide profits to refiners, who will also continue to supply a host of other users from plastics manufacturers, fertiliser and chemical suppliers, to makers of bituminous road materials.

          There is though a potential ‘halfway house’ solution for many vehicles, which is LPG conversion. Conversion of petrol driven vehicles is a simple matter and not too expensive, there is a growing network of cylinder exchange stations (the process could be automated). The cost of compressing natural gas could potentially be very low if electricity becomes a lot cheaper (a possible sticking point).

          The problem of fueling diesel engines would remain of course, and these may go the way of steam road transport rather more quickly than petrol engines.

    • BroKeeper

      IMO, the technological expectation factor of energies in-the-know is already asserting pressure on the market. The more it is repressed the bigger the discharge of negative repercussions of those holding its lid on. Few I know of want to be associated with holding back humanities survival when the eventuality is looming. There will be attempts but the pressure, I believe, is already too far exceeding the counter energy to contain it.

  • blanco69

    So. A year’s worth of problem fixing for a shipping container full of steam generators. Yesterday we had indications that the 3rd party report was going to be 100% positive and blow away our current understanding of physics. If you knew such a report was about to be published and know then that the subsequent rush for investment would follow. Why then would you be certain that you needed a full year’s tinker time when you would have about half the western world’s investment money at your disposal to help usher in a new world order. Rossi is working in a garage with a spanner and a welding torch if he needs a year to iron out 1MW issues and by predicting a year to get it working means that he sees no change to that scenario in the next 12 months. My belief in this is stretched to the limit.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Because you designed a system biased toward the anticipated high pressure high temperature steam at one volume, and the customer wants lower pressure lower temperature steam at a greater volume?

      I am sure there could be a hundred reasons.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Wherein they learn that the customers needs were not necessarily within their programs current operating parameters. This sounds more like a market issue than a science issue to me.
    Opportunities not foreseen. New parameters, broader markets, win win relationship.

  • Fortyniner

    I think it’s called irony.

  • Fortyniner

    Again – ‘Hephaheat’ is just a type of process heater utilising a thermal store heated by induction on cheaper ‘off peak’ electricity. It is NOT any kind of o/u technology, just a mundane industrial product.

  • timycelyn

    We seem to be so caught up in the switchback of joy and disillusion regarding the 1Mw plant at the Customer and the upcoming 2IP report, that I thought it was time to stand back a little.

    Lest we forget, here are some reminders….

    A) There is a real, anomalous heat generating effect that cannot be accounted for by application of current regular understanding of chemistry and physics.
    * Multiple validations and studies by a wide slew of researchers. Different techniques, different materials, but probably all enocmpassed in the same territory of unexplored and unrecognised phyisics or chemistry – right on the borderline between the two disciplines.
    * Rossi’s technique and equipment produces large amounts of heat. The first Independent test was actaully conclusive, and the criticisms of it were, IMHO academic/theoretical; anyone who actually and seriously proposes that these tests were fake needs help with their obviously tenuous understanding of reality.

    B) Everyone who gets close to Rossi’s technology is convinced of its total reality.
    * IH will have performed extensive due diligence. Subsequent to acquisition, they obviously are in a very hands – on mode, their people are making the kit. They have had plenty of time to go ‘Oh no, it’s a scam/it never works etc’ and cut their losses. Instead, they are investing and have the confidence to take a customer order and deliver. (OK, no doubt under special agreement relating to the fact it is the first and may need support and work on site..).
    * All those who have got close to the technology for a period of time (not the sometimes brief demos with Rossis’ paranoia in evidence, like with that Rivet idiot) seem to be convinced of the reality of his technology and the large amounts of heat produced. Where are the dissenters saying “Was with him for x months. Used to believe in it but I never saw it work, I became disillusioned, then I realised I was being scammed and left…. ” Not one. Nada. Zilch. Quite the opposite, even those who for commercial reasons (like the pre-IH distributors) he had to part company with.

    So, lets take a big breath, count to ten, and keep a sense of reality here. Sure, the new plant is having teething troubles, and I agree with 49’er that this has probably reset some 12 month uninterrupted running thing with the customer, hence Rossi’s (typically ambiguous) comment.

    We are way past ‘Is this real or is it smoke and mirrors?’ It’s totally real. The very very worst thing that I can imagine happening now would be for Rossi to be unable to master control and deliver a smooth, reliable output, for this to prove intractable with his approach and it fizzles at IH. I am convinced that the demonstration of an effect is now so clear (and once the 2nd report is out, raised to a power) that if IH cannot deliver, others will (Remember the Chinese?). That, I feel, is the bottom line.

    But I do not belive this will be the case for a moment. This sounds like the typical teething you get with newly installed plant, espically when this is version 3 model #1. I mean, wow! This is perhaps 100 hot cats all in parallel in some sort of heat exchanger, with all the balancing and regulation of heat transfer that this implies. If we are hearing ‘It’s settled down, we’re just running up the days towards our 12 month target now’ message in perhaps 3-4 months from now..” I’ll be impressed.

    Folks, stand back, take stock, and realise how far we have come!

    Cheers

    Tim

    • Jonnyb

      Yeh it is always difficult when you are the first to do something. Things work well in the lab or workshop but always take many iterations to perfect the final model. I suspect the one they are working on now will be obsolete in a few years. You have to start somewhere. Once the cat is out of the bag to the mainstream you see how fast this will progress.

    • Gerrit

      Great observation Tim.

      We could however add more positive and negative things:

      C) the experiments over at quantumheat haven’t shown anything yet.
      D) the work at SKINR hasn’t produced any insights yet.
      E) many new phenomena are discovered almost daily with nanomaterials/catalysts.
      F) other commercial “cold fusion” devices seem to go through rounds of new capital and subsequent phases of new research/development, never reaching market quite yet.

      we can probably think of more…

      • timycelyn

        Nah. I agree this is a mushrooming field, and cannot even try and keep up with all the aspects of it – to be honest some of the examples you cite I only just recognise.

        Taking the points you make at face value, I agree there are a bunch more as well (eg the Nanor) lying on both sides of the ledger. However, I think this again runs the risk of getting too far into the detail, which can be baffling it its variability.

        I am standing back, and looking at the overall topography of what is going on, especially with Rossi. A lot of the detail you mention whilst no doubt true, is secondary to the basic point that there’s a real effect here, and, no matter how clumsily it happens, the truth will eventually come out. Some folk may have picked particularly stony roads to approach that truth, but positive results and evidence elsewhere reveals that it exists.

        Your last point (F) is the one that is hardest to answer and does twist my guts a little. But, as the famous saying goes: “Past results are not indicators of future performance…..”

        Cheers

        Tim

        • Gerrit

          Whatever there is, it will be understood eventually. From what I see today, either by standing back as far as I can, or getting in as close as possible, I can’t be sure that I will see the technology being utilized soon or within a certain time.

          It doesn’t exist out here, today, impacting our lives. There is still a possibility that it will never really become commercially available.

  • jousterusa

    One excellent point you make is that Rossi’s vision has already survived a number of attempts, like Defkalion’s, that might have derailed a lesser mind. I think that is quite remarkable in itself.

  • Omega Z

    I’m neither surprised or disappointed by this news. It’s totally to be expected. Ganging 100 reactors together & keeping them in sync & stable is a far cry from controlling a single reactor on a work bench.

    Thrown into a processing facility would add many new variables to boot. There’s always the wild card in these situations. Sudden unpredictable changes can occur at any time. Real World.

    It would be extremely likely that additional sensors or controls will need to be added. And additional parameters added to the computer programing in the control box.

    I once watched a team of 3 technicians spend a year working out kinks on a system somewhat similar as this. Of course they had it much easier as they were working with a multiple burner natural gas system. Not as simple as one would think. Note: this was a special purpose system.

    With a couple hundred parameters, you can change just 1 with issues & have to recalibrate most or all the others. And recalibrating means making a change and waiting, possibly hours before readjusting or moving on to the next. At any given point, this could require starting all over.

    Note that even when the task is achieved, It needs monitored for quite sometime(Months) to be sure all the issues have been addressed. Future Customers are going to want assurances of this.

    All should take 1 thing into consideration: This is a non-conventional energy source. There is nothing else you can really compare it to. I Guess, Industrial Heat could spring for the cost of the premier expert on E-cats, but– Oh, Wait

    • timycelyn

      Who knows? What do we know about the Tweeter?

      • Andreas Moraitis

        He could be identical with a person who made several posts on JoNP in autumn 2012, but under a different name. (Don’t ask me how I came to this conclusion. I can assure that I did not break any laws…) The posts do not look as if the person was an insider, at least with regard to Rossi.

    • pg

      Do you know where are the rumors coming from?

    • Heath

      Friday evening is a terrible time to break any news. Politicians like to wait until Friday to release any uncomfortable news as it’s usually swept under the weekend rug. This report deserves a mid-week release when everyone is paying attention (and happy that it is mid-week). If so, I hope it is more for those of us who have been watching this carefully and waiting 6 months for the results and especially the undeniable the evidence that it delivers as promised. Still, it’s just another rumor.

      • Heath

        Actually, now that I think about it, how better a way not to rile the stock markets. After trading hours….

        • Rossi said that he gets the report 3 – 4 days before publication. Maybe this is related to that.

          • Hetah

            Very well could be..makes perfect sense.

    • Veblin

      smogm ‏@smogm 17m
      Sorry when I made to much expections! But rumors are growing day by day coming from sweden. Have a look there #ecat #lenr
      1:24 PM – 26 Sep 2014

      • Andreas Moraitis

        He just read the post by David Nygren from April (with the photo from Uppsala) and forgot to look at the date.

  • ecatworld

    Has not made many tweets, either. Tweeted around the time of the last report:

    https://twitter.com/smogm

  • BroKeeper

    While problems persist it appears to be presently in use by the manufacturer and collecting analytical and financial differential cost data, thus consolidating information when ready.
    ____________________
    Andrea Rossi
    September
    26th, 2014 at 9:31 AM

    Pietro F.:
    Our Customer id (is) a manufacturer, and uses (present tense) the 1 MW plant
    for his production.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    ______________________

    • Daniel Maris

      We have to remember that Rossi is writing this, but also the IH personnel are reading it as well.

      That tends to put the balance of probability on it being true.

  • Private Citizen

    the moving goal posts move once more

    • Timar

      That’s a process called product development…

  • Timar

    No it isn’t. See my post below.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Yes, he appears to be German. I came to the same result by another route. Maybe he has some well-informed friends in Sweden.

  • artefact

    definitly German and could be connected to the german technology news outlet “heise” which also owns Telepolis where Haiko Lietz wrote some nice online articles about LENR. His first upload 4 years ago on youtube was a broadcast of a tv show from heise.

  • Paul

    Sorry Hank, but I will not post most of the infos I have and I will not give give precise infos about the publication of the report. The reason is that I am not Rossi’s or IH spokeperson. I agree with you that a serious company releases or no information at all or a complete official information, as the current situation is an absolute anomaly. I agree with another reader that the best days for releasing a news are during the week.

    • Hank Mills

      After being so open with test data for years, I feel the current “tease and torture” mentality of Rossi and Industrial Heat is absolutely unacceptable. The E-Cat, once you realize it exists, changes your perspective on the world and the future of humanity. By revealing the existance of the technology and then slamming the lid shut, they are having an enormous negative impact on interested supporters and the LENR field as a whole. I think instead of continuing to tease and interact with us, the moment Rossi signed his gag order with Cherokee and the TIP, he should have closed the JONP. Or, he should have searched for a partner who would have had a more open and sharing mentality. However, we are beyond that now.

      Our only hope for openess is if the upcoming report followed the scientific method and includes a detailed analysis of the fuel – including surface features – and instructions for replication. Then teams around the world can work on and improve the technology.

      • Paul

        This is a TPR, not instructions for replication, but this does not mean that an E-Cat cannot be replicated. The point is that you cannot read the recipe on a paper of such kind, whose function is completely different. Your view is perhaps a sort of Manhattan Project, but at a world level. A Manhattan Project also today would be a National Project and would be secret at least for some time. Behind such a project, there was a strong pressure coming from the international situation and a political choice. In this moment the situation is different with respect to those years. There is an open source Lenr project that should compete for the Nobel Prize for Peace, but you cannot think that IH could make a gift to the competitors, otherwise no one would invest in their product development.

        • kenko

          ‘ does not mean that an E-Cat cannot be replicated.’ A year or so ago, didn’t rossi say that a company, given specs for an e-cat, had replicated one/ some without rossi & co’s help?

          • Heath

            Paul is saying that the TIP report will not contain device replication information for the public, but the analysed results from a 6 month long test and the conclusions from their peers.

          • Omega Z

            Yes, A company did replicate the Hot-Cat using only Rossi’s instructions.
            That company is known as Cherokee/Industrial Heat.
            This replication of the E-cat & it’s Performance matched Rossi’s claims. They are now the Owners of this technology.

          • kenko

            Oh, THAT that company. LOL. Small world.

        • Hank Mills

          Paul,

          There is no need for a “Miami Project” to further the development of the Rossi Effect. Right now, the technology can produce an unlimited COP and temperatures high enough to vaporize steel. The only issue is control. Cures on the Cobraf forum has said that the hot cat instantly wants to shoot up to temperatures that can melt the nickel and destroy the reactor. In regards to producing heat, you cannot get any better than this. What we need are hundreds of companies working on better control systems to keep the system stable. This is where the money is to be made, in my opinion.

          Rossi has already stated on the JONP that the testers are allowed to do whatever the want with the reactors and test them in any way they see fit. When asked, he even said that if the testers were able to replicate the device, they would be allowed to publish the instructions in the report. According to Rossi, the testers can put whatever information they want in the report. If this is the case, the testers have a duty to include the information. The scientific method works via one team replicating the results of another. If a recipe is included, I think hundreds of replications will happen and the free market will decide who has the best control system. If a recipe is not included, I don’t think the technology will be accepted as real and the LENR community will continue sitting around waiting for IH to do something.

          Classifying the E-Cat tech, once the recipe gets out, will be impossible. No country will be able to improve upon it, except for the control systems. It will proliferate rapidly because anyone with the ability to produce the powder, stuff it inside a core, and add AC will have a source of dirt cheap power. Every nation in the world will be in a race not to improve the effect, but to control and utilize it. In my opinion, once the recipe is out it will only take months for a dozen different control methods to be used that allow for very high COP and true self sustain.

          If this is a truly independent test like Rossi claims, then the world will be given the basic formula. It is no different than being given the ability to produce fire, aerodynamic lift, or electricity. The competition will be in utilizing it for countless applications.

    • Hank Mills

      Paul,

      I would like to ask a few questions. If you don’t want to answer some or all of them, please just say so.

      1 – Rossi claims the hot cat can remain stable in the long term at temps of over 1000C. Did the E-Cat get tested at such high temps in the report?

      2 – Was true self sustain mode tested? By that I mean running the E-Cat at a constant or increasing temperature for a period of time with no imput power. In the last report this was not tested.

      3 – Was an analysis on the shape, size, and surface features of the particles of powder performed?

      4 – Was Prof. Ikegami involved in any way with the report?

      5 – How many scientists and engineers have signed onto the report?

      6 – Is a full or partial theory of how the device works included in the report?

  • artefact

    the hot-cat is also an e-cat. He does not write warm e-cat or something else.

    • hempenearth

      Yes, the Hot Cat was officially called E Cat HT last year

  • Ophelia Rump

    I do not think you understand that the numbers are not a prophecy but a current trajectory. Where it is going now and how much damage it would do if no variables changed over a period of time. I am not concerned for myself or you. Just the people of the other half of the planet’s population. I am ignoring the abnormally high mutation rate for the moment.

  • Daniel Maris

    Can’t think why it would be…

  • winebuff

    The thing that is really vexing is that IH still has no website or has ever acknowledged to the public this purchase. If they are so close to putting out a product wouldnt u want to shout it from the mountain top at some point be interviewed by 60 min. The thing is after the report we’ll be in the dark for a long period of time waiting for the crumbs.

    • Yes, this is one thing I don’t understand as well.
      A professional looking website with the typical static corporate content (about us, our aims, our products, imprint blabla) can be done by a webdesigner in a day for 200 – 300 $.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Defkalion’s website ( http://www.defkalion-energy.com/ ) no longer exists. A while ago, they had announced on a single page that they were reorganizing their R&D; later, there was a message “This account has been suspended”, and recently, the provider announced that the website is no longer on their server. (The other options can be ruled out.)

        Apparently, they have also abandoned their headquarters in Glyfada near Athens. That does not look good…

        • Fortyniner

          About the only straw left to grasp at is the remote possibility that a larger entity has acquired DGT’s technology, and perhaps employed some key players, and now wishes to operate in the dark. It should be remembered that Rossi too has left a trail of discarded business debris in his wake.

          In view of the apparently sluggish progress that IH is making, some competition seems essential, even when it’s origins are less than pristine white.

          • this will be the test.
            what is sure is that this group was badly managed, and they committed what cannot be forgiven.
            one hypothesis is they had nothing and prepared to surf on E-cat technology (as Rossi said)… in that case they are bankrupt and at best some lab workers can find a job.
            another hypothesis is that they have something still unusable, in that case they will be recycled, either DGT can became a division of a serious corp (like Cherokee), or the few employees who are clean and competent can be hired to launch a new project.

            I know business groups who simple have nothing else promising lab work and competent researchers and entrepreneurs. having a team of ex-crazy who have experienced some excess heat, may be valuable…

    • ecatworld

      Actually, they did acknowledge the purchase with a press release in January. I would like to see a web site, for sure.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    IH just want to deliver a good product, and for this attitude we should be grateful to them – even if we have to wait somewhat longer. Remember the early versions of Windows? Microsoft made millions by sales, but millions of users felt very unhappy at the same time. The problem is to find the balance between the desired grade of perfection of a new product and the time of market launch. Surely, there are many unknowns in the equation, but I’m confident that Darden & colleagues know what they do.

    Regarding information policy and “open access”: As far as I remember, there has never been a successful “free” product that has been developed without the prior existence of a competing mercantile product. Linux would perhaps not exist, or only in a rudimentary form, if there had been no commercial operating systems which could be taken as an example. (The history of UNIX, the core technology of Linux, is more complex; therefore, I’m not going to refer to it here.)

    Giving away intellectual property may be an option at a certain time, but if it occurs too early it would certainly be counterproductive. Anyhow, in most cases it will happen automatically as soon as the patent rights expire.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I software, the situation might not be as obvious as I wrote, since there are fortunately a lot of useful freeware applications available, partly even together with their source code. But software is a special case, since it can be easily transported. Besides, for its development you need just a computer and an IDE. But from where do you get the computer? Hardware is a different matter, the “open source” idea cannot be simply transferred to it. Surely, it would be nice if we had one day a “Free Cat”, which would be safe and reliable, but simple enough to be built in a garage. But without the professional work of Rossi and others I strongly doubt that we would see it ever.

      • pelgrim108

        There are people doing OS Hardware http://opensourceecology.org/gvcs/

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Nice! I only wonder how they manage the costs. And one should not forget that such a project would not have been possible without the previous achievements of the ‘classical’ industry.

          • pelgrim108

            Open Source Ecology is incorporated as a nonprofit organization.They have volunteers contributing, and are funded by the Shuttleworth Foundation. The basic idea is: Modular DIY open source hardware.
            Here is a nice intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GEMkvT0DEk

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Software is indeed a special case because it’s easy to copy and transport. When I was a doctoral student in early 1990’s, I remember that I didn’t appreciate portability of software at all. I though that I just needed to program THIS computer NOW, so why bother writing portable code, also because the next computer would be completely different anyway. I don’t know if anyone else was that stupid, but if someone was, then it indicates that the idea of software portability leading to the opensource movement was not so self-evident to discover as it sounds nowadays.

        • bachcole

          Anyone with the integrity and humility to be able to call himself “stupid” is my kind of guy. (:->) My expression of stupidity came in the form of thinking that I was not capable.

      • Paul

        I think that one day your Free Cat concept could see the light, for three reasons: also not entering here in details the reactor seems extremely simple, it is hard to protect the IP of a so simple product unless you try to add a fictitious complexity, and I doubt that the most relevant patents will be granted.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Paul, is it a mystery to you (as it is to me) why the 1 MW plant is (in AR’s words) complicated if the individual reactor is simple?

          • Paul

            No, I refer to the single reactor without a sophisticated control system. I cannot be more precise regarding the second part of your question, citing the 1 MW plant, because I do not remember the words you are referring to. However, I guess he refers or to the fact that interfacing an E-Cat to an industrial plant is not so easy the first time or to the fact that a 1 MW system is more complex because it consists of many reactors and of a complex control system for the stability of the reactions.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Thanks, Paul, I’m referring to his statement September 26th, 2014 at 9:31 PM “Steven N. Karels: As you correctly say, it is impossible that an important plant does not
            have an initial period of assessment. Our plant is a very complex thing
            and we are making all the necessary work to deliver it respecting all
            the guarantees we gave to our Customer…”

          • Fortyniner

            I don’t think that physical complexity of the reactors themselves is required – the heat exchanger probably comprises simply a number of reactor casings bolted into a water tank. As Paul says, the complexity is probably in the control system and the switching banks for the heater current.

            If the reactors have complex responses, which may even require mapping for each individual core, the control system will rely on predictive algorithms responding to demand registered at a number of sensors, and modified by programmed-in data on response curves and latency. The heater current switching may also be much more complex than simple on/off, and might involve for instance Variacs with electro-mechanical actuators, or similar arrangements requiring a dedicated sub-controller.

            The operating range of the reactors could be very narrow, and at this stage a complicated balancing act is probably needed to keep things stable in the face of demand that may vary quite suddenly. I suspect that the whole thing is probably a bit of an engineering nightmare in practice.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Apparently, they already have a system that is able to handle a sudden drop in heat demand:

            Q: What would happen if the customer were forced to stop his production suddenly by some reason, so that the 1 MW plant would have to go in idle mode, without prior warning? Is there already a solution for such a scenario?

            AR: Of course. Also is provided a solution in case of malfunction of the 1 MW plant, by means of a back up made using the traditional energy source.

            It would be interesting to know how they exactly withdraw surplus heat. As you say, they might use tanks or external heat sinks. Perhaps they could use even tap water if there is a sufficient flow rate, but the possibility of a breakdown of water supply would imply an additional risk. 1 MW is a lot of power, and I expect the equipment for emergency cooling to be quite big, perhaps bigger than the plant itself.

  • Fortyniner

    At this point it would be very easy to suppress public knowledge of LENR simply by interfering with the internet – something that is within the purview of the alphabet agencies that serve the interests of TPTB. If a few IPs were to be blocked on ‘national security’ grounds, and the search engines subsequently removed all references to the sites concerned, and to associated search terms, the job could be done overnight.

    The fact that it hasn’t, leads me to believe that LENR is to be ‘permitted’ to develop this time around, so long as it is under the control of those whose interests would otherwise be threatened.

    • don’t worry, there are big big corps with defence division, who know LENR exist and want to fund it, develop it…
      beside Toyota, Mitsubishi, Boeing, NI, China/Tianjin…

      today I could relaunch most of what have been done since 25years in 3 years provided someone give me a billion and a good boss. (knowing where to search is enough, a kid of 15 with memory could inspire a corp boss)

  • Andreas Moraitis

    If they have the technology, let’s say, ‘borrowed’ from Rossi, it would be worse, since in this case something might be wrong with both concepts. Especially, there could be an unknown error in the measurement of the electric input. Imagine a reactor that produces some sort of emission which would ‘deceive’ any power meter.

  • Paul

    Today the Italian Nevanlinna has made a sort of scoop, indeeed note the date of 25 Sept and also the following comment by Franco: https://translate.google.it/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cobraf.com%2Fforum%2Ftopic.php%3Ftopic_id%3D5747&edit-text=

    • Daniel Maris

      I think I need a translation of the translation!…what does it all mean? Someone is modifying a patent application on the basis of the successful recent tests? But I can’t make out if it is Rossi’s patent application and what does Rossi v. Piantelli and Rossi mean?

      Can you explain???

      This does indeed look important…maybe justifying its own update, Frank?

      • Paul

        You should remember the previous story. The request of international patent for the E-Cat had been refused in first istance, so Rossi had a period of time for making something against the written motivations behind the refusal, among which there was the fact that some reactions cited in the patent are not occurring if the particle are not strongly accelerated, and so on. So in the document found by Nevanlinna on the patent database, and dated Sept 25, 2014, Rossi’s patent lawyer cites the “results of tests” which “will be available within two months” because they are “pertinent”. Franco, in his comment, observes that the fact the results of these tests are invoked implies that Rossi knows such results and that they are positive, not negative. But this is exactly the opposite of what Rossi has said until a few hours ago. So, everyone is free of making his own idea of how much “third party” should be considered the report.

        • deleo77

          At the least I think it is safe to say that Rossi assumes the report will be released within the next two months, and he assumes that it will be positive, and he would like to use the results of the report as justification for being granted a patent.

          Maybe I am reading too much into Rossi’s comment yesterday, but I do detect a slight shift in tone. Take out the words “I suppose” and you can see that he may start to have some indications about the test results. I’m not sure if Rossi has seen the actual report yet, but I would be willing to bet at this point that the results have been whispered to him by someone close to it.

          Koen Vandewalle:
          The report, I suppose, will define exactly the protocol of the test. I am not allowed to give any related information before the publication.
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.

          • Omega Z

            Which month will be most likely the publication month:
            1- September 2014
            2- October 2014
            3- November 2014
            4- December 2014
            JCRenoir
            ———————————–
            Andrea Rossi . . .September 17th, 2014 at 9:39 AM
            JCRenoir:
            October 2014, I think, but I could be wrong.
            Warm Regards, A.R.

        • Fortyniner

          The idea that Rossi has been kept in the dark about the TIP test results has always been a fiction designed to emphasise the independence of the testers. However what he has said or implied about not having any part in the tests themselves I’m sure is 100% correct.

          If the primary report is to be published soon, then it is reasonable to expect that IH will bang in a rash of patent applications on the back of this. I wonder whether they may have anything else planned for the occasion, as clearly the pilot plant is not ready to feature in any disclosure process. Probably not, I suppose – they seem to be content to move forward one tiny step at a time.

          • Paul

            Good way to emphasize the independence! LOL

          • Pekka Janhunen

            It’s also making a virtue out of necessity: before the journal has accepted the paper for printing, the process is incomplete and in principle no one knows for sure what exactly the published version will say. Only after acceptance Rossi knows what exactly will be published, and the time from acceptance to publishing might be rather short in this case, considering the importance of the paper.

          • if it depend on any one of theose who settle the consensus against cold fusion, no paper will pass whatever it is…

            in that situation they will bet their life and kill their mother to reject it.

            the boss of Enron never sold his equities and get to jail for having committed fraud and fired controllers to hide his bankruptcy. that is structural to groupthink. they can take unimaginable risk to defend their myth, not only committing crimes but also suicide.

            http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf

            only option is to publish where it does not depend on any groupthinked people.

          • Omega Z

            If Rossi admitted to having any idea when the report would be published, He would spend all his time spamming requests about When, When, When will it be published.
            I’m under NDA, I do not know was his only choice even if he new.

        • Daniel Maris

          Thanks Paul, that’s very clear.

          Of course, it might imply he knows the publication date for the results, and possibly has heard something of what the results say, and thus is confident – rather than certain – they will be positive.

          • Paul

            Later, Nevanlinna has posted this link https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP09806118&lng=en&tab=doclist, showing a real patent war between Francesco Piantelli and Rossi, represented respectively in the documents by Silvia Piantelli and EFA. You can find there documents also ten of pages long and a wide scientific literature. So, I think that the main reason for performing a TPR was obtaining the patent, but it seems a battle very hard to win, also because the patent does not contain the catalyzer, which is essential for reproducing the invention.

          • deleo77

            My guess is if IH can pull off the patent with the TIP results as justification then you will see the veil lifted off of IH (website, product demo…). The lack of a patent is keeping them in stealth mode.

            I will go out on a limb and predict that we are going to see the TIP within the next two or three weeks and it will show a COP of 6 running for 6 months. The skeps will find holes in the setup (there is always something) and it will come down to IH’s high priced Manhattan attorneys convincing the patent office that the test was the real deal. What happens there will determine when outsiders get on the factory floor to see the plant.

          • Omega Z

            Recently when asked, Rossi said possibly October with the caveat, I could be wrong. I would be inclined to think he has been given a tentative time frame with it’s own caveat. No guarantee. It’s getting close…

  • Freethinker

    Mr bob-v,

    We don’t forget, but unlike yourself most of us do not read into every detail of what AR says in the JONP comments as the god given truth of what AR intends to do or mean – and so in malice. You rip out one comment and cry WOLF.

    I am sorry bob-v, but you need to face the fact that whatever the report will cover it will be more independent, more detailed, more thorough, covering a substantial time, reviewed by more people, for the report to fly. We know that. IH know that. AR know that. The guys testing his device and writing up the paper/report know that.

    It seems as though you are the only one that do not know that.

    Or do you possible have irrefutable FACTS that show beyond any doubt that AR has attended – as in partaking in – the tests? If so, what has his attendance entailed? Has he had any opportunity to manipulate the testing set up? Do so unseen and unsupervised? Really?

    Do note that Frank did follow up on that :

    Frank Acland
    April 13th, 2014 at 9:10 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    You mention attending the testing for about 30 per cent of its duration. What has been your role as you have been there?
    Many thanks,
    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    April 13th, 2014 at 10:40 PM
    Frank Acland:
    No role in the measurements, just check that the E-Cat was working
    properly, checking the control system, looking at the surface, to be
    sure no cracks emerged, things like these.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    If you do have irrefutable FACTS that show beyond any doubt that AR has been involved in some malicious activity tampering with the tests, then please share, as it would be quite some news.

    Or, perhaps just wait until the actual report is published, like the rest of us, before accusing people of things you clearly have no knowledge about.

    Meanwhile you can, to sooth your worries that this is all a mistake, read the previous test report made by distinguished scientists – they are distinguished by merit of their experiences and achievements in science, regardless of your personal opinion of them – last year, http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913.

  • Omega Z

    bob- We are well aware.
    Rossi’s occasional presence does not negate the independence of the 3rd party test. All testing is being done offsite with Electricity provided by the independent test personnel using their instruments. The entire test was under 24/7 video surveillance & computer monitoring.

    I do find it interesting that naysayers are looking for any little thing to confront the test with. Apparently there lies a fear of it being confirmative of the Rossi effect.

    I also find it interesting that they spend so much time focused on Rossi.
    MEMO: Industrial Heat bought all Right’s(100%) of Andrea Rossi’s E-cat technology. This technology is already being disseminated to other Entities. China connection already public. Others to be revealed in time.

    Rossi is merely the Chief Scientist of the project working with at least a dozen other experts in their field. Noted also that a few outside experts(At least 1 physicist) have been brought in for consultations. Rossi has stated that he is no longer irreplaceable. Just another employee. Interesting after about 1.5 years of full control of E-cats & building them there is no mention that it does not work. Game Over.

    Guess this makes Industrial Heat & Tom Darden the new boogeyman.

    • Daniel Maris

      This is a key factor of course: “All testing is being done offsite with Electricity provided by the independent test personnel using their instruments. ”

      Can you recall where you got that from – I don’t recall that myself.

  • Broncobet

    Lucky man.

  • Broncobet

    What would we do if someone with the authority said “it works” or “it doesn’t work” I mean I spend a lot of time on this site ,reading, typing, we’d need a whole new industry if this one was taken away.

  • Broncobet

    They got $10 million from somebody, evidently someone believes this stuff. I do, kinda.

  • Omega Z

    Yes, Lucky man. But she wont forget, THEY NEVER FORGET. he he he he he ha ha.

  • Omega Z

    bob
    Most of us here are well aware of your points. Or at least should be unless new to the blog.
    As to the IP conflict between A.R. and Piantelli, This is also known.

    I would also point out that in Piantelli’s patent application, It appears he designated a large portion of the Element Table. The appearance of which is like, throw enough at it & maybe something will stick.
    To Our knowledge, Piantelli doesn’t have a device of significance.
    Rossi apparently does.

    Note that I have NO issue’s with Piantelli. This is just a patent fight.
    I’m aware of Piantelli’s efforts as well as many others. One could say Rossi is working on the shoulders of others. True. Same could be said for most all the players in the field.

    Pons & Fleischmann likely the biggest influence for all the known players today. But Note that Pons & Fleischmann were actually influenced by a few others before them spread over decades. Notable evidences discarded in the past. Pons & Fleischmann are notable primarily for the results they achieved. Regardless of what the imbeciles that destroyed them say.

    • Broncobet

      If imbeciles could destroy them with a few words imagine what an intelligent scientist could do.

  • Omega Z

    I would guess that Rossi’s patent device works. Just not to an effective degree without the sauce. There are many others that do as well. Rossi has spoken of at least 2 he knows of on JONP.

    This is no longer about Rossi. It belongs to Industrial Heat.
    Industrial Heat is about business. This is the fastest way to introduce the technology & spread it through out the World. I have no doubt this technology will be licensed all over the world to any who have the technological & financial means to produce it.
    JUST, as soon as it’s ready.

    And with that, you have the most knowledgeable team working on it right now & access to anyone they need. Somethings just take time. There are no shortcuts.
    Competitors. Yes, there are those. Do you think IH/Rossi are setting on their laurels waiting for them to catch up?

    As to Georgehantz, Communist? No. I Think George just sees financial injustice & wants change. Evidence to this is he at times contradicts himself striking out in all directions because he has no answers. Personally, I have never seen the corrupt Capitalism or greedy Corporations he speaks of. Just corrupt greedy people you find dispersed throughout society at all levels. We’re just more aware of those in positions of power.

    “3 to 9 billion$ per DAY”. If your talking about Oil, That has been substantially reduced due to the U.S. increase in Oil & Gas production. Don’t think the UN isn’t aware of this. They’ve requested that the industrial nations add an additional $100 Billion be provided to developing & 3rd World Countries & to substantially increase it every year after. If you don’t buy from them you give it to them anyway. It’s about world wealth redistribution. I’m a teach them to fish person myself.

    But maybe you’re of the opinion that E-cats would power cars. Only by charging the batteries. Otherwise, the number of E-cats required (30+) & additional hardware & still requiring a Tesla battery, the math just doesn’t work. At $5 a gallon gas at 40mpg vehicle would be much cheaper to drive. You should keep in mind, It’s going to take decades to transition to LENR. No matter what anyone does.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The E=Cat would make a fantastic device for De-Icing Highways and clearing snow in snowy climates.

    • pg

      That HAS to be the most important application for it!!!

    • US_Citizen71

      Or better yet as snow melters. In large cities that get deep long lasting snow falls it can quickly become an issue of where to put the plowed snow. Several northern cities have large movable melters that they drop the snow in and then feed the melt into local rivers or sewer systems. Currently they use carbon based fuels to heat them. Here in Denver we had to borrow a few from Chicago one year due to a very cold wet winter. A diesel generator powering several Ecats could likely do the job more economically and without burning as much fuel. You might even be able to make the melters more compact with a larger melting capacity using the Ecats. There is always a need and an use for cheap heat.

      • Omega Z

        You know, If you piped in all the hot air from DC, you cold melt Glaciers in short order.
        Of course that would put an end to the ski resorts.
        Bad Idea, Forget I said anything.

      • Broncobet

        Or what about they boil a kettle of tea, and then do it again an hour later??What do you think is easier, boiling water or a hover craft?

    • melting snow an ice is not the best solution, as when re icing things get worse, and heat used is huge.

      my best vision is google-car-snow-cleaner for the street and the pavement.

      • Omega Z

        How about hover vehicles & both snow & Ice are not a problem..

        • possible, however I suspect that walk will be a solution for the future, even if some technology will help. (the Lindy effect).

  • Gerrit

    When the report is negative, but Rossi would continue to improve the ecat. It would basically become an invest-research-invest-research-ad-inf never ending story.

    • Ophelia Rump

      We all know it is beyond that stage now. It is best to demonstrate the product as practical. They could sell the individual working reactors as parts for other products or just license the technology, and they would be better off doing so eventually, but at the beginning, it is better to demonstrate the new reality first.

      If they started by selling as reactors for manufacturing purposes, it would take a longer to generate interest. It would take time for customers to integrate the technology and retool.

    • Daniel Maris

      I will be very, very surprised if the report is negative. None of the indications so far suggest it will be.

      As to how the pilot installation is going, I would suggest we know hardly anything about that yet.

      • Freethinker

        The scenario Gerrit is pointing out is a most unwelcome one, I am sure.

        And I agree that the report will come as positive, one way or another. There is ofcourse the question about the mercantile qualities of the current design, how well it performs etc. We now nothing of that and what the pilot is made of and what is its intended use.

        The bummer would be if the report is CONCEIVED as being NOT ENOUGH POSITIVE, whilst AR having serious problems with the pilot. This would discourage investors, not opening the door to the public, and be a major pain in the aft compartment for AR. This is a possible scenario and similar to what Gerrit allude to, even though the test report is positive in a general sense – as in, there is an effect.

        But people: He has got the goods. It has already been proven. It is a matter of R&D. Product development. In the end he will get there. If Darden, McDonough et.al. are in this for the duration, they will stick to AR and IH will persevere.

    • winebuff

      The big question I have will rossi ever see the ecat running in a factory looped with other ecats known to the world and get his just due? He will be an historic figure hope this moves quickly enough for him to see it.

  • Fortyniner

    Nice idea, but Rossi’s comments make it clear that the pilot plant has been installed alongside an existing (gas?) boiler which supplies simple process heat, i.e., hot water or LP steam.

    • Daniel Maris

      I would suggest food processing is a likely first use – where they use a lot of hot but not superhot water.

      • JDM

        Perhaps a crystallizer for salts?

  • Daniel Maris

    I don’t think Rossi is an angel of truth, but the statements are not necessarily contradictory.

    You could in effect have two teams – one managing the device (under Rossi’s general supervision and with him visiting frequently to make sure everything is going OK) and one (the test team) measuring inputs and outputs, checking for fraud and studying the residues.

    They may be interacting, but there is no reason to suppose the test team were supplying Rossi with details of the results.

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    Control Systems are a very complex thing, even for well know science.

    • Broncobet

      Yes ,complex like flipping a light switch or turning up the gas,even increasing the flux in a nuclear reactor, all pretty simple.But for the Ecat yes they will never figure that out.

  • adriano

    I don’t understand why nobody consider the fact that the report coul be negative. If it will be positive many people around the world will start to invest in lenr, and that is what everyone think is going to happen. But the real question is: what happen if it will be negative? (sorry for the grammar)

    • winebuff

      The only negative would be the lack of a high enough cop for industrial use

      • right.
        it would be negative for rossi, but not for the current and potential competitors.
        as if usain Bolt was sick at Olympic games.

        • Fortyniner

          The difference is that CF doesn’t yet have such a ‘track record’, and there is no doubt that a low COP would be a setback for CF technology. Even so, any statistically significant COP in excess of 1 would show yet again that there is energy to be harvested, and new science to be pursued. A high COP however will be the starting gun for a hidden rush to grab a piece of this tech, on the part of both developers and corporations.

          • GreenWin

            “Hidden stampede…?” Your namesake suggests it may not be very well hidden: http://bit.ly/1xKogZw

          • Fortyniner

            LOL! $100k in 1949 money would probably be enough to buy an e-cat now..

    • Ophelia Rump

      The last report was proof of concept enough to satisfy the testers. This report is a hardcore evaluation, enough to publish the launch of new science, against the stream of conventional wisdom.

    • Broncobet

      Thank you Adriano, you and I are like a voice crying out in the wilderness but like Pandora, even though we see the future, the public(readers of this blog) will never believe us. If the report is negative, at least we will know that Andrea Rossi is a very honest man, I don’t think he’s THAT honest ,and the report will be positive, but what will that mean? Very little. No hint of a theory,not published in place of any repute, no peer review, and definitly, no way for others to reproduce it. A tour of the working ecat will always be six months in the future.

      • C. Kirk

        So in other words you are saying if the report is positive it shows that Rossi has duped the scientists again or they’re incompetant or just part of the scam? Oh, please…. I suggest you reread Frank’s Why I believe in the E-Cat at the top of the page…..

        • please don’t ridicule that (broken) logic, it is published by top DoE adiviser Huizenga:

          “Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat.”

          – Huizenga

          http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

          Huizenga, J.R., Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century. second ed. 1993, New York: Oxford University Press.

    • bachcole

      I don’t consider that the report will be negative for so many reasons that I just hope to get a few of them down. If by “negative” you mean not yet commerce ready, then that might happen. If by “negative” you mean no excess heat, the first test already proved that there was plenty of excess heat. Also, the test and the report preparation phase is continuing, so it must be positive is some sense. Rossi is excited, so it is probably positive in the commerce ready sense.

  • GreenWin

    The operative word here is, clearance.

    • Fortyniner

      Conditional clearance, though. Conditional upon monopoly control.

      • GreenWin

        Considering the historical SPAWAR role and Rossie “carrier” statements…

  • Jonnyb

    Yeh sound like some kind of Military or government Clearance. NASA?

    • Ophelia Rump

      Practitioners of the dark arts.

  • Broncobet

    That is funny,people are so sensitive.Of course ,not that it makes any difference, but of course we know you’re 100% right.

  • Obvious

    It seems to me to be the right word, considering the secretive nature of the device’s operation controls, and the fact that it is in a industrial situation, with it’s own levels of proprietary (production methods? etc) secrets.

  • Omega Z

    My 2 cents.
    The word “Clearance” would be those cleared by IH/Rossi & associates as in people they trust to maintain a NDA and also not run off & start developing their own LENR project.

  • Ophelia Rump

    That’s great! Very creative thinking. I do not like the pollution potential, but you could actually use it to pump petro back into the earth for sequestration That would be a hoot.

  • Sanjeev

    That was fast!
    The one year time was probably for allowing the public to visit the plant, not for solving the problems. Blame it on bad English.

    • Ophelia Rump

      The public will never visit that plant. That was never going to happen. Rossi has made that much clear.

      • winebuff

        This tech will get buried by the powers that be

        • hempenearth

          The Chinese won’t go along with that

          • Broncobet

            The Chinese are wisely pursuing advanced nuclear power.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Yes, Rossi has said that there will be visits, but by invitation, not free E-cat tourism.

        • Heath

          I would imagine that it would be comparable to how Google has handled visits of the Bloom Energy Servers that have been in use on their campus in Mountain View, CA. Probably very limited. I can imagine that Rossi’s customer does not see its manufacturing plant as a theme park, so wide open public viewing is probably not in the cards. It would be great if IH would set up its own public demo plant in Raleigh.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Rossi had been asked about automated fabrication shortly before the “problems” affair and as far as I remember he answered that it would take one year to reach that point. So I interpret his later statement about a one-year-period with relation to this. Manual or half-automated production of additional plants could begin earlier.

    • Jonnyb

      Why is it the fault of the English? sorry bad English I miss understood.

      • Fortyniner

        All English are bad – at least in the movies.

        • GreenWin

          Kindly explain that to Ms. Julie Andrews.

          • Fortyniner

            OK – with the possible exception of Ms. Goody Twoshoes Andrews. But maybe she pulls the wings off flies when no-one is looking – we English have a reputation to live down to.

  • Christopher Calder

    What any of us know about all of this, Rossi/Industrial Heat, known competitors, and other unnamed parties working on LENR, is like a tip of an iceberg. You can see traces of events and situations that would suggest layers of activity that we know nothing about. This is a poker game, and figuring out what is a bluff, what is real, what is hope, and what is fact, is difficult. I don’t think the downturn in oil prices has anything to do with LENR, but rather the world economic slump. But, I do think there is allot going on in the way of corporate activity that remains secret because of the taboo against “COLD FUSION”, that dreaded nightmare term. The day that taboo vanishes, and I think it will vanish quickly, we will find out allot about the history of events that have occurred without us knowing a thing about them.

    • I agree this is an iceberg and even in the shallow water around there is visible revolution… finance is unaware of it, or the effect would be huge.

      however i don’t think it is a poker game with players hiding information to make a surprise…
      It is more like shy teenagers knowing the water is warm but who are afraid that the (academic) girls around ridicule their naked body take away their pants to dip.

      • Broncobet

        Finance is aware of everything and has a probability on all,including alien invasion of giant ants or the EmDrive, the number one thing they know is all potential energy sources.People counting on CF or wind or solar are doing the bidding of the coal and gas barrons keeping the only clean, safe, affordable, energy, nuclear power, out of the picture.

    • Broncobet

      You are correct on oil prices. Instead of an iceberg a more apt analogy would be cloud,as there is way more appearing than any substance. BTW Tomorrow is my guess for the report and beyond all comprehension they are going to merrily skip right past it.If not tomorrow I’ll make my next guess for Oct 5 2015.

  • pg

    For sure he likes to play with his audience…

    • Fortyniner

      Or perhaps the situation simply changes from day to day – just as it does for most engineering R&D.

      • Broncobet

        No, pg has insight.

  • Jonnyb

    I believe the best scenario is a very positive report in a highly respected journal, followed very quickly by a genuine demonstration of a working plant. Maybe this will be possible now.

  • JCRenoir
    October 2nd, 2014 at 12:09 PM

    Andrea, now the rumors that the report id very close are becoming loud. Are you hearing any whisper of it?

    JCR

    Andrea Rossi
    October 2nd, 2014 at 3:34 PM

    JCRenoir:
    I too hear the rumors: you said that come from 100 Harley Davidsons, I take act of what you say.

    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Is this the hint??

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I don’t think it’s a hint of COP because JCRenoir asked two questions, in the first of which he brought up the number 100. I think Rossi answered to that one.

      • I tought that the “I too hear the rumors” means that he knows as well that report is coming shortly.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Yes, that might well be the case.

      • Anon2012_2014

        Rossi on JONP is like the old ELIZA AI (m-x doctor in EMACS) — it parrots back whatever question is sent to Rossi with a twist:

        Rossi/ELIZA Simulation: I am the psychotherapist. Please, describe your problems. Each time you are finished talking, type RET twice.

        Me: When do you expect testing to be completed on the 1 MW plant?

        Rossi/ELIZA: Why do you say that?

        Because that is a material question.

        Rossi/ELISA: Is it because is a material question that you came to me?

        What do you think of Parkhomov?

        Rossi ELIZA: Earlier you said is a material question?

        Parkhomov — the man you said could not catch you?

        Maybe your life has something to do with this.

  • Joseph j

    I know Rossi lives in FL but, if Rossi here meant that he also works in
    FL, the customer might be a desalination business? Poseidon?

    Andrea Rossi
    October 1st, 2014 at 7:48 PM
    Andre Blum:
    I am always in the USA, mainly in North Carolina and in Florida, focused on my work for Industrial Heat and IH’s Customer.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • GreenWin

    And the operative expression *here* is, “work of art.” Indeed, the challenge in this drama is only 50% technical. The other half is political. It takes a remarkable team to sort out the political and technical issues. Damned impressive.

  • Broncobet

    Or could it be that they stole all the info there was which was zero?

  • LuFong

    Given all the changes, maybe someone should ask whether the 1 year period has started (and when)? (I would but my questions are spammed),

    • Ophelia Rump

      Somewhere around last June. At that time Rossi was talking about the work of the installation and issues they were facing. I assume that the reactor was operational at the time or could not have been having issues.

      Back then Rossi had hoped they would be having tours in 2014 but that got pushed out until the customer has a solid year of operation. I expect the customer was pressing IH hard for swift satisfaction. Either that or someone from sales and marketing laid out the cold hard facts of business life in no uncertain terms. So expect the one year mark triggered events to start happening in late spring early summer.

      • Omega Z

        I’m thinking they didn’t start the clock until it had already been in operation for a couple months. I assume there would be some major issues initially to resolve before settling in to a routine. So it could have started about October. Pray nothing happens that starts a reset.

  • Who’s Orsobubu?

  • Ophelia Rump

    It is certainly interesting that they have refit the customer installation with upgrade Cats.
    I presume that they have done this without shutting down, a rolling reactor replacement is quite an accomplishment.

    • BroKeeper

      And to test individual prototypes with an industrial load. Smart.

    • Ronzonni

      Yes. Especially with the very complex control system Rossi talked about. Does that have to be reprogrammed after every new upgrade?

      • Omega Z

        Each reactor has it’s own individual computer control module under a Master CPU. So that would not be much of a problem. There’s also extra reactor modules that can be put in operation while 1 is taken off line.

        • Fortyniner

          Upgrading the control system would be a relatively trivial task if each PLC carries identical program data, but not if each one has to be matched to its reactor by entering reactor-specific values.

    • William D Fleming

      It might not be all that hard if the cells were designed for easy replacement. Smaller pressure chambers make a lot of sense. I suppose the new smaller ones must have the same sensors and heating coils as the old so that reprogramming is probably minimal. Sounds like the system can run indefinitely just by changing out the cells. Just speculating of course. I wonder if I drove up there they’d let me see the thing. How about it Signor Rossi?

    • LilyLover

      I’m sure: Self maintaining machines of the “Forbidden Planet” is Rossi’s inspiration and goal and I have enough faith that he’ll succeed 99.99% in doing that. Simply wish that others don’t get ourselves extinct before then.

  • Bernie777

    This might be a little off subject but could the “Hydrogen Society” become a competitor of IH/Rossi? Toyota opens the door to this possibility by opening up their fuel cell patents.

    http://www.gizmag.com/toyota-opens-fuel-cell-patents-to-drive-hydrogen-society/35453/

  • ecatworld

    Two quick questions if you don’t mind.

    a) You said your team was able to reduce the volume of reactors — did they have to shut down the plant to make this change?

    b) When did the 1 year test begin.
    Andrea Rossi

    January 8th, 2015 at 11:53 AM

    Frank Acland:
    As you know, I cannot give information about the operation of the plant, nor about its timing. Due information will be given only when the tests will have been completed.
    The reduction of the volume of the reactors is not necessarily made when the plant is shut down, because the reactors can be worked on separately, while the others are in operation.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Ronzonni

      I can not understand why Rossi refuses to give information which would interest millions, give them some hope and would harm no one. I also have to wonder why after many years of work and finally, with good funding, so much effort is concentrated in one plant and one customer. There are so many unnecessary mysteries with Rossi.

      • Omega Z

        Because to much info brings to much scrutiny & nuisance interference. Rossi has also said on JONP that he doesn’t want to give information that could prove wrong at a latter time. People use this against him in their attacks.

        As to “so much effort is concentrated in one plant and one customer”
        Huge difference between Lab work & a Product under actual working conditions in a customers facilities. What works well in the Lab may totally fail in the real world.
        I’ve witnessed this on a Grand Scale. A $5 million dollar piece of scrap.

        • Fortyniner

          I hope you managed to successfully scapegoat an underling or outside contractor!

    • LuFong

      Well if this is anything like the 6 month test that lasted 32 days and took a year we could be in for a long wait.

      You can be sure that IH is trotting investors through the plant as we speak though. My hunch is the customer is outed before the “year” is up.

  • georgehants

    Not at all like you Roger Bird, or do you need to re-read your above comment to convince yourself.
    Like myself who you continually misinterpret and insult to suit your own crude views.
    Many of us just say, that many things can be improved and put up Evidence to show the faults.
    Any half-wit can call anybody names without Evidence, like a silly little child.
    Please stop giving your silly “opinions” and start putting up Evidence every-time you speak against others, to make your point.
    And please try replying to what people actually say and not your made-up version that comes from your seeming inability to read and comprehend.
    Or are you just trying to impress the cheap-seat peanut gallery?
    I apologise if you have dyslexia or some other inhibiting ailment. please let me know if you have and I can allow for your limitations.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    what the heck is Orsobubu?

    “I must add, under the permanent direction of Orsobubu, that the final output could be positive, but also negative.”

    • Chris, Italy

      Yogi’s smaller companion. Orso is Italian for bear and bubu is the way of spelling boo-boo over here.

      • EEStorFanFibb

        LOL

  • Ted-X

    Several “proved non-replications” may lead to a dismissal of a patent. Patents by definition need to be replaceable.

    • Ted-X

      Correction: Patents MUST BE REPLICABLE.

  • TomR

    Don’t be so hard on Orsobubu.

  • LilyLover

    A political system that abdicates responsibility of currency and credit manufacturing to private interests, is destined to fail under any banner.

  • Rossi’s competitive spirit might be his downfall. A dark horse like Alexander Parkhomov may get the hero’s reward.

  • Frechette

    Update #12 should have a date Jan. 8 2015. Yes or no?

  • Bernie777

    Is it possible the “customer” plant is using the E-Cat to produce Hydrogen via steam reforming?

  • Chris, Italy

    Mañana, mañana, siempre que dice mañana, esto…

  • Gerard McEk

    I would not be surprisied that during the year 2015 IH will be pushed by other developments and/or compitition and decides to enter the commercial phase.

    • Fortyniner

      I sincerely hope that is the case. If Rossi’s suggested schedule is a ‘best case’ scenario, I hate to think what the worst case might be.

      This technology is not some new way of making light bulbs – it is at least as important as the invention of steam power or the transistor, and deserves to have huge resources thrown at its development. One small test reactor feeding into someone’s production system for a year or more simply doesn’t cut it by a country mile. I have to admit that if this recent statement is not some kind of subterfuge, that I am rapidly losing any remaining faith in IH’s stewardship of e-cat technology.

  • Ged

    Minor error in the update title; should be Jan 2016 rather than Dec 2016 (I hope that wasn’t a prophetic slip!). Really worried me for a moment, as that’s a big window for a “best case”, heh!

    • ecatworld

      lol — thanks Ged. My mistake, which I’ve fixed now.

  • Jimr

    confusion, headline states Nov 15-Dec 16, Rossi’s statement. StatesNov 15 to Jan 16?

  • Masterlock2020

    I can’t believe how little has changed in the Rossi saga. Still talk of anonymous “customers,” 3rd party testing, etc. Yet nothing TRULY verifiable. And this is after how many years? I’ll believe this the day I see it in the news.

  • jousterusa

    Who is Orsobubu? Bubu Bear?

  • Another year to wait. Let’s hope MFMP is doing it in the meantime. Then IH can’t relaxe on their one single plant.

    • artefact

      I don’t think it will get too boring this year.

      • there is a quote I’ve read that people over estimate what they can do in 1 year and under estimate what they can do in a decade.

        this year it will probably advance, but noit be the revolution.
        but the revolution that people estimate to take 20-40 years will take 10-15 years

        see what happened with Internet and mobile.
        in 1993 came the web… I was there, nobody cared.
        in 2000 it was a bubble. in 2005 it have disintegrated many business model (eg: travel agencies). today it is heart of most business and at least required.

    • It has the feel now of a controlled roll out. Collecting an entire year of data on one plant before doing anything else seems overly cautious. I mean, if any of us had a ground-breaking technology and knew it worked and would solve a whole host of problems as well as make us buckets of money, would we let it drip-drip-drip or would we be everywhere with it, licensing it for dozens of vertical markets, informing government officials and extolling its virtues in the media.

      They could be pumping out thousands of working reactors and selling them to industries who know what they’re doing instead of messing around with engineering megawatt plants.

      Instead we have a very suspicious and interestingly timed major decline in oil prices and near silence from all those involved. We know the US government has been involved and is aware of this technology. I don’t want to go all conspiracy theory, but the behavior of Industrial Heat is consistent with being a good commercial citizen in the controlled introduction of a black swan technology in order to mitigate its negative effects.

      • Fortyniner

        If such a controlled introduction really is being carried out at a level that is able to seriously depress oil prices as a part of a strategic plan, then the game is being played well above the pay grade of a relatively tiny organisation such as Cherokee.

        That could only mean a sell-out to PTB, and full involvement by the existing energy cartels and their government proxies. This would almost certainly imply the formation behind the scenes of a world monopoly designed to ensure minimal damage to assets and profit flow, and the effective continuation of the status quo ante. That would not be particularly good news for anyone hoping for an energy (and political) revolution I think.

        • Yeah I agree but that’s what it’s starting to look like.

          Another scenario is that Industrial Heat really are on their own, not being shepherded by bigger entities, and are mismanaging the situation. Or have run into some issues that they are having trouble solving and are too paranoid about losing the IP to take a broader approach.

          After all the connections that we *know* exist though I find that harder to believe than the technology’s introduction is being managed collectively by the many interested parties at a high level.

          It should not surprise us that “money” is in charge. If there is anything that “money” knows it is how to protect itself and make more. Thinking they are unaware of its existence or importance is naive, I think.

        • Bernie777

          Unless IH has always been the US government. I have stated my conspiracy theories many times here, everything to me points to a government or very large entity, or both, trying to control LENR. We are seeing, an attempted, slow and controlled roll out of LENR to avoid destructive economic disruptions, with the large money interests smiling all the way to their banks.

          • bachcole

            Bernie, no offence intended, but when I hear about such ideas, and fear that the thinker of such ideas may have a mental defect. Seriously. Perhaps this means that I have a mental defect.

            Why isn’t there ever a conspiracy to do good? Why is it always bad?

          • Fortyniner

            Roger, your Pavlovian responses to any suggestion that people of power might actually conspire together is so predictable it is becoming very tedious. Perhaps you should indeed examine your own ‘mental defects’ before directing your pop psychology at others. No offense intended.

          • bachcole

            I examine my mental processes every day. I doubt that most people do. I doubt that conspiracy theorists do.

          • Fortyniner

            I wonder if you are really qualified for that particular job?

          • bachcole

            I know that you are trying to be funnily insulting. I do not take or feel offence because the truth is that no one is qualified to examine and correct their own mental processes. So comparing one’s mental processes with an ideal is the ONLY way to freedom and sanity. Reading scriptures, prayer, meditation, and selfless service are avenues to mental and spiritual health, for EVERYONE. Everything else is either stagnation or fretful confusion.

          • Fortyniner

            You are clearly a paragon of virtue that I could never emulate. I’ll just get back to my confused fretting.

          • Bernie777

            The answer to your first question is probably yes, you do have a mental defect. The answer to your second question, why there no conspiracies to do good, conspiracies are made to “corner a market” usually to gain money and power. No offence intended.

          • bachcole

            “Conspiracy theories” are not limited to cornering a market. There is a conspiracy theory that human beings didn’t really walk on the moon. There are too many conspiracy theories not associated with cornering a market to list, like who killed Kennedy.

            Could you please describe to me what my mental defect is, other than not agreeing with you and not imagining evil unicorns ruling the world.

          • Bernie777

            Dear bachcole, there is a reason I put quotation marks around the words, “corner the market”.

          • Omega Z

            bachcole
            Why isn’t there ever a conspiracy to do good?
            There are so-called conspiracies with good intent. Good intentions don’t always turn out well.

            I come upon an accident. Your setting there bleeding & shivering. It’s very cold out so I wrap you in a warm blanket. I couldn’t in good conscience just watch you freezing there. Little did I know that by warming you up, you would bleed out faster & die before the ambulance arrived. A good intention gone terribly wrong.

            Many of the so-called conspiracies people rant about are of good intentioned people who “Think” they know whats best for others. They usually don’t know squat.

          • bachcole

            Excellent presentation. Could you mention one of the well intentioned conspiracies? Could AGW be one of those well intentioned conspiracies?

          • Omega Z

            AGW is a mixed bag of worms. Following the UN agenda, A portion of the carbon taxes is meant for wealth redistribution(100’s of Billions a year). Tho I disagree with such schemes, this could be considered good intention.

            Following the 3rd world countries & Island nations political rantings on where is THEIR money & you can rest assured, 80% of this money will never reach the intended purposes with a wink & nod from those in the UN.

            From there it goes bad. Elitists Like Al Gore upset because others are gaming what they thought was the perfect Cap & Trade schemes of money for nothing without risk. Vegan support trying to force all others to submit to a vegan lifestyle. Elitists trying to force the commons from the beaches to make way for the rich & famous along with Corporate beach front resorts & on & on.

            Note in the truest sense, Conspiracies are usually without evidence, tho in the above the evidence is available for those who dig a little.

          • bachcole

            When I think of conspiracies, I think of deception and collaboration. I doubt if they said, “We don’t actually believe this AGW garbage, but this is how we are going to fool the public and we will make a ton of money from it and have really cool beach front homes too.” I don’t see that. I see a bunch of people individually believing in AGW and coincidentally being able to make money off of it.

          • that is a good description of groupthink, or similar.

            people are sincere, they lie to themselves, and they optimize their self manipulation for their economic interest (economic sometime involving moral asset like glory, self-esteem, being funded even if not better paid).

          • Fortyniner

            In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.

            From the ‘Club of Rome’ publication, The First Global Revolution, 1990.

            This organization outlined how they would manufacture ecological scares in order to manipulate the public into accepting the imposition of a dictatorial world government run by them. One of many similar – see http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html.

          • Omega Z

            In shorthand, You could just post-
            I’m more then Qualified to determine whats best for you…
            The New World Order- The Nanny State

            Note that this is a Societal Issue. There is no shortage of unqualified people(Friends, Family, Strangers, Etc…) who will tell you whats best for you. The difference between them & the so-called PTB is, TPTB have both Money & Power to try and implement their beliefs. No matter how misguided they may be.

          • bachcole

            Although 49er just convinced me that conspiracies are very likely and probably certain, I don’t think that they can do that with cold fusion, because:

            1. They are already doing it to cold fusion and have been doing it for the past 26 years.

            2. The Internet

      • Omega Z

        LENR G
        “Collecting an entire year of data on one plant before doing anything else seems overly cautious.” I don’t think so.

        This is R&D. No one is going to produce 1000’s of these before the parameters of control are reasonably known. The Pilot plant is to obtain and/or enhance that knowledge base of controlling multiple reactors simultaneously.

        You suggest putting this in the hands of those “who know what they’re doing”. Who would you suggest. It’s already in the hands of the most qualified people there is. Rossi & his team. Where did this team come from?

        “Putting this in the hands of others would just be a delay. They would likely spend a couple years with Ross’s help just analyzing it & ultimately, They too would setup a Pilot plant & run it for at least a year.” The whole purpose of a Pilot Plant is to prove out a concept. To validate it before production begins. Consider this a Beta product.

        You appear to think the Pilot plant is a waste of time. To the Contrary, Everything else Rossi has done has been leading up to this. This Is The Money Shot.

        NOTE: Industrial Heat has a mailing address & a phone number. Cherokee manages 2 Billion in investments. However, Industrial Heat has NADA, Nothing. It consists of a dozen Entities of which only 2 names are known. Who are the unknown entities. GE, Siemens, B&W, Duke Energy…

        INDUSTRIAL HEAT. It is a Front Company.
        Those you want to become involved in E-cat, May Already Be Involved. Likely the Providers of facilities & the people of expert skills on Rossi’s team.

        Hmmm. Maybe Rossi did put this in the hands of others? The “Industrial Heat Front” has spent a couple years just analyzing it with Rossi’s help & ultimately, setup a Pilot plant to run for at least a year.

  • David_Kaiser_39

    I have been running around for more than one year trying to convince people of something. People with money and therefore power. But I cannot state personally that all our energy problems might be solved and therefore will not be convincing. The only way I can see to get the prove is to request the detailed items list from MFMP and build that thing by my own. Once they have proved the excess heat.

    • Fortyniner

      I gave up trying to persuade anyone about cold fusion some time ago, when it became apparent that there would be no commercial products available until some time during 2015 at the earliest. As this point now seems to be drifting inexorably towards 2017 or later, I would be even less likely to mention e-cats to anyone these days.

      With this latest projection from Rossi, I believe that independent replication of the ‘hot cat’ is probably now the only way in which the technology will become available to the public within any reasonable time frame. While they may have made great technical progress on one reactor design, it seems to me that IH are failing dismally to bring to bear R&D resources that match the world’s desperate need for this technology.

      If MFMP succeed in building a viable HT nickel hydride reactor which produces incontrovertible energy gain, you won’t need to build one yourself as the know-how will quickly spread via the internet, and shortly afterwards every appliance manufacturer and unemployed engineer in the world will begin offering their versions.

      • I agree. I gave it up too. And if you mention the keywords “Rossi” or “e-cat” you make it even worse. People will google it and find a lot of pathosceptic stuff.

        And of course, also we, as followers of this technology can only hope that Rossi has what he says. All this vagueness in the two released “independent” reports do still leave room for fraudulence. Also when more and more signs seem to support Rossi’s claims.

        • Fortyniner

          I don’t doubt the reality of the e-cat, or the various test results, but I do think that Rossi may currently be dispensing limited partial truths, deliberately designed to mislead.

          In a way I hope that he is, because if you take recent pronouncements at face value it would be very easy to become quite depressed. As OZ says below, it simply makes no sense at all for IH to – in effect – put commercial development of a multi-billion dollar discovery on hold, pending a full year’s worth of data from a single pilot installation. Nor would it make sense to halt work on the ‘gas cat’ and a variety of other possible embodiments pending this data, so we can probably assume that this is not the case. Again, I hope so, as to do otherwise would demonstrate that IH are the wrong people to manage the job.

          If things are not as they seem though, this obviously begs the question of what, exactly, is going on. In the almost total absence of any clues, OZ’s suggestions below seem as good as any.

    • bachcole

      David, you will be able to show people if this works out.

  • Private Citizen

    And after one year, if the goal posts don’t move even farther into the future, skeps and investors will have far less reason to believe the secret industrial customer’s claims of energy gain than the Elforsk experiments conducted under rigorous laboratory conditions with all data published. They will claim the customer is lying with financial motive. We will arrive back nearly at square one.

    If Rossi’s strategy is to appear to the world sufficiently dubious and tottering as to cleverly advance his technology while others snooze, well he’s succeeding grandly.

    We live in a world of exponential technological advancement. Another year is an eternity. I’m rooting for anything that brings final proof or invalidation faster.

    • Zizzle

      I agree that waiting each day is harder. Ever since the Lugano report…

      I think it all boils down to proof over potential. Unlike hot fusion, which sits atop a pedestal made of sunlight (talk about boundless potential), LENR started life on the ground floor and then was shoved into the basement. Very likely, there will be no mainstream peer review or billionaire’s attention until an LENR developer is profiting from the use of such a system.

  • malkom700

    This shocking information without explanation suggests that it is necessary to start the IH communication also for the receive first hand information.

    • this let room for competitors, but also pressure to go fast.
      If competitors propose some technology mature like E-cat today (independent test) while IH get commercial, there will be some actors who bet on competitors, waiting a little.

      if IH is alone, it will be a monopoly

    • ecatworld

      Rossi has been talking about a 1 year testing period for quite a long time now. This is the first time he has mentioned actual dates, though. So this isn’t really shocking to me — but it does mean that 2015 may not be the year of the E-Cat.

      • Fortyniner

        I think that some of the dismay that a few contributors are expressing may stem from two main causes:

        (1) The fact that the ‘1 year’ clock seems to be subject to reset, for reasons that are never explained (not that we are due any explanations). The wait for significant developments therefore becomes indefinite, as further unexplained resets can be introduced at any time, and,

        (2) The lack of any suggestion that anyone outside the IH loop will be allowed to visit the pilot plant during testing, as Rossi seemed to be promising at one point. Others may well have other expectations that it seems will not now be met, and a few of us are beginning to suspect that IH may be far from the top of a developing food chain.

        Taken together, it seems fairly clear that, despite Rossi’s regular cheerleading, the whole project has in fact disappeared behind IH’s closed doors, and there is a complete embargo on any real news that AR is forced to observe. As I myself have pointed out on many occasions, we are not entitled to know anything about how and when e-cat reactors will finally see the light of day, but up until recently we have at least had some information to examine and chat about.

        From now on I fear that we are all just rather pointlessly whistling in the dark, and will not learn much more until the rest of the world does – and that we may not much like the news when we receive it.

        • ecatworld

          Rossi has always said that visitors from the media would only be able to visit the site after they considered the plant ‘consolidated’ — i.e. running satisfactorily for an appropriate amount of time from their perspective. At one point, he was saying that visiting time would be in 2014.

          It seems they ran into unforeseen problems once they put the plant under load that has led to a lot of rejigging — I think maybe the control system needed a lot of work, and that has set the project back by a year, at least.

          I don’t think they will open the doors until they are fully satisfied that this is a stable and profitable plant because they don’t want to risk an embarrassing, or potentially devastating PR disaster.

          Also, as soon as they unveil the plant, I think the competition will really start up, and an early sneak peek would alert potential competitors. Maybe also the track record they can accumulate during this testing period will help them with their patent application.

          I think it’s an understandable strategy from IH’s point of view, but it doesn’t seem so satisfying to us on the outside!

          • bachcole

            A voice of sanity in a room full of whining, complaining, and conspiracy theories.

        • bachcole

          And which part of your mental processes decided that “we may not much like the news when we receive it”. That strikes me as a psychological predisposition to see things in a bad light. I get that not at all. All I see is an annoying delay; everything else is speculation.

          And we still have Parkhomov/MFMP. I.H. and Rossi may regret that they are taking so long.

          • Fortyniner

            I would prefer it if you would try to keep your analyses of other posters’ mental state out of the discussion. Generally they probably tell readers more about your own psychological state than that of your targets. Regarding the phrase you quote, I would have thought that the meaning was quite clear. I will elaborate anyway.

            There seems to be an implicit assumption here, fostered by a number of Rossi’s comments, that domestic e-cats are ready for production and the only thing that is hindering this is lack of safety certification. The expectation of some is therefore that once the ‘pilot plant’ has demonstrated safety in principle, production will commence and the world will change forever, and for the better.

            I am simply pointing out that things may not pan out that way, and such hopes may be dashed. Whether or not I personally expect such an outcome is irrelevant – I put forward such a possibility in the interests of balance.

            What if (for instance) the flow of vague information from JONP slowly dries up, and one day when the obvious blackout has become rather embarrassing, comments are closed because Rossi ‘needs to devote all his time to perfecting the industrial heaters’ or similar. There then follows a year or so of total silence, before General Electric (or Westinghouse, or Siemens, or…) announce that they have closed deals with a dozen governments for supply of a new type of clean, safe nuclear reactor they have developed, and that these will replace the current nuclear fission ‘fleet’ over the next decade or two.

            The implications of such news would be fairly obvious: Central power generation to continue – you will still need to buy metered electricity from your existing supplier; The label ‘nuclear’ will mean a total monopoly and suppression of any competition; No domestic e-cats for the forseeable future; Business as usual for the energy cartels.

            I wouldn’t like to wake up to such news and I’m sure that many others here wouldn’t either. It would mean that our future has been stolen – a fait accompli. And all that is required for this scenario to be come more or less inevitable is for IH to sell out to a multinational corporate concern – a development with (IMO) a fairly high probability.

    • What global warming?
      Nothing significant in temperature change for 18 years.
      Still I would like to see some form of LENR product soon.

      • malkom700

        I would be glad if this would be important, but unfortunately during the Arctic and termafrost melts and warming seas. The atmospheric temperature is likely to grow by sudden therefore we have already prepared a spacesuits.

        • Fortyniner

          Please look at the facts, rather than the agenda driven propaganda produced by Pachouri, Jones, Harrabin, Suzuki, Mann et al.

          http://www.climatedepot.com

          • malkom700

            Please look at the calculations, rather than the “facts”.
            http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/4039

          • Fortyniner

            Ken Caldeira (along with his close associate, David Keith) is a major advocate of geoengineering or ‘solar radiation management’ through stratospheric dispersal of various chemicals from aircraft, aka ‘chemtrails’. He is an ex-lead author for the IPCC – the hub of most of the climate scare stories. As such he is hardly an objective source.

            http://issues.org/27-1/caldeira/

            I show you a depository of the work of hundreds of researchers who do not find any evidence for runaway CO2 driven climate change, you give me one agent of the very propaganda I referred to in my previous post.

            Your reply confirms for me that ‘AGW’ truly is a religion, in that its adherents are immune to any factual information that opposes their beliefs and will not even look at it when offered. Further discussion here, as always, would serve no purpose.

          • malkom700

            Thanks for the explanation, I would be glad if would not Paul Cruitzen right.

  • Omega Z

    The Customer would want to remain silent for the very Reasons IH/Rossi don’t say much. The Customer wants to retain his edge against competitors.

  • Bernie777

    For those of you who do not believe that governments can develop the most insidious conspiracies that are known to only a very few in that government, and those “few” are doing it for the general “good” of that society, you must go see the movie about a true story, “The Imitation Game”.

    • It’s a great movie but there are actually a lot of historical inaccuracies in it. Like it didn’t take them years to get the machine working and then — V8 moment — they coulda looked for common expected words! In reality they started breaking codes almost immediately.

      I think you’re probably referring to the decision to use the information they got sparingly so as to not tip off that they had the capability until victory was secured. I think most governments would have done the same.

      • Omega Z

        “to use the information they got sparingly”

        I fully agree with this.
        It was a similar practice having broken the primary Japanese code. Had either Japan or Germany become aware of this, They would have immediately used different coding for important information using those that were broken for miscellaneous communications while occasionally using it for misinformation or even setting traps. As has been done throughout history.

        Note-A turning point- The U.S. used this information to set a trap at Midway Island. Using a code that they were aware the Japanese had broken. It was of great U.S. concern that Japan may have realized their code had also been broken. They were not.

  • BroKeeper

    To re-speculate the time when the test began by applying the contractual agreement for the test to last 365 days 24/7 plus 35 days of “pit stop” time: The fact that the ending range of November to January implies the 35 days are optional not mandatory since there are 31 days in December leaving only 4 days left for November and January. Therefore the test must have started November 28th-30th 2014 with the extended 35 pit stop days ending no later than between January 1st-3rd 2016 according to my ‘4-banger’ calculating mind. Or do I need new batteries?

  • Damitall

    You should watch it anyway- it’s a great film!

  • EEStorFanFibb

    So Rossi has a finished pilot plant operating at a customer’s location. I’m just gonna do some spit ballin’ here and say that because Cherokee likes the brick making business so much I bet the ecat plant is involved in making bricks at a Cherokee owned business. Just wild speculation on my part. I also think that IH is probably planning on manufacturing low temperature ecats by the millions in 2016 using an automated manufacturing facility in China. There must also be some kind of IH research lab somewhere in the USA, but only IH and Rossi know where.

    • Those have been my working assumptions as well.

      But they’re just assumptions. One thing I’ve learned following this story is that quite often things are not exactly as they appear.

    • MasterBlaster7

      Probably, yes, an IH research lab somewhere. Also, ill bet that Naval
      Research, SPAWAR, and DARPA have some solid basic research going on
      somewhere. Remember, Rossi has been in bed with these guys for some
      time and if they think it is the real deal too….Manhattan project 2
      anyone?….maybe not something that size…but definitely something
      hardcore.

      • The government has been too involved as you correctly point out to be completely uninvolved at this point.

        What their involvement is exactly is an interesting question. Maybe they are the ringleader of a massive effort. Maybe they provide the labs for continued R&D. Maybe they only dabble through one or two select contractors. Maybe they remain unconvinced and are taking an arms length wait and see approach.

        One thing for sure is that the USG is not of one mind on this technology. There are pockets of enthusiastic support, but we don’t really know if it goes much beyond that. I sure hope so though.

        • Omega Z

          A little background research brings up a lot of Government personnel & agency connections with many of those involved with LENR. Likely even a few that we have never heard of according to Mckubre of SRI.

          As you ask, are they ringleaders orchestrating the roll-out. Contrary to the opinions of some, this is a huge task. Maybe to big to leave to just a few. It’s been stated that they (TPTB)want it to be available to all.

          Speaking of TPTB, brought up here often, This group is not a lockstep group. A lot of Rich people with big Ego’s. I find no reason why you wouldn’t have different camps with different views on LENR roll-out or suppression. It may not be in the interest of some for this technology to come out.(Doesn’t fit other agenda’s) This would explain very well why we get mixed messages from high places.

          Note, TPTB would have foot soldiers to help carryout their work. I find many people behind the scenes involved with LENR researchers that fit this bill very well. One of which is on Rossi’s Board of Advisers on JONP.

        • mike

          A ceo from a defense department contractor spoke at Mills’ last demo. But looking how the military allows for the doubt by not issuing press releases. What I mean is “once they get their weapon”, they’ll shut them all down, hell Rossi may die of old age all of a sudden. I hope the hell I am wrong, but it just keeps sitting at the back of my mind. Military seems to know of all the major lenr players.

  • Gerrit

    “negative as I have to say” – I wonder what Rossi’s strategy is in case the plant does not live up to the commercial expectations. Will there be endless rounds of improvements, each taking several years? He won’t help the world if he keeps tinkering with his machine until the end of time.

    • That is something I don’t understand too.

      He talks only about THE plant. Why not test 4 – 5 or more at the same time at different places/customers. More data, more improvements.

      Okay, I know that this means more complex management. But when one plant costs 1,5 Million $, there should be enough money to pay employees for.

      And why stop every other work during this test-phase. Andy why has Rossi personally to stay at the plant 24/7?

      I expected more from IH.

      • Really.

        The no-brainer business model would have been licensing use of the reactors to major players in various vertical markets. Concentrate on your core capability and let others do what they do better than you. This would be the fastest way to proliferate the technology, one of their stated goals. For ‘proof’ they could easily have gotten government or major university seal of approval just by allowing 3rd party testing by those entities, without seriously jeopardizing their IP.

        But instead they build their own 1 MW plant and take a year to test it (you’ve got to be joking). Perhaps this is a last step proof of concept required by the government or a planned stall while arrangements are made (sudden drop in oil prices anyone?). From a business model point of view it blows, so I think there are other concerns in play.

        I’d be dumbfounded if R&D wasn’t being pursued vigorously in many directions though. I think Rossi has said enough about that (jet engines, gas integration, etc.) that we can conclude that is likely happening at a decent pace.

        • Zizzle

          With LENR, it’s never been about whether legit researchers or developers would allow 3rd party testing. It’s been about whether official agencies wanted anything to do with it. Scattered official interest and musings aside, none of the big players are ready to commit. They certainly are curious, though.

          From a business perspective, the fastest way to bring a paradigm-shifting technology to market is to SUCCEED before anyone else in a way that the previous paradigm can’t explain. The Lugano report, though clear and very likely accurate, has not passed mainstream peer review, and does not qualify by itself as success. 365 days of normal operating records for a 1 MW E-cat plant doing meaningful work, however, does qualify. Until the new paradigm is accepted by Big Money, LENR makes no entry into business.

          Furthermore, because of the insane potential of LENR and the highly polarized, negatively-primed mainstream, anything less than pure perfection of evidence would only serve to harm LENR.

          • the recent news is that some governments and big corps are now considering LENR as a serious possibility, and start to let information leak on that.
            It is even more than what we know from public data, even if public data are already quite clear.
            In fact many more government and corps were aware of LENR reality as science since 1990s, and just were waiting for practical applications to be on the horizon…
            This seems to have happened in 2012, and national instruments is an example, while Blackrock, Shell, some defense agencies, Boeing, and probably more (Airbus was informed before LENR-Cities), where watching with more silence.

            the big misunderstanding is based on academic psychiatry led by AAAS/Science, Nature, APS, DoE… they terrorised the press, the politicians, the corporates…
            all those who were aware of LENr reality, having reproduced it or made surveys, just go silent waiting for practical applications.

            the appearance today, is that the mind-guards have won.
            it is false. Governments agencies, corporate labs, keep the file open since 1989. cold case, but notc lose.
            and since 2012 it is reopened.

          • a good example of how corporate (dug by Vessela)

            – accept lenr may be real

            – wait for concret applications

            – because they are afraid of bad image
            http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/68-2004-ENEL-refused-to-investigate-LENR-by-fear-of-bad-press-despite-perceived-rea/

            Mats lewan added some data fro rossi and enel.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Nevertheless, a representative of ENEL participated in the EU Committee hearing on LENR in June 2013:

            http://coldfusionnow.org/european-parliament-itre-committee-meets-over-fleischmann-pons-effect/

            This seems to indicate that they did not lose interest completely.

          • Omega Z

            Andreas Moraitis

            If one does the background research, he will find personnel & funding from multiple U.S. agencies, DARPA, NASA, DOE, DOD, NRL, etc with involvement with LENR oriented research with ENEA, ENEL Mitsubishi/Toyota & many others both near & far in many different Nations.

            If/When confronted with such details, It is always explained away with statements such as, we have no say in what our employees do on their own time. NASA has even said they allow their employee to do work at NASA facilities, but that it has nothing to do with NASA. I think that with NASA’s direct collaboration with Boeing & a LENR plane feasibility study, their plausible deniability statements have been greatly eroded.

          • If this is true then I would expect that Industrial Heat’s pilot plant customer and location would be common knowledge among certain circles (government and corporate intelligence efforts being what they are). Why can’t we uncover this simple piece of information?

            Where is the pilot plant?

          • today what circulate is that LENR is real phenomenon and that practical application are probably possible… E-cat is a reason to be optimistic…
            Decision makers just prepare plan to be IN

          • Omega Z

            AlainCo
            Are you aware of this.
            Sadly, it is behind a pay wall.
            Maybe Jed Rothwell knows about this.
            ——————————————————–
            The American Physical Society

            Theory of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
            Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 723 – Published 1 October 1962
            Erich Vogt

            http://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.34.723#abstract

          • While you have a point I think there are important exceptions. One way this could have developed for example was for Rossi and NASA to forge an agreement allowing NASA to conduct thorough testing of the reactor (not a plant!) and release the results publicly. It almost did happen this way but NASA got greedy in terms of control and killed the deal (read Impossible Invention). NASA was willing, they just botched it.

          • Omega Z

            Nearly everything Rossi does can be easily explained by a little knowledge of people. There are many who would take all his work away from him with zero compensation. Those who don’t believe this are very naive or would be perpetrators of such acts if given the opportunity. History is full of those who have made major contributions to society only to live & die a paupers life.
            Just a very sad fact of the world we live in.

      • Omega Z

        “And why has Rossi personally to stay at the plant 24/7”

        Because there is a big difference between An E-cat & 100 E-cats.
        Because You and many others see a finished product(Your imagination is ahead of reality) & Reality is it is Still very much in the R&D stage.

        Rossi makes things look simple & easy. There are many tasks in the world that people make look simple & easy. It is only after attempting such tasks yourself in utter failure that you appreciate someones skills & abilities. I would think that having watched MFMP’s work & results to realize this is far more complex then it appears.

        • Rene

          Why is he there at the plant? I suspect he hasn’t fully tamed the control issues and his presence is there to gather more data and perhaps do some tuning of the control algorithms. My guess is there are still runaway reactions that have to be quenched, and that knocks a reactor offline for a while. It’s really hard to stabilize an exponential reaction effect. At least with hundreds of reactors in the system, the impact of a single quenched one can be minimized across the remaining running ones.

    • Sometimes Gerrit, I think that same old shipping container, that went from Italy to NC, keeps getting modified, that there is just the one and now it is hooked up to a plant somewhere.

      • Agaricus

        It’s quite possible that the same container may well have been re-used, probably retaining its electrical distribution systems and the main steam pipes, but some of Rossi’s comments indicate that it is now possible to remove and replace individual reactors while the unit is in service – something that would next to impossible if the original design had been retained.

        It seems probable that the flanged cylinder design may be being used, with the cylinders either bolted into longitudinal tanks/heat exchangers, or just possibly into the original modular tanks, modified for this purpose (2 cylinders per module?). If the latter is the case the assembly must be something of a dogs breakfast by now.

  • At the moment there are a lot of rumors from Wallstreet journal that apple is working on electric cars.

    Maybe someone can contact them and ask what they think about LENR?

    • The iCat will cost twice as much as an E-Cat but have a much sleeker design and better commercials.

      • BroKeeper

        “Warning! Touch screen may burn your fingers”

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Attach some thermocouples to be on the safe side.

      • I don’t like apple, but they have a very huge research and development center and very very much money. They can try and risk a lot.

        Why not with LENR?

        • Yeah them and Google could take this across the finish line quickly.

  • There is a pilot plant in operation.
    SO sit on hands and await the results.
    I do not think so.

    • Daniel Maris

      There might be a pilot plant in operation, would be a more accurate way of putting it.

      I am concerned about the recent statement from Vaughn which made it sound as though Rossi was involved in some quite separate research effort, about which he had only limited knowledge. He certainly did not say that there was a pilot plant in operation that he was aware of or that he had visited.

      We’ve seen no evidence of a pilot plant in operation – no photographs and no statements from anyone other than Rossi.

      No one else apart from Rossi has even claimed to have visited the plant.

      Of course Vaughn may be throwing up a smokescreen and surely Rossi could not prevent Vaughn from visiting the plant if he wished to…

      As always, it’s a puzzle. It’s puzzle that Vaughn could easily solve for us, but for some reason he chooses not to.

  • Private Citizen

    Again, who will be convinced that either the customer, with financial interest in gaining investors and saving face, or Rossi, whose mere presence at a test seems to invalidate results in skeptics’ minds, will be telling the truth after 1 year of secret operation and intervention?

    So, then how long after the big 1MW plant reveal falls flat? (see, we have the electric bill right here! proof!) Another year? Two?

    Are we to be convinced that IH will have a factory all ready to mass produce devices that are as yet un-pattented and un-licenced (and require constant monitoring by their inventor) because the world suddenly will be convinced?

    Curiously these people are neither behaving like good frauds (who would be stumping for you to invest right now) or good business people (who would exhibit a sane business strategy and prove they have the goods, again and again, until the public were convinced).

    Now warp the facts to fit your faith. This is all an ingenious plan to catch the competition unawares, thinking them incompetent clowns, and rule the world.

    • That’s why I bet on Parkhomov and MFMP. If they can produce multiple times excess heat, Rossi’s role is not important anymore.

      • Daniel Maris

        Quite, but we have yet to see a convincing demo from MFMP.

        • It is true that compared to the quality of calorimetry of 1990s LENr scientists, who checked all artifacts options, calibrated, repeated, cross checked,… NiH and MFMP results in particular are not as solid.

          One of the most solid for NiH is probably Mastromatteo test of Celani wires in a tiny calorimetry.

          I expect a similar good result with Biberian, he it works.

          I feel that today the loose calorimetry of the “new pioneer” is destroying the image of quality that people considering 1990s experiments could have acquired.

          problem with skeptics is that they choose the weakest experiment to ridicule the good one.

          • I think we need to worry less about skeptics and mind-guards and get our own ducks in a row.

            The Lugano investigators need to either put an exclamation mark or a question mark after their report results. Their method for choosing emissivity for the camera and thus indirectly the temperature of the reactor seems flawed, iterating over a single emissivity curve for alumina that does not take wavelength into account. From my research, alumina’s emissivity over the camera’s wavelength range (7.5 um to 13 um) is very high over half the range (~0.95) and then drops to about 0.5 at the longer wavelengths or lower depending on surface roughness and temperature). The report indicates they used an emissivity around 0.4 for the higher temperature reading. That may be the full wavelength emissivity of alumina at that temperature but the camera would be seeing an emissivity more like 0.8 or 0.7). I’m not an expert in how that camera works but on the face of it it looks like they may have significantly overestimated the reactor’s temperature. They either need to convince us they had the right temperature or make corrections or just say they need to run another test to be sure.

            So the Lugano report authors need to step up here. We also need the replication community to get this right. If you have something that you think works, measure it 8 different ways. It’s time to erase all doubts.

            I have a sneaking suspicion that the Lugano test was run in “mouse” mode the entire time and Rossi has said that mouse mode gets you a COP just a bit over 1.0. This would be consistent with both nuclear events in the ash and botched temperature measurements of unknown degree.

            Why they didn’t measure the temperature in more than one way and why they didn’t run the reactor in self-sustain mode I’ll never understand.

          • Full agree.

            I also don’t understand the blabla about LENR Cars or planes.
            We still don’t have REPEATABLE proof of LENR. We can onoy trust. But this makes me tired because there is everytime a little hole for fraud.

          • you are right on Lugano.
            It is not a good test until that question is solved.
            With some deep analysis one can ruleout COP around 1, but about 1.5 as you propose.

            people who are skeptic on Lugano full conclusion, are rational.
            Denial of E-cat is less rational.
            There are more evidence of E-cat than lugano, like Ferrara which if not a fraud is a good test, and since Lugano is not a fraud, Ferrara neither. Cherokee fund is also an evidence.
            Lugano cannot be dismissed either, first as it is an evidence that Industrial Heat is confident in the reactor… that the testers fumbled is not predictable.
            Second the calibration at 450W/450C is good, and thus this test can be exploited even if we assume.

            what make me balistic is people who simply refuse anything LENR, calling for conspiracy theories, denying anything, rejecting all without even trying to exploit available data.

            Practicing skeptic I know that they don’t care that E-cat is real, have a high CP, or not. what they care is that cold fusion exist or not.
            They care of E-cat only because it is the weakest experiment.

            Yes, E-cat is the weakest story around LENR.
            Try to attack F&P, McKubre, Miles, even Brillouin/SRI, Takahashi and Iwamura, NASA GRC, NRL, SRI, ENEA… that is much harder are their protocols are serious like normal science…

            New experiments done with cheap calorimetry, like MFMP, Parkhomov, Jack Cole will be easy to attack, much more than McKubre calorimetry.

        • mike

          No we don’t. They believe they have excess heat and I trust them. God knows you can’t trust mainstream anything anymore. So I and many others who have trust capital now and are willing to give it to anyone anti establishment. And that is the establishment’s fault. Now they get what they get, total distrust of everyone except the ignorant and the those with vested interests. And as many now know the days of these enemies of humanity destroying our civilization deliberately are numbered. And that gives me hope. And don’t we all need hope to get us through these miserable times?

    • Agaricus

      Your comments indicate that you may have missed the point that IH have no interest in convincing us onlookers of anything. Apart from a potential role as consumers, most of those commenting have nothing to contribute to the introduction of cold fusion, and we have no right at all to be kept up to speed on what their plans may be.

      In short, we can believe whatever we choose, and it will have no effect whatsoever on how things pan out.

      • Private Citizen

        “IH have no interest in convincing us onlookers of anything.”

        …other than publishing results of tests and informing us almost daily about their magnificent new plant, of robotic factories (apparently sited in empty rooms with no signage), that we onlookers (or our chosen representatives) will be welcome come visit to witness the glory in the fullness of time.

        HP informs us of their marvelous new memristors and The Machine, establishing ample proof of the reality and efficacy of the technology, releasing details in patents. Why? Because they want to attract investors and interest partners. This is the way a sane, competent management does actual business–they do have an interest in convincing onlookers.

        • Omega Z

          “they do have an interest in convincing onlookers.”

          But not until they have a convincing product that can be used in the real world. That’s the real purpose of the Pilot plant.
          Any premature announcement before then that doesn’t pan out would look bad.

          How much would Entities like GE/Siemens etc pay IH/Rossi for licensing fees now & how much would they pay in licensing fees on a proven product. How many zero’s will be added after a 1+ year pilot plant that works. We need to take this into account from a business point of view. Both the Buyer & sellers.

          • Private Citizen

            “How much would Entities like GE/Siemens etc pay IH/Rossi for licensing
            fees now & how much would they pay in licensing fees on a proven
            product.”

            IMO, all it would take is a set of truly convincing 3rd party tests (or independent replications) of significant excess heat from LENR and rights to the technology would be worth the world. Seriously doubt GE & Siemens are concerned with Rossi’s machine beyond that; they are perfectly capable of vastly exceeding his engineering prowess. The true IP is in the reaction, not the hardware.

            A small corporation which has the ability to garner $billions in investment today, (billions that won’t be going to the competition), establish patent rights with proper disclosure today (before the competition), and still make $billions in the long term on licensing the technology, is smarter than one who plays cat and mouse attempting to jigger together a “proven product” (which will arrive no more “proven” than the Lugano testing) with a garage band (compared to the resources of the giants).

            Maybe Darden has some secret deal going with China for mass manufacture, but from the sound of Rossi’s continued tinkering, that’s doubtful.

          • Omega Z

            And that’s why their 100 Billion$ concerns & we’re not.

            There have been many developments in recent times that work great in the Lab, But fail miserably when trying to scale for manufacturing. Lab work & real world are not one & the same.

            These Corporations didn’t become huge because they were stupid. They would pay far less for Rossi’s device as a lab demonstrated 3rd party test then a working product. Imagine paying a Billion$ for this technology, only to learn that as soon as you put it under real world stress, that the effect just dies. Or that there is no way to control it in an effective manner to be of any use.

            Both real possibilities. Is it an Engineering issue or the nature of the beast? How many years & billions will it take to determine the outcome.

            Corporations have investors to answer to. If they think management is being irresponsible with their investments, CEO’s can be replaced. Even if enough votes can’t be garnered for this purpose, It only takes a couple of major trust funds to start dumping stocks to exact a serious toll to the Corporation.

            Corporations like people, need to borrow money & as the stock value effects those loan terms, It can be quite costly or the loan can actually be refused.

            Also, just because Corporations have deep pockets doesn’t mean they would get it to market any sooner. They could easily take a couple years getting up to speed, maybe longer. And They also would have to do the pilot plant path, Obtain certifications & everything Rossi is doing.

            As to China, I have no doubt they will have a manufacturing plant. As will multiple other countries. Don’t count on buying E-cat reactors from China. Every one they build will be for their own use. They are under a lot of international pressure over their coal plants. Also note that reactors aren’t of much use without all the apparatus that makes them useful. Turbines, Generators, exchangers, controls, Etc..

            Rossi speaks of a factory manufacturing a Million a year. That is a pittance to what will be needed. It will require in excess of a Billion a year to transition society over in 30/40 years. So Rossi would need 1000 of those factories. It appears that the Alumina reactors may be disposable. Hopefully not, but if they are, you can look at doubling that capacity whether replaced every 6, 12, or 24 months.

        • psi2u2

          Your analogy is more than a little lame.

    • Uncle Bob

      A good indication that it works will be if IH continue to remain in the partnership and supportive of the technology after this current test period ends.
      If in two years time they have bailed out then I would take it that they have assessed the device as not workable.
      If they remain firmly behind it then we can take it they consider it works well enough for them to get their money back on it.
      The decision time will be in the months after this 12 month test ends.

  • malkom700

    For the introduction of LENR should be distinguished in terms of the short-term and long-term situation. The short-term situation is very simplified to the question of whether the IH should economically sell heat. So it’s not the equipment.

  • Daniel Maris

    “Unfortunately I haven’t saved old posts and dates, but I can recall that
    at least 2 years ago (maybe even 3 years) the 1MW plant was being
    installed at a customer’s site and that it was running fine as per Mr
    Rossi’s direct writing.”

    It’s not really good enough to declare you have perfect recall! – I think we need to have some direct quotes. Very often the original wording tends to be more ambiguous than people assume.

    Also, let’s not forget that Richard Branson, the well known entrepreneur who has also been in trouble with the law before now has made many claims for his Virgin Galactic spaceship, which have failed to materialise – but no one says he is a fraud.

    As much as Rossi hasn’t shown his device to be genuine, through general marketing, he hasn’t been shown to be a fraud either.

    • Omega Z

      Branson, Musk, Many make what turn out to be premature statements. The Future is hard to predict as things can go differently then we think.

      OLED technology comes to mind. Great potential that hasn’t yet materialized as planned. To become so cheap that it would be throw away products. Tho available in small screens, it has been very complex & expensive to scale to large products.

  • It *is* swimming in millions of dollars.

    Your healthy skepticism is healthy. There are still questions and though the weight of the evidence is still heavily in favor of LENR and the E-Cat being the real deal we do not yet have enough information in the public realm to state things conclusively.

    Please keep in mind that Rossi is not the only player in this game. Were he still running solo things would smell fishy indeed. But now well-funded Industrial Heat is the main player, is presumed to be a responsible entity and they still have Rossi’s back. Other players like Brillouin, Clean Planet, Nichenergy, LENUCO, Nanortech and others matter too when analyzing what’s happening.

  • C. Kirk

    The first “customer” was said to be a military customer (most probably the US Navy.) , so the current 1MW plant is apparently the first to operate in an industrial setting….. As to the length of time it is taking to develop a commercial product, well, the phenomena appears to be extremely unstable and wants to just die out or go into a runaway reaction…..As one of the original tests (Bo) stated in response to Pomp…. While we don’t know what it is we do know it is very potent……. and to tell you honestly: people have been killed for less, yes, and I’m happy now that It’s no longer just his secret…… and who knows how much he earned or will earn in the future based on his contract with industrial heat?

  • LuFong

    Let’s just say Rossi got a little ahead of himself:

    Andrea Rossi

    November 13th,
    2011 at 9:37 AM

    Dear Pietro F:

    We use English to be globally understood and not to be confined
    .

    About your question if the 1 MW plant is in operation yet: not yet,
    it will take a couple of more weeks to set up the plant on the proper site.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    Andrea Rossi

    November 28th,
    2011 at 6:48 PM

    Dear Herb Gills:

    Today we sold in the USA a 1 MW plant which will go to a normal
    Customer. This installation will be visitable by the qualified
    public.

    We wait to have completed the contractual procedure through the
    attorneys, then we will give communication. It will be in the North East
    of the USA, where I have been in these days.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • Now there is the question: Where is this “normal” (civil?) customer mentioned in 2011? Very dubious statement, seen from today.

      • LuFong

        I think it’s the same customer as today, maybe even one of Cherokee/IH’s concerns (brick manufacturer). Rossi just likes to puts stuff out there a little early. All IMO.

  • theotherone

    Words, feelings, beliefs, realities: sometimes difficult to get them all lined up.

    “Rossi had been convicted and imprisoned in Italy for fraud and the like”

    http://www.lenrnews.eu/how-can-popsci-claim-andrea-rossi-is-a-convicted-scam-artist/

    • bachcole

      Shallow people come up with the silliest things.

  • Omega Z

    Steve, The 1Mw plant you speak of is the one purchased by NRL. Different Government agencies (DOD, DOE, NRL DARPA) purchase things of this nature & test/explore them. Likely you will never here again about the 1Mw plant or any number of other devices they investigate from them. Note DARPA has funded SRI/Mckubre test several of these devices.

    For the most part, You throw a few details together & twist it to promote confusion. Things such as Rossi’s past then omit that he was cleared of any serious charges. You omit that Rossi’s technology that deals with the Petrodragon Is used by many organizations today under the label of Depolymerization.

    But regardless what you say or post, it will have “No Effect” on things in progress. The wheels have been set in motion. You say you are not a troll. To the contrary, you are the worst kind of troll. A sort of person who have no self esteem & have to tear down others to give themselves self worth. Have you pulled the wings off of any flies lately.

    You “have digged into it”. I understand misspellings & the misuse of words such as your/you’re, but if you’re going to highlight something in brackets, you should put more effort into using the proper word/form.

    As in some of your previous posts, You indicate you’re moving on. We’re still waiting & hoping. You won’t be missed. Tho likely we will see another of your posts & maybe under a different handle.

    NOTE: Maybe you are of the impression that this is a simple technology. You should know that there are papers published on LENR-Low Energy Nuclear Reactions as far back at least to 1962. If it were simple, it would already be in use.

  • psi2u2

    appears so!

  • georgehants

    It would seem logically unlikely that a test of a new technology would be done in any situation where it’s continued working would be in anyway critical.
    It would seem obvious from the start that the customer would have the necessary back-up for whenever needed.

    • Agaricus

      I’m pretty sure that Rossi said some time ago that the pilot plant has been installed alongside the original boiler to allow rapid changeover if the need arises. I’m too idle to try to find the relevant post on JONP though.

      If the production process concerned is able to cope with periodic loss of steam heating (it would still take time to fire up the original boiler if/when the pilot is down), that could imply a batch production process such as food production or papermaking.

  • Timar

    So far Steorn appears to be nothing but an investment scam… they, have taken millions of dollars from investors and yet never, ever shown any working device whatsoever.

  • Gerrit

    I just wonder how IH will publicly present the e-cat after the full year operational trial. Or if they will keep it silent even after that.

    There is no doubt that the plant, of which we have seen the fotos, is currently delivering energy to a production process, based on a technology that is still believed by most scientists to be a pipe dream.

    • Agaricus

      Given their approach so far, I suspect there will be no ‘launch’ as such, and possibly not even any public announcements. It is us observers who are focused on such a splash for our various personal reasons, but there doesn’t seem to be any commercial reason to do this, and probably quite a few good reasons not to. IH will probably have their plans in place and will see development as an ongoing process, without any need to mark any particular milestones. It all depends on what capacity IH will have in place towards the end of this year for series production of commercial CF steam generators, and/or higher pressure boilers.

      If they are following a fairly linear strategy – simplifying down the design of the pilot in parallel with acquiring experience and data, and putting in place their own arrangements for limited manufacture – then word of mouth will be more than sufficient to create demand in excess of their capacity to produce the goods, which may be limited to only half a dozen plants per year initially. Possibly they intend to allow production to grow ‘organically’ as profits form sales or leasing (more likely) allow geometric growth of their production base.

      If on the other hand they have some large third party manufacturing facility (in China or elsewhere) that will be ready to start manufacture as soon as the first production design is finalised, then they may need a modest amount of publicity aimed at potential industrial markets in order to get the ball rolling, but would still not need to convince the public or politicians of anything. In fact, the reverse – it would make more sense to get as many plants as possible in place and operating quietly, in as many countries as will accept them, before politicians in particular become aware.

      • Gerrit

        Rossi on his blog on 25 February 2015:

        “When the tests and the R&D related to the operation of the 1 MW plant supplied to the Customer will have been completed we will give the due information.”

        We will give due information. I wonder what that will be.

  • Pietro F.
    • bachcole

      Thanks for that, Pietro F.. I have not seen this before. That was almost 5 years ago. Wow. He really had to struggle to get investors that would pay attention and behave properly.

      I notice the string “cern” in the address. What is that about?

      I hate to say that this enrages me even more than before. How could anyone be so profoundly stupid to ignore this, especially given Focardi’s credentials. It is just unbelievable why anyone could not have the curiosity to give this a second look. Some ones need to be fired and shamed. I am beginning to match georgehants rage. Perhaps I better take some magnesium taurate.

  • Agaricus

    Unless Rossi is aiming at the industrial handwash market, these units are not competitors, they are just simple induction heaters.

    To avoid disappointment please just look at Steorn’s own description – it is perfectly clear how the system works and there is no claim whatsoever of overunity. Induction heating is a bog standard and thoroughly understood process and there are no hidden mysteries:

    The system works by charging a metallic thermal store to a high temperature (500 to 900°C). By using a material such as steel, which has approximately the same volumetric heat capacity as water, substantially more thermal energy may be retained than in a similar tanked volume of water.

    When hot water is required, the cold water input is split into two separate branches. One is allowed to flow into the thermal store with the flow rate controlled by a standard valve. When this branch flows through the thermal store it is instantaneously converted to steam which is then mixed (via a steam injector) into the second branch of cold water.

    This mix of steam to cold water allows the output water temperature to be controlled.

    http://www.steorn.com/heating/about/

  • Gerard McEk

    Interesting that the time between refueling is now extended to more than a year. I wonder if Andrea has done duration tests on single E-cats to ensure that the fuel will last that long. Question is what makes the fuel lasting longer. Will it be the amount of H2, Ni, or Li? Will the stability change while the fuel is used? It may be these things that keep Rossi close to his plant. He possibly does not kow. And then, if it lasts more than a year, would he continue operation until the LENR heat production stops or would he simply recharge after a year?

    • Omega Z

      I think this is an indicator that Rossi knows or is very close to understanding the process. Note in the Lugano test, He said it had a charge meant to last about 30 days. If Rossi has this cycle time pegged, I would imagine normal operandi would be a scheduled recharge for the whole plant when that time has been achieved. Being a pilot plant, he may opt for an extended period until a couple of them have quit to determine a margin of error for such a long run if it hasn’t already been determined before then.

      As to stability & in layman’s terms, does it suffer a wind down effect, According to Rossi’s statements to this question on JONP. No, It works or it doesn’t. Under a different understanding, The LENR effect is itself a highly unstable reaction that is complex to control.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    One year is the ideal period for refuelling and maintenance of domestic heating systems. I think that many private costumers might not be happy with a six-monthly cycle, so that the intended extension would be a very fortunate improvement.

    • Omega Z

      It would depend on the process. Six months wouldn’t be that bad if you could just go in & change a fuel cartridge 1 at a time without interruption of the E-cat plant. Better all around if the computer could self diagnose when a reactor is about to need a recharge(Or any other issues) & notify IH/Rossi by remote.

      As to 1 year, Yes, Many manufactures actually schedule a 1, sometimes 2 week shut down for annual maintenance and/or upgrades. In a just in time manufacturing supply chain, schedule maintenance Is pretty much an absolute necessity so as to work with your customers to avoid interruptions.

      If your customers happen to be Ford, GM, Caterpillar, Etc, This is critical as most of them only have maybe a 2 day window from shutting down if parts don’t arrive on time. Scheduled maintenance allows both parties to prepare with a temporary product build up.

      That brings us to the pilot plant test. It wont matter if it has a COP>100 & works perfectly most of the time. It has to be dependable. If it has a tendency to brake down for a week at a time even every 2 months, That would be a deal breaker. Other then that, 1 or 2 hours a week would be a none issue. Even conventional systems will suffer from that.

  • bachcole

    “We” be rockin’!

  • clovis ray

    study as she goes captain, but does the fuel gauge, say half full, or half empty, lol

  • Jimr

    I wonder how many total employees there are since IH,s involvement. At one time I believe Rossi had thirdteen ,maybe up to twenty now.

    • Agaricus

      I hope that the others are fully engaged in developing a production prototype based on the pilot plant. I would also like to think that the same number or more are currently working on commercialising the hot cat variant – unless the two technologies have now converged into an intermediate form.

  • oceans

    Question # 3 > Have any of the reactors in the plant received a replacement charge so far? AR: 3- no and I hope the charge will last 1 year. > HUGE !!!

  • Daniel Maris

    Well, if true, and we have no reason to believe it isn’t true, then this is v. significant indeed.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Fuel is fuel, It’s duration of use depends upon the starting amount and the rate of use. It sounds like they went with a heavier charge and a lower burn rate. It is nice to see that they have mastered that level of control over the reaction.

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      indeed, honestly the duration between refuelling matters far more than the amount of fuel used, as the price of nickel is practically nothing in the context of the reaction and the amount of energy it produces.
      Logistics of refuelling become the only important factor.

      • Mats002

        Well. With a COP of about 10 (my raw conclusion from rumors around) do not forget 10% energy input. 1 MW out cost 100 KW in + fuel.

        • Omega Z

          Yes, but if you need energy to produce your product, which would you prefer to be billed for.
          100Kwh or 1Mwh
          Note, That’s for each and every hour 24/7/365.

    • Eyedoc

      From all we have learned lately (or I think we’ve learned ) , the duration may depend more on the electrical/magnetic fields proper control of internal conditions more than any ‘fuel’ levels. Very intriguing at the least 🙂

    • Nigel Appleton

      I think that an important element of the control of the reaction is control of the heat transfer rate. The many metering pumps we saw in the IMW plant photos (looked like 1 per reactor, and not particularly high flow rate items) aren’t there for fun, and it looked as if they were connected up for control by feedback of ?temperature data and/or ? pressure data

  • Gerrit

    It all sound very reasonable. I wonder how much “self sustained mode” the reactors run.

    • I guess Rossi can’t answer to this question.

      But Frank could ask whether the self sustain mode is/was already in use anyway.

      I think this question is more worded in general terms, which Rossi will answer.

      • ecatworld

        Rossi has said in the past they were shooting for self sustain mode for 75 per cent of the time.

    • Omega Z

      I think Rossi said something about achieving a 2 hour SSM.
      OK, It didn’t provide much clarity,
      but it implied it being the single longest SSM.
      It also didn’t specify whether that was the 1Mw plant or
      pertained to a single reactor.
      I assume it was probably just a single reactor.

  • Gerrit

    If a e-cat would run out of fuel after the year test, how, who and where could it be refueled? By the certified technician on site or by IH in their labs ?

    • I think for high scale marketing only the possibility to recharge it your own would make sense.

      If not, the IH engineers should immediately develop a system to easily replug another fuel cartridge like you can do it with your pc-printer.

  • georgehants

    Is there any possibility that of all the other Researchers such as Defkalion, who now work behind closed doors, any are as close as Mr. Rossi with a working production device?

    • Ophelia Rump

      I think the rapscallions are out of the picture now. Who knows who might have something competitive and when. If the Russians can deliver directly produced electricity, they will have earned a major share of market, if only by licensing the technology to the world. Oh the trillions will fly through the air to whatever companies hold major pieces of the technology. Expertise will be the new source of wealth.

      • bachcole

        Remember that Rossi is technically not a PhD physicist, and although he has educated himself admirably, he is still only one guy. The Russians can harness the brains of numerous heavy weight nuclear physicists and engineers.

        • Charles

          bachcole: “The Russians can harness the brains of numerous heavy weight nuclear physicists and engineers.” That is scary all by itself.

          Wonder if Obama knows that and wonder if he knows zilch about the E-cat, Wonder if Valerie Jarrett has told him about either and the thought of both together.?

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Most physicists (Brian Josephson not included) disparaged LENR for a quarter of a century (“impossible”, “nonsense”). So, I’m not waiting with bated breath for their “brilliant”, way after the fact, insights.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            PS
            Brian Josephson predicted the “Josephson effect” and it was later found. He’s the heavy weight.

          • Alan DeAngelis
          • bachcole

            I distinguish between types of brilliance (probably many more), and they are very different. Inside the box, our scientist do very, very well. Seeing and going and doing outside of the box, well, not so good.

            I suspect that at first they will try to duplicate and they will fail and then throw up their hands in failure and accuse Rossi of orchestrating a global conspiracy. Once they come to accept the fact that they ph*cked up and the fact that their theory does not explain a real phenomena, expect great things out of them. And this includes our engineers.

  • Frank, I wonder how much fuel he’s talking about.

    • Charles

      It can’t be very much Barry, because that c^2 number in e=mc^2 is really really really big all by itself..

  • Charles

    When discussing costs, one must keep in mind that the are FIXED [Capital] costs and VARIABLE (Operating) cost.

    In the case of the E-Cat, let us confine ourselves to the “Capital” cost of the E-Cat, all by itself alone. That is a fixed cost and would include the cost of the E-cat system [without initial fuel load] and additional material and labor needed to install it. We now have the “Capital” costs.

    We would divide that grand total “Capital” costs by the number of years we expect the E-cat to last and that would be the yearly “depreciation” costs (to be used in the P&L as an expense item). Alternately, we could take the total “Capital” costs and divide that by the number of Kilo-Watt Hours (or BTUs or Calories or whatever power base you chose to use) we expect the E-cat to produce over its life-time [not to include refueling]. This would be my preferred method of the two. That rate will be charged to the consumer per unit of consumption.

    Now, as to the variable costs, take the cost of the installed fuel pellet, pellet costs plus installation costs, and divide that by the number of KWH expected to be produced over the life of the pellet, and that is the variable unit power costs of the E-Cat.

    Now add that proportional Capital Cost to the proportional pellet costs and you have the total cost of the power unit you have chosen to use.

  • clovis ray

    Robert, hi.
    I like the theory, and I am always interested to hear new ones, and personally yours sounds as good as any, you should put your ideas down on paper, with instructions as to how to construct a prototype, once it’s doing as you theroy implyes, make a video of it doing the same, and wa la, your a world hero,

  • Buck

    Robert,

    If what you suggest is true, then your assessment of the impact is an understatement raised to the power of that same ZPE source.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    It was said that in Lugano they had 10% by weight of LiAlH4 and the rest nickel. To transmute natural nickel to Ni62, each atom must acquire about 3.5 neutrons. The problem is that the hydrogen and lithium coming from LiAlH4 do not have enough nucleons to provide those neutrons, even if all protons in them would somehow transform to neutrons. So it seems that the Lugano results cannot be literally true, unless one invokes very exotic possibilities such as cannibalising some of the nickel atoms to provide neutrons for the rest. It seems to me that one has to wait for more measurements to know what’s going on.

    • Axil Axil

      This is the reason why I think that the LENR reaction in involved by the strong force as well as the weak force.

    • one clear possibility is that the transmutation was local, restricted to the surface.

      another point is that maybe the transmutation is not the main source of energy, and it is thus not problematic that it is 99% isotopic shift…

      it is probably a parasitic reaction happening in only a part of the material, and when completed it probably does not block the real reaction.

      This is one argument that USPTO examiner did not take into account.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Local transmutation is a possibility. Concerning your other points, regardless of where the energy comes from, baryon number conservation should hold.

        • Robert Ellefson

          There were a number of other fuel ingredients that were not found in the ash, such as sodium, that may have provided the baryons in question. Since we are already through the looking glass here, can you imagine a conceivable mechanism for neutron synthesis in this system? This is beyond my ken, but it would certainly fit the evidence if some mechanism for neutron production was identified.

  • I agree with you Robert in the meaning that as long as we don’t have a confirmed theory explaining the process we cannot really know anything about fuel duration (except that the upper limit should be defined by E=mc^2, assuming no contribution from external sources, dark matter or whatever… It’s worth to note, however, that also fission and fusion reactions release only a tiny part of the total energy corresponding to the mass of the fuel).

  • LuFong

    Rossi said this about the Lugano test fuel:

    “2- the charge had been made for a 35 days test. This is the test duration agreed upon when the experiment has been started”

    This suggests fuel that is consumed.

    • Robert Ellefson

      I stopped paying much attention to Rossi Says statements a few years ago. I pay a lot of attention to the Lugano report ash analysis appendices though, which apparently caught Rossi off-guard as much as anybody else..

  • Axil Axil

    Your analysis is based on the assumption that the nickel particle exclusively carries the LENR reaction. The nickel reaction may only be a very low probability secondary reaction. The primary reaction may be carried for the most part by the hydrogen and the lithium, and aluminum that is dissolved in the hydrogen,

    • Andreas Moraitis

      That was to be expected. Although many of the examiner’s arguments are weak and partly even contradictory, the shortcomings of TPR2 are obvious. Hopefully, Rossi will be able back his remaining, unpublished patents with more conclusive information. I doubt, however, that he would have a chance if the same examiner was involved.

  • Bob Matulis

    If the plant reliably provides substantial periods of SSM this will remarkable. There will be no stopping this technology.

  • clovis ray

    welcome, and stay tuned in, there is lots of good info here, to mold your thoughts into your dreams.

  • bachcole

    This is very exciting. What if a lot of that control hardware/software has to do with using as much SSM as possible. If the customer needs X watts and the E-cat is putting out in total X + Y, why to loop the Y back. Everyone wins, except Krivit, maryyugo, et. al.

  • It seems obvious that the E-Cat reactor is producing a significant COP as measured by savings in the energy bills of the factory owner. The question is, is the capital cost of the E-Cat reactor worth the savings? If the reactor was not producing significant amounts of energy, I think the factory owner and Industrial Heat would have shut down the reactor and gone back to the drawing boards. I hope the outcome of this real world test will have positive effects on the 2016 election. The COP will have to be at least 6, but hopefully 11 or more.

    • Omega Z

      Christopher

      If you require an electric boiler, It is the cost differential between it and an E-cat boiler that you need to figure the payback for. Not the entire E-cat cost.

      • Sure, that is exactly what I mean.

        I would hope that over time they can develop the software needed to have the entire reactor controlled by just one high speed multiple-core computer chip. Certainly chips are fast enough these days to read the temperature, pressure, and do a radiation check on 100 individual E-Cat reactor cells every second. So you could have five computer cores doing the same readings every second and have them vote on the results. The readings that get the most votes are used to control each reactor cell. That is how they make computers reliable enough to control spacecraft and supersonic jet aircraft that are inherently unstable without computer control. A five chip computer would not be that expensive.

        • Omega Z

          Christopher
          I expect to see many improvements in time. Being a pilot plant, It’s highly probable that there is some overkill involved. As to a single computer verses individual models will be a financial call. How cheap are the individual modules verses the cost of additional wiring & labor.

          If the individual modules are simple enough & can be mass produced for a couple dollars each, it may not be a problem. Much depends on particulars. If the individual models can independently control a reactor even if the main computer fowls up, it may be a good redundancy option. And if it fowls up, you’ve only lost 1 reactor.(1% of capacity) It all becomes a cost/benefit decision.

          Now, As to this computer chips voting, This concerns me. Next they will be asking for full human rights. We must kill it before it spreads. 🙂

  • Bob Greenyer

    Good and Good

  • Daniel Maris

    Well excellent if true.

    But of course we don’t yet have the crucial information about IH’s supervision of this pilot, who the “customer” is (is the customer completely independent of Rossi?) and we don’t yet know what is meant by “the electricity source that feeds the plant has been insulated from other loads” (is it a diesel generator as before or is it drawn off the customer’s system?).

    That said, I am cautiously optimistic on the basis of previous evidence.

    • Omega Z

      It’s not that complicated to install an additional meter downline from a main meter. Many rental apartment owners do this even if utilities are included in the rent. This is so they know who the culprit is should the utilities for the complex sky rocket. So they can correct the issue or raise the rent for the 1 instead of all tenets.

      • an electric meter is not different from the power meter used in Lugano, in less complex.
        Modern smartmeter are really similar as they are digital integrator of the voltage and current…
        older meter were integrating like older powermeter, multiplying U and I through eddy currents and alike…

        with electronic meter the difference is software. with older meter it was more mechanical mounting…

  • Manuel Cruz

    Your analysis is wrong. There was still plenty of nickel for the test to continue. It just happened that a *particle* of the exhausted fuel, under examination, was esentially nickel-62. However, there was still plenty of fuel available, and some other particles in the spent fuel might not have changed so dramatically as that specific one.

    • Robert Ellefson

      Can you elaborate upon “It just happened” a bit? This is the part that I have trouble swallowing with the sample-bias theory.

      • Omega Z

        Robert
        The sample doesn’t show the full picture. They had only 3 samples(clumps) of which one if I recall showed 57% N-62. There samples also were just 1/10th of the whole which also included powder. They selected the clumps.

        As their analysis surprised IH/Rossi, they probably analyzed the other 90% or a fair portion there of & have a better picture then we do.

  • Buck

    I believe the most important element is that the Customer is “positively surprised”. I would like to think this points in only one direction . . . the customer’s electricity bill associated with running the plant has dropped relative to the history of MWh consumed per unit of output.

    Regarding Rossi’s comment about “the electricity source that feeds the plant has been insulated from other loads”. I have worked on the financial side of production plants. Based upon this experience, I suggest that Rossi means that plant operations is on a separate meter relative to administration, marketing, sales, etc. It may also mean that the plant operations meter may segregate the actual production machines from other loads on plant operations such as light, heat, office equipment, repair & maintenance equipment, etc.

  • Matt Sevrens

    The timing of these comments seems suspicious. Right after the patent rejection? Why?

  • PMKD

    Pekka Janhunen => Robert Ellefson • a day ago
    ‘It was said that in Lugano they had 10% by weight of LiAlH4 and the rest nickel.’

    Ni58 is 68% of natural
    Fe56 is 92% of natural
    LI7 is 92% of natural

    Assuming conservation of protons and neutrons :-
    Fe56 + Li7 => Ni62 + p
    Proton 26 + 3 => 28 + 1
    Neutron 30 + 4 => 34

    Ni58 + Li7 => Ni62 +3p
    Proton 28 + 3 => 28 + 3
    Neutron 30 + 4 => 34

    The waste product of these highly speculative reactions is Hydrogen and Nickel62.
    The matching fuel mixture by weight for these equations would be 11% Lithium.
    The ratio of Ni/Fe is variable.
    No alpha, beta, gamma or neutrons?

    The boiling point of Lithium is 1330C. I have I seen temperatures like that mentioned as being needed to get things started. Vapour deposition of Lithium looks like a good way to get the Lithium onto the Nickel particle surfaces.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      The first reaction is 13.76 MeV exothermic, but unfortunately the second one involving Ni58 is 0.44 MeV endothermic.

      • PMKD

        From ‘Assessing the “Lugano” E-Cat Report:-
        Fuel and Ash Analysis
        The Fuel Has Three Different Types of Particles
        ‘Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) found three different types of particles in the fuel based on their surface content, one mainly nickel, a second mainly an aluminum oxide, and the third an iron oxide …’

        The proportions are stated to be 55%, 4.4% and 49.6%.
        [It looks as though the Iron achieves little …]

        The Ash Has Two Different Types of Particles
        ‘… two different types of particles were found in the ash … a nickel[62] particle and a oxygen/carbon/silicon particle …’.

        The proportions given are 95.8% Nickel and 4.2% oxygen/carbon/silicon.

        [… but it is consumed on the basis of these statements.]

  • LuFong

    If things are more effective now, I do not see how Rossi can be sure the 1MW charge will last a year (given he made the charge for the year). It could be that the fuel is being consumed at a faster rate (longer SSM periods etc) which means he will run out of fuel earlier. It must be the case since he is surprised.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Rossi is not sure (because test has not yet lasted for 1 year) whether or not the charges will work for a year. He’s not surprised by that, but he’s surprised by the duration of the SSM periods. I assume that the control system selects the length of the SSM periods automatically based on the behaviour of the reactors. The longer the SSM, the higher the average COP.

      As to why a charge could last longer than earlier, one can think of many reasons. Essentially, he has to reduce the reaction rate of the charge while increasing its mass so that the same power is obtained. Perhaps he uses larger nickel grains, and/or perhaps he mixes LiH with LiAlH4 and adds a bit of aluminium powder, to increase the amount of Li and Al in the system without increasing the hydrogen pressure.

      Based on MFMP and Bob Higgins’ analyses, the nickel particles are wetted by LiAlH liquid which also dissolves a few percent of nickel into it. Thus we know that the nickel surface nanostructure is not critical because it gets destroyed anyway. So the lifetime of the charge is not limited by the lifetime of surface nanostructure. This makes it feasible to think that the charge’s lifetime might only be limited by the availability of necessary chemicals in the core. If that is so, it is not surprising if one can make the lifetime longer.

      Because LiAl melts only at high temperature, maybe low-temp E-cats have some other chemical which can dissolve both elements. Perhaps potassium whose melting point is 60 C.

      • Omega Z

        In the past, Rossi said that the charge is different between the L-temp & H-temp, Also the controls vary in some manner.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Yes, but I get a feeling from his statements that he trusts that he understand the difference well enough that he can e.g. use Lugano report to improve the low-temp.

          • Omega Z

            No doubt.
            I’ve also posted that starting with a 1Mw Lt E-cat is a logical process.
            It’s much better & safer to learn how to control a system at 200’C & 1+ BAR pressure then a 1Mw Hot-cat with 50 BAR pressure.

            Even though they are different, Much from 1 will apply to the other.
            Crawl 1st. Then walk.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        >>The longer the SSM, the higher the average COP.

        Indeed!

        >>assume that the control systems selects the length of the SSM

        Yes, that’s how come they can be “surprised” in the early days, this was done by Rossi!!

        The self sustain mode is 2 seconds of power on, and then 4 off I believe (or was it the reverse of this???). In the first independent test.

        So it’s important to keep in mind that SSM mode does not mean “hours” of power without inputs.

        However, if the ratio of SSM mode (2 seconds on, 4 off) changes, then this WILL significantly effect the COP.

        I don’t think ANYONE doubted that SSM mode will be how the e-cat going to run all the time. The only question to Rossi is has the ratio during SSM mode changed from 2 seconds of power on, and then 4 off with the new plant? Or what is the ratio now?

        One has to keep in mind that SSM mode means power still goes into a single reactor about 1/3 to 1/2 the time. And “any” change – even small in this ratio will effect COP in a significant way. And with “computers” controlling this on/off mode, then yes, room for many surprises does exist.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • clovis ray

          hi albert,
          I think, you confuse me, ssm does not mean power on and off .
          it means self sustain mode, or to run without input puwer,

      • LuFong

        Thanks for your response. Rossi made a calculation to determine how much fuel he needed to run for a year based on new theory derived from the Lugano ash analysis. But if the unexpected longer SSM means higher COP (probably) then he’s using more fuel and less input energy which means to me that he will run out of fuel earlier. Perhaps my simplistic view is not correct in that there are now additional elements involved in the fuel leading to more energy density in the fuel but I would imagine that until the E-Cat fuel ash is analyzed nobody including Rossi knows what is going on.

    • ecatworld

      Rossi has said he isn’t sure how long the fuel will last, but even if the fuel runs out now (after maybe four months since the beginning of the test), it would be insignificant in terms of the efficiency of the plant if much longer self sustain periods are being achieved.

      The cost of the fuel is tiny compared to the savings on the electric bill achieved by a higher COP. It might be slightly more inconvenient to change out the fuel cartridges 3 times a year compared to once a year, but not a big deal at all.

      Still, the fuel may last more than a year, too. We’ll have to wait and see.

      • LuFong

        All I’m saying is that the fuel may not last a whole year like he originally planned. Swapping out E-Cats will lead to more downtime as well.

        • Warthog

          Given that the plant is comprised of multiple identical modules, downtime for swapping will be zero. Bring one of the redundant E-cats up, turn off the one to be replaced, replace (or put a new charge in) the “down” E-cat. Plant downtime = zero.

          The only expense is the cost of the new charge (or replacement E-Cat) and a few man-hours.

          • LuFong

            Sounds plausible. Would be a good topic question to ask Rossi.

  • LilyLover

    Bravo, good Doctor, Bravo!!!
    Happiness is your right and looks like you are getting it now!!

    Congratulations!!

    Hey, looks like the electricity bills reduction is relayed by the Electric company to the bankers and the Saudi King in conjunction with the steady output of the “plant” thus proving E-Cat’s viability and building up the demand and shaping up the policy. Perhaps I overestimate the controllers, but perhaps I don’t.

    Patents or no patents; Rossi Rules!

  • Jonnyb

    Commercialisation will show the Patent Offices, of the world, how silly they can be at times?

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Rossi can fool nature, but not people.

  • When they know that they usually burned heating oil for x $ per month, and they now save money by using electricity to control the ecat plant, then they know that it’s good for their money pocket 😉

  • Omega Z

    This post inspired by “Christopher Calder post below” among others I’ve seen.

    Most of you see the shipping container full of hardware & have concern about the 1Mw E-cat cost. The cost is a Valid consideration, but needs to be taken into perspective. What portion of that hardware is required regardless of the heat supply? Most of it… Only the E-cat specifics will add higher costs.

    The boiler tank, heat exchangers, most of the plumbing & sensors would be required for any system gas or electric. If gas was used, there would be gas valves & an array of safety sensors. it would require expensive burner tubes made of a nickel alloy. Would also have a combustion air blower. Electric would be somewhat simpler, but is a higher value energy.

    In the past, Rossi & others have discussed payback time. Usually posed as how much savings does the E-cat have to make in order to pay for itself. As a sales point, this is actually a miscalculation. It should be posed as the difference of a conventional verses E-cat boiler. Following is some rough numbers to give an Idea how to calculate the savings.

    If the conventional boiler costs $500K & the E-cat boiler costs $800K, then the (savings/payback) required is $300K within in X-time. If X-time is 3-5 years, this is an easy business call. If the E-cat replaces an Electric boiler, anything beyond COP=1 is positive. If it’s replacing a Gas boiler, anything beyond COP=3 is positive as 1 & 3 are about break even energy cost respective to the E-cat.

    Replacing an electric boiler with an electric E-cat boiler.
    Keep in mind, Cost will vary by regions & large energy users also get special bulk rate & bypass some middle costs. This is Just an Example.
    1Mw=1000Kw at (10 cents ??) a kilowatt would be $100 per hour. $2400 a day times 365 days=$876,000
    COP=1 annual costs $876,000
    COP=2 saves 50% or $438,000
    COP=4 saves 75% or $657,000
    COP=8 saves 87.5% or $766.500
    COP=16 saves 93.75% or $821.250
    —————————————————–
    I took it this far(COP=16) to show not just the savings, but to show that you get diminishing returns. As the COP increases exponentially, The savings decrease exponentially. Also, I think COP=20 kind of hits the wall. Even if it stays in SSM all the time, you still have to include the control panel energy use. Only a fool would want something you have no control of.

    If I were Rossi & obtained COP=20 including the control power, I would change tack. Say if the control panel of a 1Mw plant uses 1000 watts for the control, I would look at the possibility of bringing that down to 500 watts. You just doubled COP to 40.
    At that point, I would just sell them because who wants to quibble about fractions of a watt per 1000 watts gained. Additional efforts become kind of silly.
    —————————————————–
    P.S. …..COP calculations will be different for replacing a gas boiler with an electric E-cat. You start at COP=3 & double 6,12,24, Etc to calculate savings as to the chart.

    Note. Some get caught up in the higher & higher COP. This does not give you more energy per se. A 10Kwh E-cat is still a 10Kwh E-cat. Higher COP just makes it cheaper to operate. As you can see, the benefits of higher COP become seriously diminished after COP=10. In fact, COP=20 only saves an additional 5%. COP=40 another 2.5%.
    Finding a better means for conversion of heat to electric is far more important after COP=10.

    • Mats002

      Very good summary. And this shows why Rossi works on a gas-cat and also show why a LENR++ process should drive electrons (electricity) instead of phonons (heat).
      Mills solution is LENR++ if working as claimed.

    • EEStorFanFibb

      wow, that is an absolutely stellar post. thank you.

      • clovis ray

        yep,

    • clovis ray

      Thanks O man, Nice explanation ,

  • georgehants

    Cold Fusion Now
    A New Kind of Nuclear Reactor? by Guest Author Dr. Ludwik Kowalski, Montclair State University, in which Dr. Kowalski dives into the Parhomov experiment and makes sense of the particulars for the general reader.
    http://coldfusionnow.org/a-new-kind-of-nuclear-reactor/

  • Omega Z

    Different operations especially at the lower temps may use gas or electric.
    It would depend on several issues.

    In food processing, you may not want the gas effluents in the air. Using electric boilers may be a cheaper means/option of alleviating that issue.

    Also, Natural Gas isn’t available to everyone. I lived in Lake Havasu, AZ for a while & you had no access, Tho a pipeline was in the works. It was several years off. Everything was electric.

  • Gerard McEk

    It is great to hear some positive sounds from Andrea about his 1 MW plant. That makes me optimistic too.

  • Rossi has a super-human metabolism. I think his physical endurance has helped him as much as his large brain.

  • Zack Iszard

    Very pleased to hear that the team and the customer are very pleased! I had been hoping to hear “SSM” or another input-free operation mode/technique that works successfully for long periods. Even though Rossi is not clear on exactly what the on/off timing for input power is, it is still a step in the right direction. Commercial E-cats, if they are to catch on quickly, ought to run like an ICE generator: a battery to get it started, then it puts out power once on as long as its on, recharging it’s own battery first. Power multiplication is vastly inferior to power generation!

  • Andy Kumar

    When a drug is found to be “surprisingly” effective in clinical trials, they stop the trials and start marketing it. It is considered unethical to continue the trials.
    Rossi should stop the presses and let the cat out of the bag. Talking is all fine, let him walk the walk.

    • deleo77

      I agree, why one year with one customer? If the results look good now investors would surely finance the construction and rollout of more plants. What will happen in 1 year that will not happen over the course of several months of testing? Even if equipment begins to fail down the road there is enough time of success to justify building more e-cats now. One year of testing is just an arbitrary number. Who decided one year? Why not 4, 6 or 8 months of testing? What is so special about a full year?

  • Mats002

    First thing first. Making a functional business will give the foundation for debunking mainstream science.

  • GreenWin

    Right on the money, Robert. Skepticism turns to panic as oilcos and standard model science ever so slowly absorbs the fact of LENR. Even the patent office has provided Rossi a trade secret paper trail. Now, anyone want to buy 800 idle drilling rigs abandoned on the Bakken Field?

    One year burn-in of a new tech prototype is minimal for safety certifications, new investment, theory, and short attention span skeptics. 🙂

  • GreenWin

    JTRIG calls this “misdirection.” It also keeps physicist hand wringing to a minimum.

    • Agaricus

      One less stick for the shills to beat Rossi and CF with.

  • Omega Z

    One year because it’s about more then just a high COP.
    If you noticed, one of the perimeters was about the maximum number of days it needs to operate & how many down days were allowed.

    Aside from saving energy costs, it must also be reliable/dependable.
    In a delivered just in time economy, If you can’t deliver my product as contracted, I WILL find someone that can. If the pilot plant has a tendency to break down often, It doesn’t matter if COP was 100. The customer has clients to supply.

    Consider that this Plant may be a food processor. A large market for low temp heat. Not only does the owner have clients with agreed upon deliver dates, He has a highly perishable product. It doesn’t matter to him if this technology saves him $40K a week in electricity if it breaks down for a week & costs him a half million in lost product. Not to mention a lost client.

    Who determined this 1 year time frame. The Customer. He wants to know if it’s dependable. A year fits most business criteria of a yearly 1 week shut down for major maintenance. This also fits the attempt to have a fuel charge that lasts 1 year.

  • Omega Z

    Piero
    I agree. Business(Most) will be more aware.(I’ve seen some crazy stuff over the years).

    Note some of my posts are just to provide insight or a different point of view to consider. Small details can sometimes make a world of difference in someones perspective. In this case, Christopher(He’s not the only one) has shown a concern about the 1Mw E-cat cost. Note we don’t know what the price actually will be except in the past, Rossi has stated 1.5 Million$. Regardless the cost, the differential is the key point.

    Christopher may already be aware of what I posted. I may have misread what he meant. Communication can be sketchy. It’s a blog accessible from anywhere/anytime.
    I personally find some of the discussions here intellectually stimulating. Even when I may not agree with someone. I learn things & occasionally it changes my perspective.

  • Omega Z

    On a blog we sometimes we have communication issues. Maybe my fault this time. Maybe we are on the same page & don’t realize it. I’ll try this.

    If I understand, your saying this 1 clump is of “significant importance”.
    I Actually Agree with that. I just don’t think you can draw conclusions from such a small sample. If I were IH/Rossi with an unexpected result, I would want a complete ash analysis from the Lugano test. The full picture. Was that the only clump with 97% Ni-62. If so, why? It actually could be a fluke, but I’d still want to know why.

    You can learn as much from a failed as well as a successful test.
    But you can learn much more from the unexpected.

    • Robert Ellefson

      If more ash was available, then I certainly would prefer to obtain the entire reactor charge for analysis before making conclusions, and I anticipate/hope that we will in fact have this opportunity in the not-too-distant future. Absent this, in order to make further progress, tentative conclusions or working hypothesis must often be constructed from whatever data is currently available, particularly when working in a cutting-edge field like this, and this is where we stand currently, in the peanut gallery. Most of my engineering career has been spent performing systems-level electronic design and debugging, where deadline pressures and finite resource constraints require that we make constant and rapid progress towards resolving unanticipated problems that crop up, often involving ‘black box’ subsystems with unknown operating characteristics, and this frequently requires decisions to be made based upon whatever data is available at the time, sufficient or not. The same thing applies in scientific domains like astrophysics, where data is fundamentally scarce and difficult to acquire. Fortunately, it looks like we will be able to answer many outstanding questions about these reactions once we have a public-domain lab model.

      If this project was valued by industry half as much as the next round of Dick Tracy-wannabe doohickeys are, this nut would be cracked already.

  • Agaricus

    With the increasing awareness that a new energy source is on its way it must be getting more and more difficult to find buyers on which to unload your soon-to-be-stranded ‘assets’.

    And then there are all the 30-year-old nuclear power stations with cracked moderators and crumbling metalwork, plus ponds chock full of spent fuel rods to dispose of – somehow…

  • bkrharold

    It is absolutely critical that the e-cat is not released prematurely, before Rossi and his team of engineers are absolutely confident, no matter how long it takes. We are all impatient to see the cat released as soon as possible. I don’t believe any of us would like to see the consequences, if it is released with potential flaws. There are many powerful interests who will take every opportunity to pounce on any missteps.

    • curious

      I for one would like to see a degree of interest more conmensurate with the importance of the discovery. Right now only small dedicated blogs report about the eCat, which is very unlikely if it works as well as Rossi says.

      Still, Rossi has been delivering lately, and he seems to be very confident about the success. I hope that the good news arrive and the world takes notice this time.

      • bkrharold

        After several years of wllfull ignorance and outright lies by the main stream media, I have no illusions they will suddenly start to do the right thing. They are the voice of the privileged few not the majority. Rossis strategy is to create an industrial device that is cheaper and better than the competition. The first companies that adopt this technology will have the advantage. Eventually anyone who does not have one will not be able to complete. The main stream media will finally acknowledge the reality of ths ecat, when it is no longer possible to cover it up

  • Observer

    Watch heating oil futures. That will be another real life performance indicator.

  • bkrharold

    I think Rossi has given up on the idea of convincing the scientific community. The amount of money required for a thorough investigation of LENR can only come from a government. If the USA government refuses to do the hard work, another country will benefit instead.

  • bkrharold

    Yes the puppets and clowns who troll this site occasionally

  • psi2u2

    “One thing is for sure: I do not stay here 16-18 hours per day to sharpen the points to the pencils. ”

    I see the maestro still has a good wit on him even while working a grueling schedule.

  • bkrharold

    I would hate to see this technology misused to extract more fossil fuel from the ground. It is sickening to see the ecological damage of the Canadian shale fields. No doubt ordinary Canadians have no more power than ordinary Americans to prevent this kind of wholesale environmental vandalism

  • LuFong

    I’m glad to see someone asked about the fuel consumption:

    Andrea Rossi
    March 14th, 2015 at 5:28 PM

    Patrick Ellul:

    The upgraded ssm is not due only to the control system, even if it allows more synergies. Also the charge is changed after an intense study of the Lugano report analysis. If the fuel will last less, more, or uneffected has to be experienced. Good question, though.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    Patrick Ellul
    March 14th, 2015 at 3:57 PM

    Dear Andrea,

    Your plant is using more ssm than you predicted thanks to the preciseness of your control system. Based on your theory, does this mean it might ‘burn’ through the fuel faster than the originally calculated 1 year? Or is there no correlation?

    Regards,
    Patrick

  • bkrharold

    I would not accuse him of lying, I have seen another commenter using a more appropriate word, misdirection. Rossi is facing two contradictory imperatives He needs to convince an investor that he has a marketable working device, at the same time he needs to protect the intellectual property on which the device is based. I suspect that is why he muddied the water by inserting himself into the Lugano third party test.

  • MontagueWithnail

    It really depends what you think will happen first: $100kW batteries or fully commercialised LENR. With all due respect to LENR, its odds are pretty long. That’s not because I don’t think it will happen, but because it will take a long time to build credibility, understanding, the various stages of investment, R&D, more investment, regulatory approval, market acceptance etc etc. E-vehicles are already through all that and are well into the scaling curve.

    Once batteries make $100/kW, the existing supply/demand balance of the oil market is done. Over. The tipping point will be well and truly here and oil will be an industry managing its own decline.

    Batteries will likely break oil, not LENR, so I wouldn’t worry about it. Happily they will also create a world crying out for a better source of electricity – the ideal environment for LENR to flourish.

  • BroKeeper

    Add one more “very” in the heading Frank. We must be precise.

  • Tom59

    I hope the time AR stays inside the container near the generators is recorded, so it can serve as experimental prove on absence of radiation. And I hope the predictions are all correct!

  • “I will be able to give you more information after [place a delay of your choise here] in at last in a year…”

    I’m getting tired of this…:(
    when MFMP is getting positive results, IH should hurry up.

    • Mats002

      MFMP are the fire under the fire so to speak 🙂

  • Mike Ivanov

    Usual A.Rossi style – Italian version of English, non-informative, mystery type. I think he is throwing rocks to the bush, to distract the snakes 🙂

  • georgehants

    It is certainly interesting as to who will reveal the first openly observable and repeatable device of Cold Fusion.
    Will any other organisation wish to be First and show clear, indisputable Evidence?
    They all know the timetable that hopefully Mr. Rossi will do this, will they be able to resist trying to upstage him?

  • Agaricus

    Assuming that the ‘charge’ formulation has not been changed again, this seems to mean that (as many suspect) there are two distinct functions within the control system – heater control and some other component (presumably EM fields) that serves to modulate the ‘Rossi effect’. This latter function seems to be the main focus of development, as it is refined to steadily extend ssm duration.

    If Rossi can discover what is actually collapsing the ssm mode, it seems possible that he might eventually be able to extend it indefinitely, or at least until some critical part of the ‘fuel’ mix is exhausted (technically, an infinite COP once the reactor is up and running). What is currently an ‘energy amplifier’ would then become a true energy source that only requires an initial electrical kick to set it going.

    • georgehants

      Morning Peter, do you mean a Perpetual Motion Device, (nearly) Ha how things can change, Wonderful World.

      • Agaricus

        I’ll look forward to buying my first LENR ‘replicator’ from Curry’s in a few years time, George. I hope it comes with porter ale and cold cider selections.

        • georgehants

          Peter, another massive benefit, all of this could do away with crematoriums.

          • Agaricus

            Mmmm – might increase the unsolved ‘missing persons’ rate though.

          • georgehants

            Ha

          • US_Citizen71

            Nah, just set the home computer to replicate you with the last scan on file if you don’t check in every 24 hours or so and you’ll never go missing again.

        • Omega Z

          E=Mc2
          So if I had a replicator, wouldn’t it require 1# of mass to convert to energy to convert to 1# of mass.

          I mean, excluding all the energy & massive computer power to do so, would it require 1# of Nickel to replicate a 1# T-bone steak.
          Wait. How much is Nickel$.
          Maybe I shall sell the Nickel & buy a 1.5# T-bone steak…
          Medium well please.

  • Nigel Appleton

    If it’s in SSM, how does one switch it off?

    • georgehants

      Nigel, what do you think all those Gamma Ray bursters from our Galaxy are that science cannot understand, Ha?

      • Nigel Appleton

        George, as so often is the case, I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

        I was just asking a simple question to which others have supplied informative answers.

        But thanks for your input!

        • georgehants

          Nigel, to help you —-
          It was a serious joke as science does not have a clue as to if behind Cold Fusion CERN etc. lies an Energy source that could be unleashed to destroy the World.
          If you let me know the other things I put on page in future that you are unable to understand, I will try and help you learn.
          A link below for you.
          Best
          http://www.livescience.com/49040-gamma-ray-burst-mass-extinction.html

          • Nigel Appleton

            George, please save yourself the trouble. I am a reasonably intelligent adult, capable of distinguishing between that which I need to learn about and that which I need not bother with for the present.
            I need not bother just now with learning about the impending doom of the world (or World). I know as much as I need about that for present purposes.

            Meanwhile, as a practical scientist, I have ordered up the kit and caboodle necessary to try some LENR experiments of my own.

            I hope not to unleash anything that will destroy the world or World (my insurance policy doesn’t cover that) – rather, something that will supply energy or Energy sufficient at least to heat my conservatory cheaply next winter.

            After that, of course, I shall turn my attention to retrofitting my car with a 500kW supercritical CO2 turbine generating set – a bit like the Jaguar mini-gas-turbine concept of a few years ago, but better.

            That might take a few weeks though.

          • georgehants

            Nigel, that all sounds pretty exciting and fun, good luck with that. 🙂
            Please try and understand those of us who always wish to understand more about science etc.

          • Nigel Appleton

            Oh, I do like that phrase – “science, the World, etc.” Such a burden to be carried by an abbreviation for a Latin phrase, don’t you think?

            “etc” = everything that was, is, and will be. I like it. Saves such a lot of pixels

      • Obvious

        They are just another hazard to our perilous mortal existence. No sense worrying about it. You cannot defeat the unstoppable force. Best to have a glass of wine, and reflect on the true but unlikely fact that some speck in the universe is able do so. The odds are against it, and yet there it is. So the odds must be therefore be good, not unlikely… Sometime during these circular thoughts, sleep will come.

        • georgehants

          Obvious, of course I agree, but I hope you do see the humour in my connecting to the question asked? Ha.

          • Obvious

            That is why I chose an opaque response…
            Likewise, it is hard to know the color of something under something opaque. Confusing the surface for the underlying color does not beget an answer to the color underneath. If the surface material is partly responsible for (perhaps modifies it for some reason unrelated to the opaqueness) the colour underneath, peeling off the surface opaqueness will also not reveal the true colour. The two surfaces could be interconnected in a way that separating them does not offer any clues, and possibly further obscures the true underlying color, that (perhaps) cannot be determined at all by removing its veil, and must forever remain a mystery. At this point, we could enter the tree falling in the forest with nobody around argument… if one were so inclined. (I’m not, today, BTW).

          • georgehants

            Ha, to many words for me, I shall just put it down to British humour that I though was pretty good.

          • Obvious

            I was slowly allegorically wending my way back to the heat sub-topic, whist attempting translucency, if not managing lucidity…
            Cheers.

    • PMKD

      The ability to switch off and not overheat the device on demand is essential. If turning off the electricity supply is inadequate on its own, then the next step seems to be to purge the Hydrogen and inject Nitrogen; in other words: cut off the fuel supply. Another thread on this website details this having been done.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      That would be a good question to Rossi. However, his answer would probably be something like “I cannot give information about this issue.” Basically, there might be the following options, or combinations of them:

      1 – Switch EM stimulation off (to be expected according to the Airbus patent).

      2 – Switch a destructive EM signal on.

      3 – Switch the heater on in order to raise the core temperature above the optimal level.

      4 – Increase coolant flow in order to bring the core temperature below the optimal level.

      5 – As an ultima ratio, pour nitrogen into the reactor (as Piantelli did once when his reactor ran out of control).

      Other possible control mechanisms like ultrasound stimulation have occasionally been mentioned, but there is virtually no information about their suitability in the present context.

    • Gerard McEk

      SSM is indeed a interesting phenomenon. Until now Rossi has never mentioned any other control mechanism than controlling the temperature (switching the input energy on and off, depending on the output temperature). SSM in itself is bi-stable if you can only control the input heat and would in that case be quite difficult to maintain. I have suggested to control it by controlling the output heat, but Rossi has dismissed that as a possibility. SSM maybe also controlled by the ‘Secret Mix’ of Rossi, which should then at some temperature slow-down the LENR process at higher temperatures and stimulate it al lower. The other possibility is the EM stimulation, which has been discussed and never denied by Rossi. Another damping effect can give the dissipation of EM caused by the LENR effect as suggested by Axil Axil. Switching the reactor off cannot easily be done by that type of control because you then need to control the impedance of the heating coil in some way. Now I write this I remember the endless discussions we had about the non liniarity of the heating coil resistance vs the temperature. Maybe that is one of Rossi’s secrets for getting a stable LENR.
      To answer your question: Rossi uses either EM control or he controls the heat extraction to stop the SSM LENR process both including switching off the input heat is my best guess.

    • Omega Z

      It is like going down hill in your car & the breaks don’t work.
      Just hold on & hope for da best. 🙂

    • Warthog

      Sudden large increase in coolant flow, or vent hydrogen pressure, or both. These modes of shutdown were mentioned very early on for the warm cat. Since the current version apparently uses a sealed reactant chamber, the latter can probably be ruled out,

  • Agaricus

    Perhaps the ‘warm’ e-cat is something of a trojan horse, so long as its real potential is downplayed to make it seem less potentially disruptive. The next generation e-cats might be a lot more scary for the established energy interests.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Agreed. Because high temperature materials tend to be expensive, for commercial electricity production one would prefer a modest temperature device with high COP, rather than a very hot device with mediocre COP. Also present commercial nuclear and coal plants run at moderate temperature, even though combustion flame and fission could theoretically produce very high temperatures.

      • Mike Ivanov

        As far as I know, the efficiency of conversion of heat to mechanical or electrical form of energy is much lower for lower temperatures.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Correct. Selection of temperature is tradeoff between fuel cost and plant cost.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Agreed. In fact, Parkhomov’s newest device seems to have some kind of extra semicylindrical tunnel (about 10×10 cm in size) which is visible in some of the images as a dark object partly obscuring the reactor. I think it’s some kind of heat reflector that he’s experimenting with. By controlling the position of the infrared reflector one could control the cooling rate and thus achieve potentially large or even infinite COP. One would then only need the resistor during startup.

    • Agaricus

      Or a flat-wound coil, perhaps, curved for focus? As for a reflector, field strength could be adjusted by relative position.

      http://qxl.manufacturer.globalsources.com/si/6008839164178/pdtl/Air-coil/1064593926/Air-Coil.htm

      • Pekka Janhunen

        It need not be fancy. For example if COP without reflector is 3, to yield infinite COP the shield only needs to reflect back 33% of the heat.

        • clovis ray

          Hi, Pekka, You know, i just saw a demo for how sound could quench a flame, by using sound to control the heat, maybe the answer, by using sound, or Acousticsof some sort,

  • Herb Gillis

    It seems like we get these optimistic statements from Rossi whenever things start to heat up in areas of the LENR field that he does not control (ie. Parkhomov). Hopefully competitive events will force Rossi to disclose more information more quickly.

    • Obvious

      Not likely Rossi will disclose anything earlier due to outside activities. It probably makes him fidgety while stuck in his box, though.

      • BroKeeper

        Perhaps he is also in an isolation test for a Mars mission.

    • Omega Z

      I think it was a few weeks ago that Rossi said something to the effect that-
      He wants to provide a few tidbits for those who follow during the slow times. He is aware that it gets boring for those outside the circle.

  • Edac

    Someone must correct me if I am wrong, but I do not remember Andrea Rossi ever clearly defining ‘self-sustain mode’. I suspect it is a mode where there is some sort of input, even if that input is not heat.

    On page http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/08/rossi-self-sustain-mode-by-far-the-main-mode-of-operation-in-1-mw-e-cat-plant/ there is the statement,
    According to what [Andrea Rossi] said, [Self Sustain Mode] can mean both ‘self-sustain mode’ and ‘start-stop mode’.
    and,
    The start-stop mode is when the drive is turned on and off at frequent intervals, apparently to help control the E-Cat and prevent thermal runaway from destroying the reactor.

    Hence my assertion that is has not been clearly defined. I get the feeling that Andrea Rossi is reluctant to define it clearly, and that that is not due to his lack of clarity with English.

    • ecatworld

      I think he has been pretty clear that ‘self sustain mode’ (SSM) means that the input drive is turned off and the reactor keeps running, thus increasing the COP.

      He said even today: “Mark Saker:
      It is the SSM that has increased and, consequently, the driving time is decreased.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.”

    • Albert D. Kallal

      I am much in agreement here.

      Of course SSM mode means the drive been turned off, but that to my knowledge means a off/on mode.

      Of course the “issue” becomes is how long?

      SSM as revealed (so far as per your link) means a few seconds on, then a few seconds off. (4 off, then 2 on, or the reverse – cannot remember right now).

      However, regardless of the “cycle” time, increased “off” times would significantly increase COP.

      And Rossi seems “very” happy with results – as a consequence this suggests some GREAT COP numbers are being obtained.

      This sounds like MUCH more positive news then past comments from Rossi that results could be “good or bad” after a year of testing.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Andy Kumar

    “From inside the plant, A.R., with Warm Regards”
    Good to know that Rossi still has a sense of humor. The “plant” is a fairly big place. What we want to know is from where in the plant. From in front of the controller or from behind the heat exchanger or by the power outlet?

    • Omega Z

      The 1Mw plant is made up of 2 shipping containers.
      One contains the E-cats & exchangers. The other contains multiple computers for monitoring and the controls.
      “I am writing from inside the computers container.”

  • gian luca Gian Luca

    I would like to know the COP in SSM….and for how long!!!
    I’m very curious (COP 2 – 3 – 4 or more?).

    “I am writing from inside the computers container”…..this once he tells where is

    • When in SSM there is no energy in so there is no COP, it’s purely self sustaining, but overall SSM drives up the average energy in so an average COP of 3 may become 6 or 12. The figures have not been released yet.

      • ecatworld

        Hi Barry, in ssm there will have to be some energy input to keep the control system, pumps, etc. running.

        • Luca

          Will not be determined by the ratio of out and in and out, but the ratio between what you consume to reach it

  • bachcole

    UpDate #20: (:->)^3

  • LuFong

    It would be nice to know if this improvement will make it’s way into the home E-Cat. If it’s primarily due to the the fuel mixture then possibly. If it’s a result of the control system then perhaps the 1MW’s plant is more sophisticated than a home E-Cat’s.

    • adu

      Should be no problem to adopt software.

    • ecatworld

      Rossi has said that the plant is made up of units that are similar to the domestic units, so possibly not too much of a problem.

      • LuFong

        True but the home E-Cat is probably going to be much simpler (for economic reasons) and perhaps the control system won’t be as sophisticated (if that’s what’s driving the improvement).

        • Omega Z

          “synergies”

          This could have to do with the recirculating of the water & the way it’s being used. The recirculated water from the 1Mw plant would have higher average return temps then a home heating system due to multiple cats in operation. There would be less quenching allowing for longer SSM modes.

    • adu

      Andrea Rossi

      April 9th, 2015 at 12:25 PM

      Peter Metz:
      Thank you for kind words.
      The answer to your question is:
      Yes.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      Peter Metz

      April 9th, 2015 at 11:34 AM

      Dear Andrea Rossi,

      Are the improvements you are currently seeing in the COP of the 1MW plant (not known with certainty until the end of the trial period) possibly transferable in whole or in part to the Home E-Cat?

      It must be very difficult to be quietly working in your shipping container office whilst witnessing these potentially world shaking results. I would like to add I really appreciate the news you are giving us. Thanks!

      Sincerely,
      Peter Metz

      • LuFong

        Good to hear!

    • adu

      3rd answer 🙂 Maybe a mod can merge it..

      This is a somehow a more substantial thought:

      Why should there be a low-level ecat when there is a much more sophisticated solution? Is there really a need for it (different technic) or can it be achieved by software (controlling system), petting down the cat?

  • fritz194

    The important thing is that the COP is not fixed – and could be possible infinite – running in closed loop.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I guess it is much greater than 10. Although Rossi tends to exaggerate at times, as is typical for Southern Europeans, he usually underplays when it comes to technical issues.

    • ajb

      The key remaining question then is the temperature at the heat exchanger (not inside the Ecat). It may not be a hot cat but maybe he is also making incremental progress there towards 600C and beyond, which would be needed for efficient electricity generation.

  • Bob

    There is a very interesting, unspoken correlation here!

    Stable self sustain mode and very high COP and NO “Could be negative, Could be Positive” disclaimer!

    This is a bit of a new approach for Mr. Rossi. Of course it makes perfect sense that if the 1MW plant was stable and in SSM, it really could be nothing but positive. For a very long time, when talking about the plant, it was always conditioned with the “could be + -” disclaimer, but not recently! I believe this must be a sign that things indeed are going well, either intentionally given or a subconscious slip. Either way it “is positive”! 🙂

    Perhaps we can hope that if this trend continues but a while longer, we might not have to wait the entire year for more disclosure. If the plant runs for extended times in SSM / very high COP, then there really would be no reason to hold back announcements. While problems might arise with the longevity of the plant, that would be related to engineering or design issues, not the fact that LENR was a proven phenomena. I.E. it would be liken unto the Wright Brothers stating that they would not release information about flight, until they could fly across the Atlantic ocean, with 200 seats and a first class section!

    I see no logical reason why IH or even the “customer” would have to wait the arbitrary 12-14 months.

    • ecatworld

      Remember, this was written in an email to me, not a public statement on the JONP. But he did give me permission to publish it

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks for sharing

      • Giuliano Bettini

        Thanks, very interesting.

        I have a doubt, maybe stupid, about the meaning of ssm i.e.:
        1 – the whole plant works in ssm (except for the control);
        2 – some reactor are in ssm mode, others do not.

        How do you interpretate?

        • ecatworld

          Rossi has said that each reactor (103 total I think) has its own control system, so I am guessing that each will go into ssm individually, not every reactor marching in unison.

          • Giuliano Bettini.

            Thanks. Me too. Maybe that’s the so called “synergy”.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      I much agree. I think less and less reason exists to wait.

      In fact I think its rather possible that results WILL occur before the 1 year trial of the reactor.

      The issue of SSM mode and how long are the cycle time from off to off is the issue we all want to know.

      As noted, this was around 2-3 seconds on, and then off. Just extending this ratio a bit can jump up the COP quite a bit.

      We all know that the heat drive is being turned off, but “missing” the fact that these are relative short times and this tends to confuse the public that does not realize what SSM mode means.

      The issue of turning off power is not a big deal, but HOW LONG such cycle times are is what will jump up the COP from say about 3-4 to some really spectacular numbers.

      The plant always runs in SSM mode (at least once it warmed up), but increased ratios of drive time / over no drive time are the issue that we are all curious about (and will determine the COP).

      Someone should simply ask Rossi what is the ratio of on vs off time when running in SSM mode.

      Regardless, I much agree that the case for Rossi to hold off on announcements as to performance is fast disappearing.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • timycelyn

      Bob, I agree, but……

      Think of it this way – there will have been some underlying assumptions about the 12 month trial, e.g.12 months at COP 6 = XMwh (equivalent, because he’s burning more electricity to save a lot more of oil or whatever he would normally burn) of energy saved = commercial success for the factory owner. Higher COPs just mean ‘X’ is reached sooner.

      Whilst the contract they have in place may stipulate 12 moths at COP 6, exceeding this and delivering the gain (in MwH saved) sooner is not going to be a problem! Once that point is passed, one might expect Rossi – in this context – to start quietly dropping the ‘or failed…’ part of his routine health warning.

      A question testing this (“Is the pressure off once you have delivered X Mwh to the customer, even if that is well inside the 12 month period?”) might be worth putting on JONP, I suppose.

      Will this mean an announcment sooner?? I really don’t know. I would suggest both parties probably have to agree:

      1. The factory owner – his possible thoughts as per this discussion
      2. IH/Rossi – I’m sure they will have a major say in any such decision as well.
      *Do they still want to avoid publicitiy?
      * Is their ability to meet the avalanche of orders that will come ready to go yet – I mean really ready?
      * Would disclosure at this pointinterfere with their IP strategy?

      I hope desperately for something soon, but my head is telling me we might see something a little early – perhaps – but sadly they will, possibly for the reasons above, adhere more or less to their declared timescale….

      Cheers

      Tim

    • Omega Z

      Rossi is just providing updates to certain aspects.

      If you ask specifically about the pilot plant, “Could be negative, Could be Positive” will still apply.

      As to the 1 year run-time, it will not be cut short. It’s purpose is to answer multiple long term questions. Cop is just 1 of those. Long term reliability/dependability also needs to be answered among others.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    The COP was always 6 guaranteed as far as I can remember. A very high COP would mean at least 12 to me, hoping for 20.

    If this can be replicated with the hot-cat, electricity generation looks very good

  • Gerard McEk

    I just wonder how Rossi controls his plant while in SSM??? He must have other controls than just the heater coil.

    • Zack Iszard

      Flow of coolant: how much heat is he taking away? SSM may be a “controlled runaway”, as it were.

      • Gerard McEk

        I that suggested to Andrea Rossi once, but he dismissed it then, so there must be other controls, or circumstances changed.

  • Bob

    If there is indeed long periods of SSM at COP of 12 or more (this would be approx. 70% SSM) and the customer has the 1MW plant on it’s own utility meter, then I would say that the HERO scenario is very plausible. The “fool of the century” scenario almost impossible.

    I believe it would be almost impossible and would have to be intentionally criminal, that Rossi could rig the system and fool a customer in their own facility, using utility metered power bills for 6 months. 12 months would not increase the certainty much. While the difference in 99.98% certain versus 99.99999% is a magnitude in math, in reality it really is almost meaningless. Especially if you are evaluating a system that is producing 12 times more energy than being put in. It would be a different story if the COP was only 1.1 However, 6 months at COP 12 would be unquestionable. I also do not believe that Rossi is scamming anyone, intentionally or unintentionally.

    No, I believe if the customer decides not to come forward, (and the eCat works as stated) it will be due to them not wanting the large amount of public attention that would surely come. Depending on the company, a media circus would be detrimental and unwelcome.
    “If” it was Elon Musk on the other hand, we would know about it soon! He does not seem to worry about being viewed as the fool of the century! He has made some very big announcements with very little commercial product. Yet he seems to be doing quite well!

  • Gerard McEk

    I that suggested to Andrea Rossi once, but he dismissed it then, so there must be other controls, or circumstances changed.

  • Bernie777

    bachcole….Are you smoking some of that Colorado weed?

    • bachcole

      Having done so plus LSD about 46 and more years ago, I guess the mental looseness and creativity does not disappear. However, having been a critical thinker before that, and being a critical thinker since them, I can do both. Many mentally loose and creative thinkers can’t do the critical thinking so much, and vice versa. (:->) I am bragging. Suffering broadens or destroys a person.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Thank God you are not suffering delusions of grandeur!
        We become what we practice, reasoning is not incidental.

  • IRONY ALERT – SEE TV NEWS VIDEO:

    “FUSION ENERGY: MIMIC SUN, HARNESS THE ENERGY AND PUT IT TO GOOD USE”

    General Atomics, Inc. is working on hot fusion technology that relies, among other things, on giant costly magnets. They think they will have something working by 2040.

    Meanwhile Andrea Rossi is sitting right next to a working fusion reactor with a “very high COP”. There is a old saying about going around Robin Hood’s barn to get to Sherwood Forest, meaning a long unnecessary detour. The video is interesting, however.

    http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/Mimic-the-sun-bottle-that-energy-and-put-it-to-good-use-299411581.html

    I don’t have a Facebook account so I could not leave a comment on the news station website, but some of you might wish to.

    • Freethinker

      Completely dumbstruck news crew, but way cool magnet there. Can I borrow?

  • builditnow

    Soft Launch or Big Splash?
    When Industrial Heat decides to allow visitors at the factory site, are going for a “soft launch” or a “big media splash”.

    A soft launch, which could consist of giving experimenters little hints as to how to make their reactors work so that by the time a few selected visitors are at the factory site, there are also 20 or 30 replications occurring around the world (perhaps in a few US labs like NASA) and orders for another 10 1mW units. The lamestream media would slowly pick up on the news.

    A Big Spash? What would this require? The India prime minister publicly backing LENR, nar not enough and why go public when India is playing catchup? What about Obama and the Chinese president in a joint announcement, that would do it, but could / would they? Or, perhaps some big US labs?

    A soft launch seems easier and gives Industrial Heat more time to gear up production, get the factory model worked out so that multiple factories can be quickly built to meet demand, before too many notice.
    Safer from further anti cold fusion backlash?
    What do you think?

    • ecatworld

      Reading Tom Darden’s recent interview, I don’t think he’s the type to go for a big media splash. It seems to be antithetical to the way he operates. He said he couldn’t remember Cherokee ever putting out a press release, even.

      • bachcole

        I am pretty sure that you have that right. However, I am sure that his desire to make the E-Cat a big success (assuming that it works as rumoured) will trump his tendency to be low-key, if necessary. So anything could happen.

        • builditnow

          80% chance of a soft launch next year?
          So far Darden and Industrial Heat have kept the public attention to the minimum required to bring in investors so they can comfortably complete their next target. This has been a successful approach (it seems), so, why not continue with the same strategy?
          Competition could force them to move faster, but, where is the competition that Industrial Heat doesn’t have their fingers in. Brillouin could be a competitor, however, there is one report that Brillouin is partly funded by Industrial Heat / Darden. Where are all the competitors? Do the competitors seem strangely quiet?

          At the moment it seems that Industrial Heat is comfortably in the lead and can determine the type of launch that suits them. Why not focus on heat for industrial use for a start? Plenty of sales right there.
          Does the name Industrial Heat tell us Darden’s plan?

          • Agaricus

            Does the name Industrial Heat tell us Darden’s plan?

            IMO, it’s pretty clear that the name was chosen specifically for development and marketing of the LT e-cat as an industrial heater (hot water and low pressure steam).

            They may have another name ready for a separate subsidiary dedicated to development and marketing of the hot cat for high pressure steam (electricity generation, propulsion) and perhaps others for desalination systems and other applications.

            I’m pretty sure that they will not try to enter the domestic boiler market for at least a generation, for ‘political’ reasons.

          • Omega Z

            Agar
            Industrial use is low hanging fruit & will work out the kinks. It will also pay the heavy lifting upfront business costs. Like a new Chip costs 1000’$ for 1st adapters & 100’$ to the masses a year latter. It will also provide the safety data for residential use.

            A few years after Industrial application, Home heating units will then become a priority. However, they will only be suited for use as base heat at the present. They’ll be combined with a conventional heating system. Perhaps, in a generation, they will evolve enough to be a stand alone heating system.

          • bachcole

            Once the reality of LENR+ is accepted, it won’t matter what Darden labelled his little venture. He could rename it Maryyugo Inc. and it wouldn’t matter. All heaven is going to break loose soon.

          • builditnow

            Maryyugo Inc. quick, rush out and register the name.

      • Omega Z

        Frank
        I think Barty’s post above is a reasonable probability.
        As to Darden doing a big public reveal. Something poetic,

        Don’t go to the Media. Make the Media come to him.

    • Ophelia Rump

      A big splash would be rolling the first hundred 1 MW plants off the assembly line into the parking lot, for delivery to customers, making them qualify as “shipped” to customers for business legal purposes, and delivering the first hundred thousand home units to Home Depot for public sale.

    • I guess it will be like in the software industry.

      The e-cat is now in a “alpha” state, where it is working but is still in development and under heavy tests. It is unstable and has many unknowns.

      A possible “soft launch” will be like going into a beta phase, where just a limited number of “early adopters” will get a plant that successfully passed the alpha state (= the current trail period).

      These few customers will have to give helpful feedback for minor optimizations and give IH time to prepare their industrial manufacturing process.

      The beta phase will slinkingly change over to normal production and delivery cycles, by including more and more “beta testers”.

      I guess this is the way IH will act.

      • Omega Z

        I agree, Barty.
        It will be a gradual ramp up. Being a totally new technology, there are still many unknowns. Recalls are expensive & destructive to survival.

    • Ivan Idso

      I am not sure there will be a planned launch, it may be political or strategic release from any one of the governments or big players who it has been established have knowledge of lenr. The global emission reduction conference is in Paris the December and the US presidential campaign is next year. Lenr is already far enough along to be announced to the world when it will benefit certain parties strategically.
      Another factor could be players shifting investments, such as oil, around because they may crash when announced. I don’t believe for a moment that this will just be a routine news release without any other considerations.

  • Ophelia Rump

    That is an excellent point, If that thing paid itself off in under the year of the test, if I were the customer and had the option to buy more I would find a way to use more whether I needed them or not. Odds are the customer is large and could easily find a worthy homes for more.

  • Credible sources… more than one?

    Mats was just at ICCF19. Who were the people at ICCF19 that could know such information and be willing to pass it along to him on background?

    I’m guessing Darden was one. For Mats to not talk to Darden while there is close to unthinkable. Darden is not making many open proclamations but I can easily see him letting Mats know that things were going great and to buckle his seat belt for Day 400.

    And if there’s more than one maybe the Page brother was another since he’s got the juice to find his way into inner circles. There also seems to be some sort of link between IH and Brillouin Energy through common investors and Page is now known to be a Brillouin investor. (PS – tell me gain those barges weren’t plan A for a LENR reveal and that Google is not involved).

    I suppose one source could be Rossi himself though I’m not sure if Mats would consider that a source or not. I expect he and Mats communicate periodically.

    In any case I find Mats’ take on the current state of affairs invigorating. It’s happening. Not fast enough, but it’s happening. People are starting to lift their skirts.

    • Omega Z

      Wasn’t Levi present at the ICCF conference. I’m confident that Rossi & Levi are in regular contact. Thus my opinion of Rossi’s approval of an independent replication by part of the Lugano team. Mats is acquainted with all the players presently involved.

  • Gerrit

    Rossi says it himself: “First, one 1 MW plant has been supplied to a Customer who is using it to
    make his production using the energy produced by the same 1 MW E-Cat. It is true that it is under R&D and test, but it works, at least so far.”

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=876&cpage=6#comment-1072113

    Apparently the April issue of the french magazine “Science et vie” covers LENR and hot fusion in unbiased tone.

  • I can confirm this information. I’ve heard first hand from visitors of the plant that it works very well reducing electricity bills significantly and running SSM most of the time producing COP in the 20+ (sometimes more like 80) range … (http://sifferkoll.se)

    • Buck

      I can only hope that these results are confirmed at the end of the 400 day trial.

      A COP between 20-80 essentially removes +95% of the energy cost of heat. Not a single reasonable person will be able to ignore the message. I would like to think that the MSM Financial Press will be all over this though I would be surprised if this included the WSJ

      • Gerrit

        If you only have to spend 50€ instead of 1000€ on heating the house, that will be the end of the insulation industry.

        • Omega Z

          “that will be the end of the insulation industry.”

          No it will not. Ever been around a campfire on a cold night. One side freezes & the other side roasts. You will have cold spots, hot spots & the lack of comfort. You also lose heat at a faster pace & ultimately need an additional E-cat or 2 or more depending on square footage of living space. They are after all just 10Kw of heat each. 10Kw=34K Btu’s.

          Insulation will still have a major cost benefit in needing fewer E-cats & energy consumption. And Insulation is once & done.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Very impressive

    • Sanjeev

      I assume that your sources now obviously know who the customer is. Any info on that ?
      Did they sign an NDA etc ?

      • Yes they do of course, but name and location of the customer is a secret so far.

    • Omega Z

      Sifferkoll®
      As I posted above, A COP range from A to B doesn’t give a full picture. Is this data taken from singular reactors or for the entire 1Mw. Is it COP=A 99% of the time & COP=B 1% of the time.

      You post kind of covers that question. COP=A+ and sometimes more. That leaves whether it is singular reactors or not. Ultimately, You also need to figure in the energy used for the controls as that is integral to it’s operation.

      All in All tho, It sounds as if Rossi should be able to at least average a COP around 20 anyway. That by itself will make it a huge success. Even if the 1Mw plant costs a Million$ up front…

      • I don’t think there are any exact numbers on this yet. But from what I heard the plant can run on COP>20 for some undefined period of time, and that the customer is satisfied with the performance.

        • Omega Z

          Yes, Rossi has said on JONP that the customer has been impressed so far. But Rossi also inserts, until the test is done, it may be positive but also negative. He’s just being cautious. It is a fact that issues could still arrive before then

  • Robert Ellefson

    With a COP of 20, commonly-available Thermo-Electric Generators (aka Seebeck generators, such as those listed at http://thermoelectric-generator.com/) with ~5% conversion efficiency can supply the control and stimulus power, such that a self-powered, closed-loop system is possible. I hope somebody with access to such high-output reactors sees fit to create one of these ‘impossible’ machines soon, so that the revolution can begin in earnest.

  • Henry

    Could you detail name of these visitors, location and how to contact them?
    Anonymous “said” it’s not enough to give a credible witness.

    • hempenearth

      Wild speculation that the customer is Cherokee Brick and Tile, Waterville Road, Macon, Georgia.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Even at COP 100 that is only a tiny trickle from a vast reserve, an infinitesimal fraction of a percent of the total capacity. If the COP goes much higher people will begin to become frightened as they realize the potential. I hope Rossi stops there and no one else follows up but that will never happen, one day the dam will burst.

  • Sanjeev

    The link goes to an English version, which is more clear.
    If the news is real, and I see no reason for Sifferkoll to spread rumors, then the visitations have already began, perhaps by invitation only.

    • Ged

      That would make a lot of sense, and explain part of Darden’s motivation to start reaching out to more CF researchers to fund. Until all is said and done we don’t know reliability, of course. Has to be unequivically positive for invitations to go out, and multiple sources can’t be totally brushed off; particularly since Rossi rumors of this leaked nature are usually true so far.

      It’s a major cool-cat breakthrough if so.

  • Gerard McEk

    I wonder if a COP of that level will not be sufficient for an early public announcement. If the ‘customer’ sees these results during say half a year, then he should be very enthusiastic and order immediately ten of these Ecat plants.

    • timycelyn

      What’s to say he hasn’t?

    • Omega Z

      First. Don’t get to excited about COP at this time.

      “early public announcement” Probably not.
      This pilot plant is for things far beyond just COP. It also needs to be dependable/reliable for long periods without constant interruptions.

      I would point out that Rossi reported they had a steam leak about a week ago. This in itself would not be of much concern to the customer. If & How it effected the E-cat plant itself would be of concern.

      I would also point out that a COP range from a to b isn’t as important as to what the average COP is. In fact, the COP from a to b is more or less meaningless. Especially if it’s COP=A 99% of the time & COP=B 1% of the time. We then need to know if that is taken from singular reactors or the entire pilot plant.

    • hempenearth

      For some reason I have this idea that an early public announcement got some other cold fusion researchers into a spot of bother once.

  • Ged

    Maybe it is time to accellerate experiments with more Rossi-like fuel mixtures, such as including iron. If this is real and getting that kind of COP, then the Parkhomov-like fuel design is just barely tapping the surface.

    • ecatworld

      Fuel may play a part, but I think the high COP can largely be attributed to the control system and ability of Rossi to run the plant in self sustain mode for long stretches,

      • IdleMind

        If this is true, that COP is more than an order of magnitude greater than I imaged possible or even in the wild. If true there’s no holding this back now. Where would you guys invest?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      For any fuel, I see no principal reason why nearly infinite COP couldn’t be obtained by modulating reactor cooling (for example by movable IR reflectors), instead of modulating reactor heating.

      • Warthog

        With sufficiently well designed heat exchange, yes. Modulating reactor heating was done initially because it was cheap to implement, and simple and easy to control. Doing the same with a control valve is none of those things. Obviously, the CV approach can be done, since pretty much any chemical process does so….but for a lab rig, and even for a pilot plant of the scale of the 1MW…….no.

  • If true, this means that Rossi is really cooking. Viva Rossi and Industrial Heat, LLC!

  • deleo77

    If this is true, why even wait a year? Why not share it now? Even if everything with the plant failed terribly tomorrow, the fact that a COP in that range existed for any significant period of time at all would be worth a Nobel Prize, hundreds of millions in funding, major partnership deals… Teams of scientists from MIT, NASA, GE etc. would start working to help make it better around the clock.

    • timycelyn

      Sounds like total chaos to me, with every chance of something going out of control in a bad way.

      I’m afraid you make a good case for therm taking the year and doing this in as measured a way as possible – just as they seem to be doing.

    • ecatworld

      Rossi has said there is a contractual agreement between the IH and the customer, which specifies timeframe for testing. Yes, a contract can be changed, but there is also the question that Rossi is interested in, which is how long can an ecat charge last. He hopes it can last a year, so the year-long test is important for that reason too.

      • David Taylor-Fuller

        A Slightly more interesting question is how much is in a single charge. Its obvious that he is running multiple cores inside the shipping container.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        There is no reason not to have parallel tests going on simultaneously, given the importance, I would be surprised if other testing similar to that being done for the “customer” is not being done. Darden “We want to work in a collaborative way with many more large companies, and we want to help others do that.”

    • Omega Z

      This is a pilot plant not yet ready for production. GE & others are not going to run with this. It needs more time before huge investments start moving.

      “not yet ready” Rossi has posted on JONP that small things are up for change. “MANY Small things”
      On your Marks. Get ready, Bang!
      And the “Turtle” is off just coming across the starting line…
      Set back, Relax. It’s going to take a while…

      Oh, Did I mention this race isn’t even set to start until 2016…

    • Albert D. Kallal

      From IH and Rossi’s point of view, the COP and ALSO the input costs for fuel and maintains etc. is ESSENTIAL data for a sale.

      I think the COP numbers “trickling” out are FANTASTIC numbers. We were all hoping for about the 10+ range, and now info suggests a 20+ range. This suggests the device can compete with natural gas for just heating a building let alone heat for industrial processes.

      So it has a COP of 20 or more!. At this point then ANY REASONABLE customer will THEN ask what the input cost numbers are. Without a few months, then calculating fuel costs, and input costs cannot be provided.

      Without such numbers ZERO business will sign on the dotted line. This would be like a company purchasing a new truck but not knowing power, performance and fuel consumption (and that of maintains cost).

      If a few of the small reactor units fail during the test, then they also have failure and replacement costs rates – again a essential number for any sale. In other words, how reliable is the plant? Who is going to purchase something that only works for a few months?

      As for not announcing the plants performance now? Why? The ONLY thing such a move would serve is to start a HUGE roaring fire under GE, Siemens, Honeywell etc.

      Every day that goes by with the world and people ignoring LENR is ANOTHER day in which the e-cat moves ahead of the competition. Every day they dedicate themselves to improving and gathering required experience with the plant is a day that everyone else ignoring this technology falls behind.

      You think Apple was public talking about a touch phone when no one else had such a phone?

      The industry and science skepticism on LENR is a GIFT HORSE for any company entering into this new industry because everyone else don’t believe in LENR!

      With the COP numbers they are talking about now, it going to be SUPER simple to find customers, but they need the base cost numbers – sales cannot really occur until such time they have the maintains and running costs nailed down. Since they don’t have such numbers, for what possible gain and reason would they promote and talk about the 1MW plant now – there is ZERO reason and advantage, but rather HUGE disadvantages to their competition.

      From a business point of view, HI’s current approach makes perfect sense.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada
      kallal@msn.com

      • timycelyn

        Congratulations on this, Albert! This exactly captures and summarises my feelings on the whole issue of prior disclosure before the end of the year’s trial of the 1MW plant. Like everyone else here I am very impatient for that point to be reached, but this is just emotion, as the case against early release is very strong indeed and just as you have outlined.

        I’m afraid all of us supporters will just have to be patient – 5 years from now it will all be in the past and long forgotten, but what then exists will have been built on the foundations that are so carefully being laid right now by IH.

        Cheers

        Tim

  • Curbina

    I’m just going to say that even if we apply a hearsay correction factor of 0,5, (hence, a COP of 10) this would be very ver very good news.

  • Bob

    I would like to offer my opinion and ask for feedback concerning the customer and “contract”.
    I believe there is a fair amount of misunderstanding and it all relates to the party and goal of this great story.

    1) The customer is a customer. They do not own LENR, intellectual rights to the eCat or probably even the 1MW plant itself. (It has been said it is most likely leased)
    With that in mind, the customer has little to no say about certain announcements. They surely have the right (contractual) to say….”You must keep our name and location secret until we release it”. However, I cannot imagine any contract to a customer could say “you cannot make any annoucements about your own product”. This is a fallacy. The contract would only protect the customer’s identity and location, not any information about COP, run time, down time, etc. etc.

    2) IH /Rossi owns the eCat IP. They are not controlled by the “customer”. They could sell another tomorrow if they chose. They could put one on public display if desired. If IH /Rossi does not make announcements about LENR or the eCat in “General”, it is because they want more data, possibly are leveraging finance, working in political realms or any other number of issues. But the customer is very unlikely to be the cause of “no data”. Again, the so called contract is not preventing IH from building, selling or releasing information about other plants, reactors, IP or data in general.

    3) If Tom Darden is sincere about getting this technology out as fast as possible to the world to reduce pollution and improve human life, the “customer” could not be holding him back. Again, they bought or leased a piece of equipment. So unless they bought IH / Leonardo Corp as well, they have no control over how many units IH sells, how much eCat specific information is released or so forth. The only contractual limit would be related to location and identity.

    IH / Rossi are not betting the bank that the first 1MW unit is going to be perfect. A leak or charge life is not going to sink the ship. Leaks and plant endurance are standard engineering functions. Charge life is product improvement. LENR/Cold fusion will not be proved false because of a pipe leak or because a charge ran 4 months instead of 6. etc. Sure the “customer contract” should have conditions on how long the plant works, COP etc. etc. But that is to insure that they get what they paid for. Not that “if we do not get 12 months of continuous running cold fusion at a COP > 3.52345 ” than you cannot announce that cold fusion is real to the rest of the world! These are two completely different interests.

    The customer contract has little to do with announcing or providing public information. That is soley tied to Industrial Heat’s marketing and strategic development planning. Do not blame the customer!
    🙂

    • Omega Z

      I don’t know if the release of data is included in the NDA contract. It could be.
      Likely it has much more to do with Industrial Heat & Rossi’s choice.
      By operating the plant for a full year, they can better consolidate all the data.
      As to this particular update, If Rossi released this COP 20 to 80, it can easily be taken out of context when the official numbers are presented at the end of the test.

      Rossi has many detractors who thrive on minor discrepancies even if they have to make them up. Imagine at the end of 1 year & all the integral components are included that COP=18. That is enough to send all his detractors into a frenzy of rants. It doesn’t work as previously stated & ad nauseam.

    • radvar

      Interesting observations. Of course, the contract could say anything that the parties agree to, including, “If you make any announcements about the product, you pay me $1M.” However, the question is what is reasonable.

      Probably the contract says something like “If you make any claims prior to completion, I won’t provide an endorsement (or “you can’t use my name.”) Because the customer probably doesn’t want their name associated with unproven claims. Which might explain why Rossi is so careful with the “could be positive or negative”.

      And probably what IH wants is a clean endorsement that says “I haven’t the foggiest idea how it worked, but I made an extra $XXX,XXX in gross profit during the test period due to lower per unit energy costs.”

      Someone will no doubt point out that there could have been a secret dilithium warp coil under the shipping container that the customer did not know about. So it’s not clear what the value of the endorsement is with respect to proof of LENR.

      However, business people make a living from taking risks, and being neither skeptopaths or scientists (and perhaps being a bit jaded about scientists), they tend to to rely on such things as endorsements from fellow business people of good repute .Such endorsement would lower the risk barriers to many types of investments flowing toward IH.

      When you think about it, such an endorsement could be quite valuable, and correspondingly difficult to earn. So, perhaps worth 400 days. Sort of a slow and steady approach. And who knows what might happen in the mean time?

  • Facepalm
  • pg

    sorry guys how can we take this at face value?

    • Ophelia Rump

      Because it is not unreasonable or unthinkable, what was unthinkable was any COP over 1. Once the barrier is removed, you have any proportion of energy released over time up to the maximum of all the energy released instantaneously as in a bomb.

      So if the fuel can deliver 1 megawatt hour over six months, a full release is 4380 MW hours of energy. That comes to 15,768,000 megawatt seconds of energy Lets say we blow that baby up and release all that energy in 1/100th of a second. That comes to 1,576,800,000 megawatt hundreths of seconds. Lets be extreme and say we used an entire megawatt second of energy to release this even though we know the COP is over 1 so we only use a mere fraction. This means that the 1/100th second release has a COP of 1,576,799,999. Now I ask you, in proportion to the theoretical maximum COP why is 100 any more inconceivable than 2? In truth explosions occur in milliseconds, so this was conservative.

      • Obvious

        It is strange that the early reported COPs have been so low. With some unknown nuclear-like reaction, it would almost be more likely to show up as some large random figure, not 1.5, or 3, or 12. More like 39, 178, 1800, 35000…(137)..

        • Ophelia Rump

          I sometimes wonder about that myself, I have competing fantasy explanations.

          Rossi has been hiding the true COP because the better something sounds the less anyone believes it.

          The barrier is so difficult to breach that even a COP of ten is pushing the practical limits.

          I think the truth is somewhere in between. I hope the barrier holds strong. I do not want anyone to learn to demolish this one. Undetectable nukes should not be in the hands of imbeciles. They have enough of the detectable kind already.

          • Obvious

            I was thinking it over as I typed. Possibly once it hits several times the excess power above the control, the device is too weak to contain it, and the experiment fails. Either overrunning some sort of range where the reaction works, or exceeding the capacity of the container. So successful experimenters tend to fiddle with the iterations where it was contained and working, being either unaware of or unwilling to go outside that contained range.

          • Obvious

            Or, the output is intrinsically leveraged by the input somehow.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I would the the reverse: sticking to low COP has lowered credibility (among sceptics), because going to higher COP should only be a relatively modest engineering problem.
            With passive cooling and keeping it safe, only low COP can be reached. Reaching 10 with passive cooling might be possible, but risky (not radiation or explosion risk, but overheating/melting risk). To go beyond that needs some active cooling, such as movable infrared reflectors or any other method where cooling power can be controlled without expending much energy. It’s simple on paper, but because it’s new development and because the environment is hot and reliability and longevity must be high, it has taken a while to make the engineering and to mature it in steps from prototype level to 1 MW plant level.

            The present news is very big (assuming it’s trustworthy, and why wouldn’t it be), because it shows that heat is heat also in the E-cat and that one can apply normal principles of engineering even though processes inside are exotic. This has been my baseline assumption all the time, but it was waiting for a reality check. For applications, COP>=20 (that is, input energy max 5%) is revolutionary because it means that both heat and electricity can be generated at will without expending any source power, one just needs to use the grid as energy buffer to cover the startup and occasional driver heating. In off-grid installations one needs a battery pack as buffer storage.

            I don’t think any of this has to do with weapons, except that military can use it as a power source.

        • Omega Z

          I don’t think it works like OR does. As soon as the nickel melts, energy production stops. In essence, It can’t dump all it’s potential energy. Only what has begun.
          Lucky US. If it could dump all it’s potential energy at once, It would be forbidden for use.

        • Warthog

          It has….those were called “meltdowns” or “explosions”. The first was Pons and Fleischmann’s palladium cube, which, overnight, boiled off all its cooling water, melted through its container, through a Transite benchtop, and some distance into a concrete floor. MANY LENR researchers have seen such “high COP” instances.

          • Obvious

            Photos or it never happened….
            Yes, this very enigmatic story is a good one. Meltdowns and runaways are of course the edge of what one wants to do in a lab setting. Nobody wants a heap of ashes for a workspace. Hard to get funding or work done that way. These types of experiments are not repeated, or reported often. But human nature is such that is surprising that no one has tried to repeat the meltdowns in a secured area. I imagine this is how thermite was developed, as well as gunpowder, dynamite, and many other things dangerous but exciting. Melting 1cm palladium cubes repeatedly, deep into cement, would prove up excess heat faster than calorimetry any day.

          • Warthog

            Yes, I often wonder about the existence of photos. Knowing how “camera-philic” most academics I have known are, I would be very surprised if neither P or F were a “shutterbug”.

            Trying to repeat this kind of thing, though, is unlikely to happen because any release is uncontrolled….next time someone might be injured or killed. I suspect the potentiality of such an incident is why LENR researchers work with very small quantities, despite the difficulties this causes for the calorimetry.

            I doubt any university would build an explosion-proof enclosure to do such an experiment safely.

          • Obvious

            Wasn’t exactly in the day of ubiquitous camera phones…

          • Warthog

            True, but a large fraction of the academics I knew were “into” photography in a more than casual way. You know, 35MM camera, macro (or telephoto) lenses, color filters, and all that. And really, IMO as a scientist, every lab “should” have a camera, even something as simple as (in 1989) as a Polaroid to capture “odd things” or even apparatus setups.

            Today, of course, that would be all digital today. Heck, my lab at work has an el-cheapo digital microscope, which has been one of the best $89 we have spent. Today, there is no excuse for NOT capturing much more data.

      • bfast

        Yes! what was unthinkable was any COP over 1. COP > 1 has been achieved by a dozen highly credible independant sources.

      • Flo

        The fuel can’t be weapon grade since if it melts, the atomic structure changes, leading to a halt in the nuclear reaction.

    • Omega Z

      Just except it as positive news. These COP numbers are a small snap shot & doesn’t show the whole picture. They can’t be put into proper context without more details.

      • GreenWin

        Accept it as positive. It is.

        • hempenearth

          Enginears! 😉

    • Daniel Maris

      Not sure anyone takes it at “face value”. Think most people take it as “interesting comment – to be put into the mix”.

    • radvar

      Seems like the power plant has a leak.

      • Obvious

        No wonder Rossi has a hard time trusting anyone. Nearly every time someone signs an NDA, then gets a look, they come out excited and spill the beans…

  • Omega Z

    Even if “true, would quickly focus world science and technology on the Rossi breakthrough”. Nope. The Real World don’t work quite that way. They want to see a working, consolidated system before they invest large sums.

    Even if Industrial heat is already in consultations with the biggies like GE, Siemens etc, This is going to trickle out. There are to many unknowns at the present & they aren’t going to rush into this blindly. There is also a lot of engineering to be done and facilities built or refurbished. There are no ready made products to utilize these E-cat reactors. Billions are yet to be spent.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I was referring to instantaneous discharge of energies. Badda Big Boom!

    COP 1,576,799,999,999 on fifty pounds of nickel.

  • Obvious

    I don’t think that’s E-Cat, that’s E-Rex.

  • Incredible news, but how credible is the Sifferkol website and Torkel Nyberg? Anyone know?

    • Sanjeev

      He is the one who released the Lugano report first. He surely knows a few insiders. But the accuracy of this “leak” depends on the credibility of the sources too.

      • Freethinker

        I find him credible. To me he is a truthseeker, and tries hard to reveal any information or convey thoughs he has as truthfully as it can possibly be. I see no agenda or hidden motives in what he does. Of course, like anybody else, he can be wrong. As you point out, the credebility of the source is of major importance, but if we find him (and now Mats Lewan too) credible, and the say the source is credible, well…. Soon enough there will some official statement.

        • Omega Z

          The only problem I see is it gives no context. COP=20 99% time, COP=80 1% of the time(What). That aside, I will take it as good news over all. Things must be going well. Now we wait.

  • Omega Z

    The last line in your comment is highly probable. A stimulation of some sorts is applied. The Control panel also draws power which is a necessary component & this will also need to be taken into account in the end.

  • Omega Z

    Keep in mind that beyond COP>20, the returns are minimal in the grand scheme of things. At COP=20, you’ve already recovered 95% of your input. COP=40 recovers an additional 2.5% or 97.5% of total input.

    • Mop

      Right, but if you look at that fraction from the other direction, it still does great things to your money. Instead of paying $X at COP 20, you suddenly just pay $X/2 at COP 40, or $X/4 at COP 80.

      Or another way to look at it, say you have to install a certain amount of square meters of solar panels as input for an LENR reactor that’s supposed to heat up a very large tank of water. Going from 20 to 40 to 80 COP, you suddenly only have to buy half or a quarter of solar panels.

      • Omega Z

        OK, Solar wont cut it. It’s not dependable & only about 6 hours average sunshine.(With some exceptions) Also, you have to allow for worst case COP=1 should difficulties arise. At the very least you need to meet start up demand. Anyway-

        With a 10Kw E-cat, COP=20 requires 500 watts input. COP=40 requires 250 watts input. COP=80 requires 125 watts input. Dwindling returns.
        ———————————————————-
        Lets do Self Sustain Mode-SSM. No Input once Effect goes into SSM. The COP is still limited. Ultimately, you have to take into account the energy for controls. If I recall, the Lt E-cats required about a 110 watts of energy. This would limit max COP=82 in perfect SSM.

        The Ht E-cats required about a 300 watts of energy. This would limit max COP=33 in perfect SSM. Neither is very probable.

        Note these numbers,110w, 300w, When used in a multiple reactor configuration will likely change. Likely downward but possibly upward as R&D is on going. It is these 2 different numbers that make me think a part of that is for stimulating the Rossi effect. What percentage is for the control electronics & what percentage for stimulation is up for debate. I would guess the larger percentage is for stimulation.

  • Omega Z

    That will happen with or without the E-cat. The latest 30Kw laser costs 67 cents to fire & the Laser & Generator can easily fit into a Humvee. The upside to this is you can take out the bad guy & not hurt the human shield tied to him. No Collateral damage.

  • Omega Z

    Why waste the money on a trip to the moon. You can do that where you live, Just wait for winter.

    By the way. I here the Earth rise & setting is quite beautiful to see. Oh crap. I think I’ve been lied to. I just realized the same face of the moon is always facing earth.

  • Omega Z

    Peak power may be more then 1Mw like speaker ratings & such, but 1Mw is 1Mw regardless of COP.

  • Ivan Idso

    So I thought a COP of 20 means 1 watt in and 20 watts out, and a COP of 80 means 1 watt in and 80 watts out? Hot fusion is still below COP of 1 so 1 watt in means 0.99 watts out? Am I wrong on this? How can anyone say this is not the best thing that has happened since fire???

    • Omega Z

      You got it.

      Note: COP=1 would actually be excess energy.

      As in, if you put 100 watts input to a heater, You will not get 100 watts out. Maybe 99.5 watts. You always lose a little.

  • jousterusa

    The good news just keeps on coming!

  • bfast

    “Once a critical temperature is reached, why extra heating applied is needed?” Possibly he is not adding heat, but energy in a different form such as magnetic.

  • bfast

    “In consequence the 4-th industrial revolution is happening right now.” We are clearly watching the birth of the 4th industrial revolution. When LENR gets out the door it will dwarf any revolution anyone alive has seen! That said, with a COP of 3 we were set to achieve this revolution — COP = 20 – 80 is just icing on the cake.

  • LCD

    At that cop of course the plant can produce enough electricity to run itself and then some. So of course it would be completely self sustaining. Or it could be.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Theoretically, yes – if you look only at the energy balance and conversion efficiency. But other factors are as well important. In case that you need high input power for short periods of time, a plain self-looped system would likely not suffice. Rossi mentioned once that the E-Cat requires an electric input of “high elasticity”. Certainly, one could try to use a battery or supercapacitor buffer in order to overcome this problem, but that would raise production and development costs. Maybe it is possible to take only the peak power from the grid and the rest from a loop, but the costs for the thermoelectric converter and the control system must also be considered. In the end, the most economical solution will prevail.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        One can buy input electricity from the grid and at the same time generate electricity from the heat and sell it to the grid through another wire. I think that’s what nuclear fission plants do. It’s a time-proven solution. One needs batteries only if the installation is off-grid such as military or Antarctica.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          One way to go without both the grid and large batteries could be a system where many E-Cats running in self-sustained mode feed a few others. But even if this were technically feasible, it would be impossible to restart such a plant after a full shutdown without an external energy source. Reselling to the grid might work as long as E-Cats cover only a relatively small fraction of the market, but at some point one would need to think about alternatives. So while a high COP does not yet guarantee autonomy, grids might become unprofitable someday. Anyway, it will be interesting to observe the evolution of this technology in the forthcoming decades.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I think that the reselling approach would work even if E-cats produce most of the electricity everywhere, because the grid is so large. The grid is fed by the almost constant power output of the many E-cat plants, and electricity is consumed mainly by ordinary users and to a lesser extent by the E-cat plants. The E-cat plants do pose a variable load to the grid, but that’s what the other users do as well, so the situation is not new.

          • Omega Z

            Your post is why I think we will ultimately just have localized city wide micro grids. At the city level, you could have several small power plants feeding a local grid providing stable power to each other. And only a small backup generator could start it all back up if the need arises.

            Yeah, the selling to the grid would end once everyone is selling & no one is buying. Grid collapse & everyone hoping their system don’t crash. Not good.

            I don’t think, In fact I’m sure most people don’t understand how electricity works. Do you know what would happen if everyone shut off their mains & quit drawing power at the same time. Boom. Circuits burn out, generators short out etc, etc. It would be a mess. Decades to bring it all back up. This is the issue people don’t grasp when power companies complain about the solar panel issues. It’s to sporadic & very costly to revamp.(Smart Meters is only part of that cost) It could collapse the grid in a very bad way. Decades bad…

        • Omega Z

          Your correct that Nuclear plants have incoming power as well as out. This should include “ALL” power plants have incoming power as well as out. This is so that, should your plant become unstable, you still have stable power from the grid to provide control.

          Nuclear power plants are also required to have back up generators. Not to keep them powered, but to power the coolant pumps etc.. Fukushima lost it external power. That wasn’t the problem. It went into melt down because the generators were also disabled & the cooling pumps didn’t have power.

          In the U.S. Only a select few “smaller” power plants have backup generators. That’s because power plants require so much energy to start up, that the size & cost of backup generators make them uneconomical to operate. Thus they draw power from the Grid to fire them up.

          OK, The Purpose of the select few is, Should the entire grid go down, these small plants can be fired up. They in turn produce large enough output to fire up the Large power plants.

          Theoretically speaking, you can loop the power of a plant in full operation. In Practice, It’s not a good idea. Thus Rossi’s views. If you lose power, lose control, melt reactor. Not a good Idea.

          This is only an issue for those who want to go off grid. OK, But the 1st thing they need to throw out is the words Cheap Energy”. Off grid is not cheap & E-cats wont make it so. Inverters, convertors, battery packs, turbines, generator, low conversion efficiency-require more E-cats more hardware, back up generator. This will be anything but cheap. I’ll stick with the City level micro-grid cheap electricity & an E-cat home heater powered by that cheap electricity..

    • Observer

      The 1MW plant is a “low temperature” E-CAT, meaning its output temperature is something just above the boiling temperature of water. This temperature is not efficient for the production of electricity. We will have to wait to see if the next generation of hot-cats (operating above 1000 C) can match the COP of the 1MW low temperature system. (To date the hot-cat’s COP has always been less than the that of the low temperature e-cats.)

      • Omega Z

        The Lt 1Mw is meant to operate at about 120`C.
        Rossi recently posted that the same COP performance of the Hot-cat should be possible.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Mats Lewan confirms Sifferkoll’s info on his blog http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/04/19/what-to-learn-from-an-historical-cold-fusion-conference-iccf19/

    “From credible sources I get confirmation of what Rossi states — that the plant is running very well …
    UPDATE: Since a COP (Coefficient of Performance — output energy/input energy) ranging from 20 to 80 has been reported, I can confirm that I have got the same information.”

    Also Rossi effectively confirms it. Although he doesn’t give numbers because the test is not yet over, he says that COP is high enough: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=876&cpage=7#comment-1072792

    “… I cannot give you the numbers, but the ssm cycles are long. Enough. So far.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.”

    “High enough” is a good way to characterise COP>=20.

    • Sanjeev

      Probably they both talked to the same person.

      • Gerrit

        who else would have such information other than Tom Darden ?

        • Maybe we could ask Mats if he told to this person at ICCF-19.

  • pg

    2 faces is better than 1! Especially if 1 of them is Mats. (with all due respect to Sifferkoll website, that does really good oil charts analysis).
    Now this is extreme teasing, Mats could you please elaborate on that if you can? This is the biggest news since the Lugano report.

  • Gerrit

    I just wish the 400 days were over already and we could move on. The suspense is killing me.

    • pg

      tell me about it…

  • Daniel Maris

    It’s interesting but equally of no consequence. Until we know how the pilot is set up, we know nothing…for instance, does the E Cat have its own generator? I don’t think we know that do we? And we don’t know where or what the facility is.

    • Gerrit

      The source mentions that the customer has made their own measurements and the electricity bills are significantly reduced.

      This means the e-cat is plugged into the mains.

      • Daniel Maris

        No it doesn’t. It could be that the people in control of the pilot have told them “we are generating X amount of electricity” and in good faith the customer has accepted that, while making their own measurements of what comes out of the E Cat. All that could take place with a generator. As far as I recall, we have only ever seen the big E Cat operate with a generator. If there is no generator, that is great, but we don’t know that to be the case yet.

        • Gerrit

          You mean Rossi is hiding a secret generator from the customer and IH and every morning he brings in a couple of gasoline drums and secretly pumps them into the generator’s tank, while replying to posts on his blog ?

          • Daniel Maris

            Er no. I’m just saying he could be doing what he did before: power the E Cat off a generator.

          • Warthog

            But why would he (or his customer) do so??? There is no reason to. For the short demo, there was a very GOOD reason to use a generator.

          • Omega Z

            Your right.
            The 1Mw demo Rossi did a couple years ago used a generator because the facility it was in didn’t have large enough mains for it. IH/Rossi pilot plant customer is already in the business & has that capacity to run the existing 1Mw heater the E-cat is replacing.. If anything, he now has surplus.

          • Warthog

            Good point about pre-existing power capacity.

        • mcloki

          What business operator takes the risk of unhooking their livelihood from the mains? And a lowered, not eliminated, electricity bill means that a third party is providing electricity.

          • Daniel Maris

            I don’t think there’s anyu suggestion the business operator has “unhooked their livelihood from the mains”. The issue is whether all the electricity used is coming off the mains or whether some is coming off a generator.

          • Omega Z

            Daniel
            This customer is already in this line of work so it would already have the mains service to power the E-cat plant. The E-cat with COP>1 would require less then what system it is replacing. Also, from some of Rossi’s posts on JONP, the old system is still intact for backup should the E-cat plant become inactive for some reason.

            I should note that many large facilities use so much Electricity that they have their own electrical substations. Available power isn’t an issue.

    • Warthog

      Probably not. The use of a generator in the demonstration of the 1MW prototype was due to the fact that the installation was to be very short term, and it probably was not worthwhile to install separate high power circuitry to drive. This installation was intended from the start to be at least one year, so it almost certainly has dedicated circuitry installed (and probably separately metered for overall power input data collection).

  • MasterBlaster7

    Lets talk about COP 20-80….and what that means to the customer.

    This discussion is just purely COP; and not overhead, or maintenance, or control costs, or whatever.

    If the customer used to spend $1,000,000 dollars per year on this heating process….

    COP 20…he is now spending about $50,000 for the same process
    COP 80…he is now spending about $12,500 for the same process

    So, the customer just had his yearly bar bill dropped from 1 meeelion dollars….to somewhere between $12,500 – $50,000 dollars.

    • Gerrit

      if the 1MW still costs $1,000,000 the customer has a return of investment of barely more than a year. Not bad.

      • Sanjeev

        And after 10 years he can auction it as the “first cold fusion power plant” of the world, and recover everything he ever spent.

        • Hi all

          In Reply to Sanjeev

          And much much More besides. It will be bought by some major benefactor and placed in the Smithsonian or some such.

          Kind Regards walker

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Project this to retrofitting decommissioned coal power plants!

    • pelgrim108

      1 MegaWatthour costs about 27 dollar according to internet.
      24 * 7 * 50 * 27 = 225 thousant dollars.

      Asuming the plant heated with electricity previous then:
      225 / 20 = 11
      225 – 11 = 210 So the costumer saved 210 thousant dollars.
      It takes 5 years to get your investment back.

      • ecatworld

        That depends on what your investment is, and we don’t know what the customer put into this.

        • pelgrim108

          Thats correct. I was just assuming that a 1 MW E-Cat plant would cost 1 million $.

    • Daniel Maris

      Yes – but he’s got to pay for the 1MW E Cat. If he borrows $1million to pay for it, that would perhaps be $100,000 per annum over 20 years. Also, we don’t know what the maintenance and running costs for the E Cat.

      It sounds to me like you are going to have at least a couple of people present at all times – if it’s a 24 hour operation – that might mean you need a team of 8 to cover shifts and holidays…That could be very expensive – in fact it could be critical (remember you don’t need maintenance personnel when you take electricity off the mains).

      However, if the E Cat doesn’t need personnel in attendance then that would transform the economics.

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      Your analysis assumes the Rossi system costs nothing. It does not. You must buy it. You must maintain it. You must run it. Buy is cash. Maintain is parts and cash. Run is payroll cash.

      Since we do not know the life expectancy of the system we can only guess about part of the true total cost. Since we do not know the parts churn we can only guess about it. Since the system is very new to the world stage we do not know how it impacts insurance cost. Since we do not know if, in the future, it must be baby sat 24 hours a day, we can only guess about the payroll costs.

      Like you, I hope for the best, however we must be realistic about cost. A boiler engineer’s wages could easily exceed $50,000 USD per year.

      Please understand my motivation in this reply: To clarify, not to demean.

      • Omega Z

        Nicholas Cafarelli

        At Rossi’s original quote of 1.5 million$ it wouldn’t take but 2 years to break even in overall costs. Compared to other commercial investments in hardware, this would be phenomenal.

        As to you other points. Those will be answered by the 1 year test which is part of it’s purpose. As to a technician present 24/7, $200K would probably more then cover that so you still have major savings. But I think that is also a part of the 1 year test. To devise the means to have a stand alone operation where a technician is only need at the plant facilities.

        This technician could just be a part of the general maintenance department. Many factories employ certain people who have technical skills in multiple disciplines & are available for multiple tasks. Also, if this facility has multiple production lines, One tech could monitor all of them. In essence, Such a technician may already be part of existing established protocol. Not an additional expense.

        • ecatworld

          Rossi has said you won’t need anyone full time assigned to take care of the plant, just someone on the staff certified by IH.

          • Omega Z

            And that would be Thanks to Rossi living in it for a year to make that happen.
            Wait. maybe it’s because Rossi will still be living in it & wont except borders.
            🙂

  • Josh G

    So Mats and the guy behind Sifferkol are both Swedish. This suggests that the inside information came from Swedish connections they have. I know of two groups of Swedes involved with Rossi. One are the guys behind some of the e-cat testing and the Lugano report. It’s possible that Rossi gave them a tour. Kullander was one of them. He died, but Rossi dedicated the plant to him. He likes them. And we know that Sifferkol received a copy from one of the testers and was in fact the first to post the Lugano report publicly after it was censored at arXiv. So his connection to them seems to be solid and we know he’s gotten inside information from them in the past.

    The other Swedish group is the people behind Hydrofusion, who almost made a deal with Rossi for commercialization, but it fell through when he couldn’t get the new hot cat to work on the day the investors came for a demonstration. The investors soured, but the guys at Hydrofusion did not and I think may have maintained good relations with him. So perhaps he showed it to them as part of an effort to lay the ground for the next stage of commercialization.

    I’m gonna guess it was one or all of the Swedish Lugano testers: Hoistad, Pettersson, Tegner and Essen. But anyway, it doesn’t really matter…

  • Barbierir

    It would be nice if Mats and Nyberg talk to each other and let us know if their sources are the same or different 🙂

  • Sanjeev

    The update#23 really throws light on what is actually going on. The customer is probably very cautious since he employed a third party to do the measurements, not relying on Rossi’s measurements. And I think Rossi/IH were cautious too, since they would get in a difficult position if the customer refused to accept the result. With a referee in place, the game is fair.
    If the results are positive, it will make the life of deniers very hard, they must include not only Rossi, but IH, Cherokee, the customer, the referee and the energy company in their list of “actors”….

    • radvar

      Setting the usual doubts aside, if there is a referee in place with those measurement points and conditions, that would seem to significantly enhance the credibility value of the 1MW test, in terms of attracting sales and investments to both IH in particular and LENR in general.

      • ecatworld

        In essence, the referee’s report would be another third party test report which should carry a lot of weight if the referee is trustworthy.

        • pelgrim108

          Genadi Tarasenko is dumping al his ICCF videos on youtube at this moment.
          youtube.com/user/tarasenkogennadiy/videos

    • GreenWin

      Pathos see them not as actors but “conspirators.” Dastardly people using arcane magic and sleight of hand to annoy and depress the fossil/fission cabal. It’s all very back-channel. 🙂

      • Andy Kumar

        It is a shame that the pathos (no longer skeps?) see them as (co)conspirators. I would classify the so called pathos as “once burnt, twice shy”, cautious people. But hey, let the good times roll.

  • If Rossi can produce a COP of 20 or more with the Hot-Cat version, then he has low cost electricity production in the bag. But, of course, you all already know that. I just like saying it out loud.

    • pelgrim108

      It has a nice ring to it when you say it out loud 🙂

    • Robert Ellefson

      Yep. COP > 6 with temperatures > 600C coupled to steam-turbine-style generators gives essentially infinite COP plus some process heat leftover, but with relatively high system complexity and cost for the electricity generation, and then COP > 20 with temperatures > 300C gives essentially infinite COP with low-cost, low-complexity thermo-electric generation, plus process heat. Anything over a COP of 20 is pure gravy. It sounds like Dr. Swartz’s Nanors are pumping out very high COPs lately, according to his latest ICCF presentation. An array of these Nanors constructed with integrated thermo-electric generators will provide very compact self-looped electrical generation systems, provided you have a means to sink the excess heat.

      • Upgrading Rossi’s low cost home heaters with the improved fuel mixture would make home insulation almost obsolete. What will that do to home improvement television shows like *This Old House* and *Hometime*? Universities all over the nation have their Olympic sized indoor and outdoor swimming pools set cold to save energy costs. This technology will revolutionize the pool industry and everyone can have all the warm water they want. Outdoor pools in Maine and Vermont could be heated from April to November. Desalinization in California could begin in earnest using low cost LENR electricity. Ships at sea will be the first vehicles powered by LENR, and shipping unleashes more greenhouse gases than all automobiles and trucks combined. The Greens will have to come on board with the LENR revolution.

        • radvar

          “everyone can have all the warm water (for swimming pools) they want”
          OK, I’m finally on board 🙂

        • Bob Matulis

          And heating greenhouses. Fresh veggies all year round…

          • bachcole

            Dream on. Greenhouses are a lot of work.

          • Omega Z

            oosshh
            They are no work at all.
            Although the guy working there charges a me a lot. for his veggies.
            🙂

        • Omega Z

          Christopher

          Insulation will still be required if you want comfort. Also without it you would require several more E-cat heaters which will always require some electricity. Point. Insulation will still provide economic benefit.

          Maritime shipping equates to about 300 Million vehicles of which there are about 1 Billion+. However, they burn dirtier fuel & would be the equivalent of at least 600 million in vehicle exhaust. Still a huge pollution reduction. Aircraft aren’t much better.

          Desalinization by filtration is cheaper then flash steam or vaporization, However, they still require a lot of Electrical energy for pumping & other treatment processes so would still be of great benefit.

          • I was joking about insulation, but architects will probably add more window area in homes built in cold climates.

            “How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world”

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

          • Omega Z

            (Agenda Alert). I wouldn’t put much stock in that article.
            “How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world” & claims 100K exist means we wouldn’t be able to see each other across the street. He also leads you to believe they are burning sludge which they don’t, but it is nasty dirty.

            They do burn a dirtier fuel & mandates over the last 10 years have gradually changed that. The fuel they use to burn is now refined to a higher degree which makes it more costly, but cleaner. It is however still dirty & produces about double the particulates what your car would.

            The U.S. shows approximately 50,000 Maritime ships in registry. The numbers are increasing, but not very fast. Capacity is increasing more due to old ships being replaced with Super Ships which burn by requirement fuel comparable to what your car uses. They are also much more fuel efficient.

            Note these ships only power their engines when in transit & most have 2 to 4 engines & run only those engines need. When their in port, they use small auxiliary engines/generators for electricity. The main engines are shut down.

            According to U.S. EPA stats, these 50K ships burn the equivalent amount of gallons as 300K cars.(They spend most of their time waiting/Engines off, Not in transit) Being about twice as dirty would be the equivalent of 600K cars pollution wise. There’s between 1 to 1.2 Billion cars in the world.

            You need to be cautious of articles like this. They tend towards agendas & those writing them usually don’t know what they are talking about. How many articles have we read about E-cats both pro & con where they get the facts more wrong then right.

            As an Example: I read an article a couple years ago about these Nasty Coal Power Electric Plants. Photo Included. He points out the billowing cloud of smoke coming from the stacks. I Laughed. I recognized the photo which showed background details. It was a Nuclear Power plant in Nevada.

            The smoke he was indicating was billowing steam from the cooling towers. I’ve witnessed this Faux Pas many times. Truth is you would be hard pressed to find such real images in the U.S. today. We spent 100’s of billions over several decades cleaning this up with installed scrubbers & such. It use to be the case as indicated by Darden in the video. Not so much today..

            P,S. Regardless, E-cat power will be much better. But be careful in the future. That steam rolling out of their stacks will be found in articles where they are distraught about that smoke rolling out their stacks. 🙂

      • pelgrim108

        I you make it less compact and use a fluid to conduct heat from the Nanors to the thermo-electric generators then you can loop the fluid and you dont have excess heat that needs to be sinked.

        • Slad

          But then what happens when the TEG warms up?

          • pelgrim108

            Is the TEG not supposed to warm up in order to make electricity? Cool on one side ; hot on the other side.

      • Omega Z

        Robert
        High temps can give higher efficiencies in conversion. 1250`C Hot-cat reactors should be capable of 750`C Steam. Depending on the scale, it should be possible to achieve approximately 50% conversion efficiency.

        Keep in mind efficiency conversion greatly effects cost. 50% efficiency conversion can cut “HARDWARE” by 30%. Or 2 power plants instead of 3. Point being Cheap fuel & low conversion efficiency even with high COP can actually cost consumers Billion$ more in hardware. You just squandered your savings in fuel costs.

        What we need here at ECW is someone with expertise in power plant energy conversions. At how “Small” a scale can they be built utilizing high temp steam. Be that 50Mw, 10Mw, 100Kw. My interest in the small scale is with local power generation in mind. Rather the Gigawatt highly centralized power plants.

        Note: High conversion efficiency at small 10Kw just isn’t economical with today’s technology.

      • In last January’s class M Swartz mentioned he was getting extremely high COP but he rathered we didn’t report it until he checked his findings a number of times. He’s looking towards low watt electronics rather something like home heating.
        Peter Hagelstein said some of the greatest evidence for CF was MS climbing curve with the NANORs. Every year since 2012 the NANORs have outperformed themselves.

  • Sanjeev

    Yes, I know, there will be, but it will be fun to see them do it.

  • Daniel Maris

    Well, update #23 is very interesting – and encouraging.

    Assuming it is all true and accurate, it appears to suggest that there is no generator on site, but rather the power for the E Cat comes off the mains. If so, that eliminates one of the chief concerns about previous tests.

    It is also encouraging to hear about a referee and the nature of the agreement – which means that if the measurements prove positive, the customer will buy the plant. On the face of it, that is also very reassuring.

  • Ged

    The interesting thing is Rossi posted that answer before the insider info was shared, even before ICCF. Thus, the post was not made to try to support favorable rumors, but rather the rumors have more technical weight behind thm now. At this point the plant has been running long enough (half a year or so) that if it is true and the COP is 20-80 depending on SS mode, people may be getting excited from a business perspective and starting to talk. There are a lot of hands in this, and while companies can be good at holding secrets ’til public reveal (ala Apple), between the independent customer and referee’s people, it’s easy for someone to safely and anonymously slip out some details.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I expect a transition point where some business will be enough in the know to adopt while the world keeps repeating the mantras of doubt and uncertainty, they will become as a colossus devouring the world around them inexplicably. Strange days indeed.

  • It has to be on television news. Unless it makes TV, the masses will not believe it is real. If you have a 60 Minutes or NBC Nightly News crew at the factory speaking to the factory owner, that will go a long way.

  • Omega Z

    I would prefer something about the size of a Rubik’s cube that provided all my energy needs. However, I forgot to pack it before I left home. Oh, And my warp-drive is broke. It takes 6 years to get here using my light speed drive.

  • Mike Henderson

    Please collapse updates 1-20. This post’s format is awful. Especially on mobile with no ability to jump to the comments at the bottom.

    • US_Citizen71

      A link at the top of posts to jump down to the comments is what we really need. The multiple updates I think is a good thing it allows people would read one for the first time the ability to see the progression.

      • Gerrit

        after 20 updates a new post should be started

      • Josh G

        I second this suggestion!

    • US_Citizen71

      @ecatworld:disqus

      I just looked at the page source for this page, the link up top that surrounds the text that counts the comments should go to a section with an ID of ‘comments’, but you don’t have a Div tag or anything else with an ID of comments for it to go to. I think you need to change the top link to reference the Div with the ID of ‘dsq-comments’.

  • Omega Z

    One needs to subtract the cost of a conventional 1Mw plant from the cost of the 1Mw E-cat plant. That will be the cost to be recovered in energy savings.

  • Omega Z

    “near to mid term”. Nope.
    Mid to Long term.
    I just takes time to transition these things & Billion$.

  • Do I remember Rossi saying the Ecat’s SSM was switched on and off quite rapidly (seconds) rather than long sustains.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      You do because I remember that too. Apparently this has changed if the COP is that much higher now. Or it wasn’t true in the first place ;-)…

    • US_Citizen71

      One millisecond on, 20 milliseconds off would fit COP 20 wouldn’t it?

      • Obvious

        I wondered about normal 50 and 60 Hz AC, and how much of that SSM between the cycles? Maybe that’s why multiples of 1.5, 3 like to pop up.

        • US_Citizen71

          I think Rossi/IH might be handling power control to the heating coil differently than MFMP and other replicators. If you look at the waveform shown on the Lugano Report the power shown was spiky and not a full wave. From my understanding of how MFMP and others have been controlling their power levels I believe that they have been varying the width/duty cycle of that spike and keeping the voltage constant (Padua test), using a full wave and varying the voltage (variac control) or using a variac and a PID to vary voltage and control on and off periods of full wave power. Rossi/IH on the other hand I believe uses a set width/duty cycle for the power spike of somewhere between 5-10% of each half wave and then varies the voltage to control the heating power. During SSM I think that the duty cycle might be shortened to something like 1% just to give it a magnetic kick but not really add much heat. I’m not sure exactly how the control changes would translate into multiples of of 1.5, but the incidence of those multiples is interesting.

          • Obvious

            I was just considering the cross as dead time, so the normal circuit would have a small component of off time, from an atom’s point of view, where 100 or 120 times a second would seem like a rather slow rate. Even longer periods of no power must seem like an eternity for nuclear type reactions.

        • US_Citizen71

          Short bursts of high current should produce magnetic eddies.

          240V / 5 Ohm = 48A x 240V x 1% duty cycle = 115.2W

    • Omega Z

      What Rossi said was it was not a specific set time. He merely described it in a manner such as this. In a 1 hour period with 75% SSM would be like 1 minute on, 3 minutes off. In reality, the times on & off are random. Only averaging 75% SSM.

      If the rumors are to be believed, Rossi has improved on this. It is my view that there is some feed back from the reactor that Rossi has improved on detecting & understanding.
      —————————————————————-
      So- From where does this feedback come & what is it.

      A thermocouple is just a TEG. It feeds back milliwatt voltage that varies by temperature and this variable voltage is correlated/calibrated to temp readings. Heating Coils such as in the E-cat can also generate currents of magnetic fields & such. I don’t recall the particulars. One of these 2 is the means by which Rossi is getting this feed back.

      What matters from here is knowing what feedback to look for. Axil Axil & a few others have discussed the various types of phenomenon the Rossi effect could involve. Magnetic moments, RF etc, etc…

      Knowing which of these phenomenon or combinations of to look for could be correlated/calibrate into the control mechanism, thus knowing when to apply stimulation, heat & such and when it is not needed. You could also determine how to improve detection of such phenomenon.

      Rossi has mentioned doping of the heating coils & this was also mentioned in the Lugano report. I find this kind of curious. The wire Rossi uses is available with ratings of 1800`C or more which obviously would be long lasting in the 1200`C to 1400`C range. What would be the need of “Doping”. Is this how Rossi improves detection of such phenomenon.

      IMO, This doping is probably surface applied & is a means of enhancing the feedback of magnetic moments, RF or whatever he uses for determine the state of the Rossi Effect. Thus refining control & increasing the COP.

  • Omega Z

    Your right, but my point is still valid tho I phrased it wrong.
    COP=20 means input is down to 5% of total output.
    COP=40 means input is down to 2.5% of total output.
    COP=80 means input is down to 1.25% of total output.
    You’re obtaining dwindling returns. How much effort do you want to invest for them.

    Faced with this. That’s when my attention turns to other issues. The Hot-cat requires 300 watts to operate the controls. What does this apply to & can I reduce that. It simply may be a better return for my efforts. This is a necessary component & will impact the effective COP.

    I also start looking at heat to electric conversion. With a 10Kw reactor, a 5% efficiency improvement is an additional 500 watts usable. Why should I waste my time working on something with much smaller return for my efforts like improving COP beyond 20.

    Ultimately, get it Good Enough to be beneficial to use & get something to market. In time, as we learn more about this technology & have incoming profits, we can go back & do some fine tuning R&D.

    You Know. I recall a time not very long ago, Many people would be partying had you told them COP=10 was possible. If you can achieve COP>20, it’s time to move on & get a product to market. I don’t want to wait another 4 years to make marginal gains. We can work on that latter.

  • Omega Z

    Lets break that prohibition. Fire at their toes. 🙂

  • What I find most interesting is the older information of Rossi that all the measurements are done by a referee. This COP numbers have to be calculated out of the data of this referee. So let’s hope Rossi understands “Referee” as a total independet company which is a state-approved measurement company and doing such services for customers. Let’s also hope that Rossi’s customer has chosen this referee, so that Rossi had no influence on it.

    • Brent Buckner

      As the referee seems to be an integral part of the commercial contract I expect that both parties to the contract (IH and the customer) agreed to the referee – or the contract allowed the customer to select the referee within very narrow criteria.

  • Gerard McEk

    I have always thought that an Ecat has a capacity of about 10 kW and that mor than 100 Ecats ar build-in in the plant. Now it seems that the Ecat has a capacity of 20 kW (56 gauges, and temp. sensors) or am I wrong?

    • Gerrit

      this is my understanding also. 56 ecats produce 1MW. Probably 50 x 20kW + 6 extra.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        So Rossi is able to scale up the performance of a single ecat. If true, that is really good news. I would love to see a 50 or 100KW LT or HT reactor.

    • Nicholas Cafarelli

      There may be a control or longevity advantages to running each node at a reduced capacity. In general when machines are throttled back there is sometimes an extension of their working life.

      This is just a wild guess.

      Some systems are less erratic when slowed down; some are more smoothly controlled.

      Support my replication research: http://www.gofundme.com/l6dfxg

      http://ni.comli.com

    • US_Citizen71

      56 sets running in parallel, each set consists of two running in series is my guess.

    • Omega Z

      No, they are 10Kw, but If I Recall, correctly, the 1Mw demo in Bologna Italy were built in tandem.(1 thermocouple/per 2 reactors.) However, if in doubt, Rossi said exactly how many reactors are in the container on JONP sometime ago.

      That said. I can’t imagine these reactors being restricted to 10Kw. Like most things of this nature, they will have a plus/minus to them & will average 10Kwh output. I would suspect the E-cat has about a 15Kw peak capacity. That would be the logical conclusion.

      • artefact

        In earlier days (2012) Rossi talked from time to time about 20KW e-cats. When the first 1MW plant was said to be developed many thought it will consist of 50 20KW modules but in the end it were more then 100 10KW modules.
        (As a side note: these old modules consisted of three cores. In some tests in 2012 only one core was active. I think he did not say something resently about the amount of cores active in the MW cat now in test. But we will find out)

      • Gerard McEk

        I just found out it will be more likely that there are in the order of 50 Ecats in the plant. I count 48. See picture:
        So Ecats must be more than 20 kW now, unless there are two parallel plants.

        • Omega Z

          Rossi stated in Oct 2014 103 reactors. He has also said over 100 in another post.

          As to the picture, your eyes are obviously better then mine, but I suspect 50 blue box containers with 2 reactors in each for a total of 100. I have no idea where the 3 extras are at.

          As to each reactors output. I am confident they can output more then 10Kw each. Similar to a 100w speaker has a 200w peak tho I don’t believe the E-cats double operating range. I’m more inclined to think it is about 15Kw peak. It is never wise to operate such things at peak ability, but I think you are already aware of that.

  • Daniel Maris

    Not least because the energy isn’t free – far from it. All the indications so far are that E Cat energy is going to cost a few cents per KwH.

  • US_Citizen71

    @admin

    I just looked at the page source for this page, the link up top that surrounds the text that counts the comments should go to a section with an ID of ‘comments’, but you don’t have a Div tag or anything else with an ID of comments for it to go to. I think you need to change the top link to reference the Div with the ID of ‘dsq-comments’.

  • I’ll bet we can get you one if you’re still interested Fibb, but be prepared to pay a hundred grand.

  • Nelson Vogel

    The conclusion that we extract from AR April 3rd, 2015 comment at JONP is that the plant eletric supplier may know who and where is installed the 1MW Ecat, since “suddenly” a large customer is paying each month less.

    • Omega Z

      It would be possible, but not practical because your equipment would ultimately be come contaminated. It likely wouldn’t be allowed by the DOE.
      That said, Most all Nuke plants in the U.S. are pushing beyond life cycle & are ready to be dismantled & buried.

      The same can be said of most U.S. Coal powered plants. That is why they’ve been shutting them down instead of converting them to N-Gas. No one wants to invest huge sums of money in a system that is worn out & just a money pit.

  • LCD

    Okay I have to now say that I don’t understand what the heck he means by positive or negative.

    • Daniel Maris

      Well, the machine might generate the heat (success) but a year’s operation might show also that you need 5 highly skilled people (ultimately failure, if that means the cost is too high). Just a suggestion – I find that “positive/negative” thing either irritating or suspicious, depending on my mood!

    • Josh G

      I think he just says this as a way of indicating that he is ‘objective.’ In other words, he says it to show that the outcome isn’t predetermined and that he can only assess the success of the ecat after all the data are in and it has been properly analyzed. Even though he ‘knows’ it is going to be positive.

    • ecatworld

      I think it’s just a standard disclaimer. He said the exact same thing continously before the publication of the Lugano report.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Yes. Someone had decided that they need a one-year test, with some maximum allowed downtime. Now they are about 1/3-way through. If the plant fails tomorrow and they are not able to fix it quickly enough, they exceed their downtime limit and the test result turns negative. Of course, even if that would happen, it wouldn’t imply permanent failure. It would just mean that they have to go back to the lab to fix some problems and try again. Rossi has also said that explicitly.

      • Matt Sevrens

        Wouldn’t you after being wrongly arrested?

    • radvar

      He’s too consistent in using the language. That tells me it’s in the contract with the customer.

      He’s made “claims” in past that “didn’t quite work out”, which I attribute as understandable entrepreneurial exuberance. I don’t see that he’s ever been that concerned in the past about whether his blog readers get a mis-impression; he’s often been somewhat impishly indirect.

      But regarding the 1MW, he ALWAYS says “could be positive or negative”.

      The customer would very specifically NOT wanting IH making claims about the test that would later conflict with reality, and potentially stain the customers business reputation. It would not matter what the facts were, and who said what, the mud would splatter on the customer. Bad for business. Therefore, include in the contract “IH will make no premature claims”.

      • LCD

        It’s got to be a contract clause you are right. That explains it.

        It’s just silly because to me it’s like he’s saying “the plant will change the world! (but the test results could be positive or negative.)

        Anyways, contact clause makes sense now.

  • Ophelia Rump

    It would be nice to have a date and a count down clock to the 400th day.

    • ecatworld

      We don’t know when the clock started ticking, and Rossi won’t say, sadly.

    • ecatworld

      Rossi has said the test would be over in November 2015 at the earliest, but could run into Feb 2016

      • Ophelia Rump

        Thank you!

        You should do something to presage and foreshadow that moment.
        It would be nice if someone made it an event.

        Somehow, I doubt that Industrial Heat will do much more than a press release. IH probably does not even have a marketing department yet. It might be getting close to when they need to start one.

        • ecatworld

          It’s a bit far off yet. Will try to get updates from AR in the meantime. Latest is that it is running nicely — they just need to keep it up for the next seven months!

          • Nicholas Cafarelli

            Five months of providing heat to an industrial process is daunting. Then again, if they have achieved the 91% uptime of the contract (365/400), for months, even if they come up short for the entire year, that is very impressive.

            Lower uptime might still be worthy of having in an industrial plant. You need to calculate it all out to see when the numbers make economic sense.

            So despairing if the contract is lost might be premature.

            http://nilih.com

          • bachcole

            Absolutely. 91% uptime for 5 months would obliterate the dominant paradigm.

  • Nicholas Cafarelli

    http://hydronick.com
    http://nilih.com
    http://nickel.comli.com
    All point to http://ni.comli.com
    So you could try them.
    Please let me know if you still are unable to see the site.

  • Omega Z

    As long as the fuel hasn’t been loaded into it, There would be no reason not to retrofit it with E-cats. Caveat: Unless the design is just so different it’s not feasible. I don’t think that’s likely but?

    In the U.S.-
    It should be noted that there may be regulator hassles & delays in such a retrofit straying from original designed intent, but economically, once the boiler changes have been made, It would be substantially cheaper to operate. Nickel is much cheaper in every regard. Also, in the U.S., there is a surcharge to all electricity generated in a Nuclear plant to pay for the eventual decommissioning & storage/disposal of spent fuel & all the contaminated hardware.

    What “I” would suggest is that everyone keep a watchful eye on developments. As the 1st E-cat Pilot power plant is commissioned, To put public pressure on the Government representatives to stop all Nuclear plant facilities from going ahead. We can’t count on those in charge to do the intelligent thing. It will probably require a public out cry.

  • Gerard McEk

    I just found out it will be more likely that there are in the order of 50 Ecats in the plant. I count 48. See first picture: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/19/new-official-web-site-andrea-rossi-com-pictures-of-the-new-plant/
    So Ecats must be more than 20 kW now, unless there are two parallel plants.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    You could, but why not purchase a used coal plant, or ones that are being shut down by the EPA in the USA because of too many regulations. Purchasing used coal plants that no one wants and replacing with LENR is exactly the kind of smart business choice.

    In fact the above is the business model for Beryllium. They stated one of their goals is to use their hot-tube LENR reactor to replace the coal in such power plants. Everything else in the power plant can quite much remain in place. So you get your hands on an asset for NEAR NOTHING, and all the electricity becomes near pure profit.

    In fact any business (or even buildings) that require lots of heat, but no one can afford (due to heating costs) now become viable again. I seen some “massive” mansions near ski resorts etc, but they are abandoned due to heating costs being too high!

    You can certainly retro fit a nuclear plant, but much of the internal working parts are VERY contaminated radioactive wise, and often the clean up costs are MORE then the cost of the plant!

    So if you looking for a used dirt cheap industrial steam turbine that produces electricity as a utility, then a used coal generator plant is FAR MORE of an easy purchase then a nuclear.

    I however much suspect that as COP goes up, and we grasp how LENR works, then yes, most if not all of the worlds nuclear plants will be converted to LENR.

    The above means that LENR not only going to win over hot fusion, but will also achieve a WONDERFUL goal of replacing the fission industry that now exists.

    So coal plants will likely be the first converted to LENR. Those nuclear plants WILL also be converted or face shutdowns once LENR gets accepted.

    You have to remember there is HUGE HUGE resistance to dropping fission (existing nuclear) plants. Both France and India had LENR research programs by their respective nuclear industry about 10 years ago. And THEY BOTH QUIT research on LENR.

    Why?

    They simply realized why spend money and resources on a process that will DESTROY OUTRIGHT the need for all their jobs in that industry? Remember, the nuclear industry is about as FAT as you can get (and most is in the waste processing!). Jobs in France’s nuclear industry are among the best jobs that country.

    And same for India? Why adopt a technology that will have everyone in the nuclear industry laid off!!!

    The money in these nuclear plants is NOT the plant, but that of processing the waste and regulating the industry. This is not much different then the cell phone model – give the cell phone away – all the money is in the air time.

    The “big” bucks is thus in handling the waste – especially since everyone of terrified of that waste (and they should be!).

    Thus countries with a nuclear industry stand to loose all their jobs if LENR works – it all about the processing of waste that makes all the big bucks in that industry.

    Anyway, existing nuclear plants are contaminated, and as noted de-commissioning costs can often exceed build costs. And anyone purchasing such a used plant will be subject to HUGE regulatory issues. Much of the working systems are thus radioactive (contaminated).

    Using LENR with a coal plant means you are off to the races and without regulatory issues. And you get to purchase an asset that no one wants. (it has little value to MOST people – but if you have LENR, then that asset is worth HUGE money).

    During the PC computer revolution several smart businessman LOOKED for business that were not profitable, but would become so by adding computers to that business. Such business thus could be purchased, computerized and brought to an MUCH higher level of profitability AND THEN SOLD. As anyone knows, the PURCHASE (price) of most business is based on it ability to generate income. (such business might have good revenue, but poor income – computers or LENR can change the income dramatic in some industries).

    So LENR can be added to “many” interesting business that are not viable right now, but become VERY valuable with LENR. A used coal plant is one such great example.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada
    kallal@msn.com

    • Bob Greenyer

      A former director of BARC told me in 2012, “yes our Pd D research was interesting – but not practically useful”, Srinivasan told me at ICCF-19 that their research program would first try to achieve high sustained COP – because not having that killed their research last time – I expect it was the same story in France.

    • Guru

      Transmission grid fees, profit margin, VAT = these items will kill these converted powerplants, even if they will sell electricity gratis (free).
      Most powerplant companies will bankrupt 6-8 years after introduction of LENR or other OU tech. Some sooner, if banksters use clausule about 30 days payment of bonds in case of lowering credit grade.

  • Axil Axil

    To enable one LENR unit to drive another, the primary coolant cannot be water because the reaction needs heat beyond the temperature made possible with water under pressure. The coolant may be a molten salt for safety sake.

    There must be a heat exchanger involved where the molten salt transfers heat to water.

    • pelgrim108

      I read it like this: Rossi is using the mice that are inactive to do work on another reactor that needs mouse-action. So that makes me think that the mice are separate from the reactor, but connected via the powercords to the reactor. Mice control the reactor and have a COP of 1.1
      Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Celani thinks the whole of LENR is now a function of Epicatalisis – he is seeing increasingly high currents from his wires, and only with passive heat application and an optimum H2 pressure domain.

    These guys get it

    https://www.facebook.com/ParadigmEnergy/posts/249600938581128

    I have envisioned a generator could be made of laminar rods treated to alternatively dissociate and re-associate H2 on oppositely doped substrates such to leverage the whole Seebeck effect in a sealed H2 atmosphere. A device of this type could be placed in a hot thing, such as a fire or a solar concentrator to generate electric power directly. Distance between disassociation and re-association plates will need to be relative to the gas used to avoid free re-association.

    Some 7 years ago – I was told that they were developing exactly a device with this capability at the Vikram space centre in Kerala, southern India, but they did not explain how it was to be made. There appears to be a recent patent application on something similar.

    http://www.google.com/patents/US20140352682

    Perhaps Rossi was exploring something similar when he chanced upon anomalous heat?

    http://www.google.com/patents/US20050028858

    Could it be that highly localised re-associations on nano structures create sufficient non-equilibrium conditions to stimulate LENR?

    • Axil Axil

      A chemical process will not produce gamma, high energy protons as per piantelli and positons as reported by Rossi. LENR is a nuclear process.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Axil, perhaps you missed my point.

        It was just about stimulation, localised intense heat and electric fields stimulating LENR.

        Also about suggesting Rossi’s previous experience in his patent application cited in the text above.

        • Axil Axil
          • Bob Greenyer

            Gold is mentioned in the patent I cited above. It is Gold on TiO in the paper you site.

            This is the splitting – yes – some amazing work going on in the field

          • Axil Axil

            Gold is the standard nano particle metal used in nanoplasmonics because it reflects visible light well. Nickel reflects infrared perfectly and is the best for LENR.

    • Axil Axil

      Also, LENR produces isotopic change and transmutation of elements. Needless to repeat that LENR is a nuclear process. The Lagano showed that the power output of the Rossi reactor had to be nuclear.

  • pelgrim108

    This sharing mice story makes me think that a mouse is a current modulator for feeding the coil.

    • Ged

      Gotta be careful though, mice like to chew on wires.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Fantastic. or Fxxxxxx Awesome

    • I bet for Fxxxing-positive of Fxxxed-up negative

  • artefact

    Its a JONP intern joke. Orsobubu suggested to Rossi that he should put the sentence ” it could be either positive or negative” to an F key because he uses it so often

    • ecatworld

      F9 key

  • Bob

    I believe F-something is a refererence to a previous question about using the F9 key when he writes “results could be positive or negative”.

  • Daniel Maris

    Just taking the F from final result I think as “final” begins the phrase he’s referring to.

    However it is a most annoying trope.

    ANY excess heat is going to be a tremendous success – but we never get the impression that Rossi accepts that to be the case.

    I know one can rationalise the phrase in terms of the narrative (the operational plant could be a failure or success – even if LENR is a confirmed reality) but I find it worrying. I’d be happier if he didn’t use it – or just clarified what the hell he means by it.

    • bkrharold

      I was puzzled by his repeated use of this phrase when everything appears to be working in his favor. My conclusion, he is worried that a critical system failure may take so long to fix he may not be able to deliver on the conditions of the contract which calls for 365 days up out of 400.

      • Daniel Maris

        A reasonable explanation, but it would be even more reasonable for Rossi to give it!

  • Agaricus

    Rossi seems to be deliberately underplaying the 1MW plant’s performance again – perhaps to avoid scaring the wildlife too much. The now meaningless ‘positive or negative’ mantra seems to be part of this, too.

    A COP of 4 would make the plant barely viable in competition with gas. If however the heaters are only energised for say 10% of the time overall, then the COP will be (in this case) 40 – a very different proposition. From some of AR’s comments this doesn’t seem to be an unreasonable assumption, and it could even be higher.

    The second part of his comment about extending the test period may be in the same vein. It allows the skeps/shills to suggest that Rossi may extend the test period indefinitely – i.e., e-cat doesn’t work – and so would allow for an unexpected market entry as soon as sufficient data has been gathered.

    This downplaying suggests (to me, anyway) that the technology will be introduced in as low key a manner as is possible, most probably by leasing plants quietly and without announcement to ‘word of mouth’ customers.

    • Manuel Cruz

      The second part about extending the test period is because he honestly doesn’t know how much time the fuel lasts. They have tentatively said 6 months, but have no idea. If a year passes and the fuel is still delivering the same amount of power, Rossi will extend the test up to 400 days (the maximum agreed) to see how much longer it lasts. It looks like they have never consumed all the fuel, and if a gram lasts more than a decade, we won’t know until 2025 at the soonest.

  • atlantis

    I am a bit lost. Can somebody explain me why resistance heaters are needed? Perhaps you could suggest me a link where I can get a brief recap of the most important characteristic of e-cat operation?. For example: power in – power out – temperature of output heat – Thanks a lot

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Think of an electric stove top heating element.

      You put in power and when temperature reaches a certain point the coil starts to glow. Think of that “glow” as to when the reactor is now producing useful heat. You can now turn off the electricity, and the coil glows for awhile. When the coil stops glowing, you now input electricity to heat the coil back to a point in which it glows.

      In fact we quite luckily the above effect is possible. If the reaction started and WOULD NOT stop, then the coil would get hotter and hotter and the whole thing would melt. You would also not have a way to turn off the coil once started!

      I certainly think over time we will figure out how to build such reactors that stay on ALL the time and self regulate. And such system will run without input power. (so once the reaction starts – it continues without input (heat) power).

      The key concept here is without an on/off control, then such devices are not much useful. If once started it would not stop, then it would be like cracking one of those glow sticks – it going to run until no fuel left!

      The WHOLE trick in LENR is to achieve some kind of balance here. The fact that you can “start” the reaction, but THEN back off is what makes the whole effect useful.

      And as time moves forward, then the amount of heat drive and energy to keep the reaction going will get lower and lower. In fact Rossi recently stated he is using heat from some cores to drive other cores.

      So in a rather short time, the reduction in input energy required to keep the reactions going is FAST being reduced. We have reports of COP reaching 80!!! And that’s only after 6 months of running such a plant.

      I don’t think Rossi is that far off from a fully self sustaining plant in terms of drive heat. Such a plant will really thus achieve a near unlimited COP and will only required energy for the control systems – not external heat to keep the reaction going.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada
      kallal@msn.com

  • Sergiu

    Wondering what’s the average COP over one year… If the average is let’s say 8 at 1MW constant power, that’s a saving of 875kWh every hour or 7.665GWh or 766.5K $ worth of electricity in one year at 10c/kWh (or over 1.5M Euro at a minimum of 0.2Euro/kWh in Germany). If such a container can be built with less than half a million dollars, then it pays itself easily in less than one year at such a COP.

    • pelgrim108

      Price of 1 MWh is about 27$ according to internet. You estimate it at about 120$.

    • pelgrim108

      Your price of 0.2 Euro/kWh in germany is correct.

  • hempenearth

    Can anyone make an educated suggestion about when there is a “decrease of efficiency” how Rossi would know whether to:
    1. end the self sustain mode? or
    2. change the fuel charge?
    Other than ending SSM failing to increase the efficiency, or is this the only way?
    I have strong doubts about real time measurement of the fuel mass/volume.
    Thanks in advance

    • john M

      It’s my understanding Rossi has real time data from 100 (?) individual units that make up the 1MW plant. I expect he is very aware of the performance of each and will note a change very quickly.

      • hempenearth

        Thanks John, yes he has real time data about the temperature of each reactor but I don’t think about the fuel mass/volume, probably as you & Manuel & Roger suggest, he just assumes the fuel needs changing when there is a sustained drop in output which is lower than input. I guess Rossi might still be defining how long to leave a reactor that has stopped showing the effect, in other words how long before he is certain the fuel in that reactor is exhausted.

    • bachcole

      I certainly can’t make an educated suggestion, and I can’t see how anyone else can, particularly at this point in time. Anyone who comes up with an educated suggestion either knows something that we don’t or is fooling themselves.

      Even in the near future, I would think that the only way to “know” would be by calculation and not direct measurement.

    • Manuel Cruz

      It is obvious. That “Self-sustain mode” it’s just a regulator mechanism to avoid the reactor getting too hot or too cold, so it’s not measuring efficiency, just temperature, and the graph looks like a bouncing ball. Without fuel that enables the ‘Rossi effect’, on the other hand, the reactor cannot produce excess energy. And that is easy to spot on a graph, because the output is the same or lower than the input.

  • john M

    As a member of the peanut gallery I am most interested in the 1MW plant as a proof of concept. Once accepted, there will be numerous iterations. I won’t feel like a bag holder, just happy to be a close spectator of the most important story in my lifetime.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    We don’t know what the static COP of the e-cat modules are, but assuming say a COP of 4, then so far what we seen with SSM mode of about 2 seconds on, and 4 off will now give you a COP of 8.

    And if you power on for say .2 seconds, and off for 2, well that is now 10x, and you have a COP of 40. So this quite much explains the 20 to 80 COP for the plant. And such lower “on” ratios is supported by Rossi’s note of heat from the plant helps the reaction to continue.

    Between modifying the fuel charge, and tweaking the SSM mode, the COP numbers are MUCH better then we expected.

    All Rossi needs now is some hard numbers as to input costs, maintains cost and duration of a fuel charge.

    I think it makes a lot of sense that ZERO business would sign on the dotted line without some hard numbers and guarantees from the plant as to performance numbers.

    And it seems they are EASY beating their promised COP and cost numbers at this point in time.

    And it makes sense to “test” and run the fuel charges longer then one might want – again this issue would factor into cost, since you might in fact want to run the fuel down to a lower COP, but this overall would still reduce running costs.

    My sense is the plant is working rather well. Anything over 10x COP is commercial viable, and the 20x numbers we see make this a real game changer.

    Of course I want 6 of those modules placed in a camping cooler sized box for home use!

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Achi

    Frank, just a suggestion, but for these longer updated threads, perhaps you could use a spoiler code to show/hide the contents of the previous updates after the update number and the date. That would help keep the post from becoming outrageously long and also decrease the need for splitting posts on the same topic.

  • pelgrim108

    Not logged in? I dont see Mister Moustache with the Commanding Eyes. 🙂

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Actually in a world so full of rumors and misinformation, I very MUCH welcome questions and those asking for clarification in my posts.

    The problem here is you speculating and suggesting my post is wishful thinking. It is an irony of logic that you suggest people should not speculate and yet you are here doing exactly that!

    I ask that you do an EXACT quote out of my post and ask for clarification.

    The first issue is the COP of 20-40.

    There are now credible statements that Rossi’s plant has a COP in the range of 20 to 80.

    From this:

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/01/1-mw-e-cat-plant-watch-thread-update-1-rossi-production-cost-in-kw-is-very-competitive/

    quote:
    UPDATE #22 (Apr 21, 2015)

    Another comment about sources visiting the 1MW plant currently under test by Rossi from the Sifferkol website run by Torkel Nyberg (see here http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/?p=626:

    “I know first hand from very reliable sources that themselves have visited the Rossi/Industrial Heat E-Cat customer that the plant works very well. This has been verified both by measurements made by the customer and by significantly reduced electricity bills. The plant seems to be able to produce heat from electricity with a COP in the range of 20-80 depending on the level of self-sustain-mode applied. I guess that is what Rossi is working on right now.”

    And in response to above, we have this from Mats Lewan:

    UPDATE: Since a COP (Coefficient of Performance — output energy/input energy) ranging from 20 to 80 has been reported, I can confirm that I have got the same information.

    So I would accept that SOME speculation exists here, but the information now suggests a COP of about 20-80.

    So what so far is wishful thinking and speculation here?

    Next up we have the two published reports (one on a hot-cat, and the earlier report on the e-cat).

    In BOTH cases we see a COP of LESS then 10 without SSM mode.

    So now, how are you going to get a COP of 20-80 wh a device that has a STATIC COP in the range of 3-6 (while the tests only saw COP of 3, the commercial units likely are higher.

    There is simply no math and reason and logic that can exist to explain the higher COP of 20-80 EXCEPT that you are turning off the drive power to those cores.

    If SSM meant that NO INPUT power was required, then the COP would be near unlimited.

    A COP of 20-80 means that the plant is not ALWAYS using power to drive those units.

    From the first test, SSM mode was CLEARY pointed out. SSM mode simply means the heat drive is turned off, and then on. We also have the COP from that first test.

    So NONE of the above is WILD speciation at all, but is based on relative creditable statements about the ecat.

    Next up we have several statements by Rossi.

    Rossi has stated by tweaking plant software, he been able to increase SSM mode time. We talking about a control system here.

    The ONLY logical and possible means to increase the COP with SOFTWARE is thus to CHANGE the ratio of input heat drive time ON vs heat drive time off. This is not speculation but a simple fact of logic and of what SSM mode means.

    Again:
    If the machine could run without input heat drive for hours on end, then the COP would be nearly UNLIMITED. We would not be talking about a COP of 20-80 as per the above quote, but such A COP would be massive – not even bother to be quoted.

    AT this point all of the above is sound reason, and logic.

    What is speculation on my part?

    Well CLEARY the “actual” on vs off time I quoted is speculation. We do NOT know the actual drive ratio is 2/.2 or 20/2 or 200/20 (so 200 seconds without drive vs 20 on, or 20 seconds on vs 2 without drive).

    However ANY ratio quoted amounts to the SAME math and SAME logic.. That logic is this:

    The drive ratio HAS been CHANGED and INCREASED!

    I do not have to see a hammer hit the ground and realize that hammer is subject to gravity if you drop it. If you drop a hammer, then the idea that gravity does not exists and the hammer will NOT hit the ground is laughable on your part

    Rossi has CLEARY pointed out that the plant is experiencing increased SSM mode, and has CLEARY pointed out this is due to a change in the control systems. He also stated that heat from e-cats is being used to drive other e-cats, but STILL a COP exists and STILL a drive time on vs off exists.

    Anyone trained in reason, logic, and the Socratic method of learning will conclude the above.

    Rossi has ALSO stated that from the last third party report he has learned much from that report and has stated this has ALSO enabled him to increase COP by changing the fuel. (the has hinted this may be one means as to how SSM mode has been increased – hard to tell with Rossi’s comments).

    And again I would freely admit we do NOT know the static COP of each reactor – but it VERY likely in the 3-10 range.

    So yes my quoted drive time of .2 seconds on and 2 off is most certainly speculation. However WHAT IS NOT SPECULAITON is the increased RATIO of drive on/off. It most certainly is around 10x, or even 20x to achieve a COP of the quoted 80.

    It is clear what SSM mode is. If the machine could run for hours on end without heat drive, then the COP would be near unlimited – not 20 or 40.

    If you have SPECIFIC question or point as to what in my post is speculation then PLEASE DO quote the given statement and I will be most happy to clear up as to what it is you consider speculation.

    As I stated I freely admit that the drive time could be 2/.2 or 20/2 or whatever. That actual drive on/off is SHEER speculation on my part.

    However the RAITO CONCEPT of this drive on/off time is a FACT OF PURE reason and sound logic.

    And there is no hint or suggesting by omission or by intention on my part as to a claim of the actual drive time. Might be .2, might be 20 – we don’t know that. However since anyone with a functional brain DOES NOT YET KNOW the actual drive on vs off ratio then one MUST speculate the actual times. And only a FOOL would think that such times are being presented as some kind of fact here. In this case it is your intellect failing to realize this and I had not considered readers here would need this simple reasoning to be clarified.

    There is ZERO speculation and in fact NO WAY that a COP can be reached by “mere” tweaking of the control system.

    SSM mode is simply an increased ratio of input power being off as compared to drive time being on (or a overall average since we have many cores working together).

    If there was NO input drive time required then the COP would be near unlimited, and not 20-80 as quoted.

    I happy await your well thought out intellectual post as to what it is you consider unwarranted speculation in my post.

    In fact I ENTHUSIASTICALLY await your response!

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada
    kallal@msn.com

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Because that ***IS*** the system that controls the plant. The software and control system is what allows the SSM mode. How does the plant know to cycle the input power off and then on then to each reactor core then?

    It could be a basic timer, but Rossi has much stated the control system monitors the status of the plant and is a FEEDBACK system.

    Quote by Rossi:

    The ssm is enhanced by the fact that with the control system directing multiple reactors we can obtain a synergy between them using some of the reactors to drive others, where the driving ones ( mouse operation) are less than the cat ones. This way the ssm phases are substantially more that the driving ones. This synergy, obviously, is possible only with big plants.

    And:

    The measurement system of the 1 MW E-Cat is made by:

    56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the water steam in different positions

    56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the liquid water that flows toward the reactors in different positions

    1 PCE 830 to measure the consumption of electric power, which has been installed between the container of the reactors and the electric power source of the Customer’s Factory, plus

    the Wattmeter of the Customer’s factory installed by the electric energy provider

    56 pressure gauges to measure the pressure of the steam in different positions

    So yes, the control systems monitor the heat output and when that heat output drops then energy (heat) is supplied to the core to keep the reaction alive. (Rossi calls this drive time). Without monitoring, you really cannot know this!

    So we don’t now how long a core lasts (in fact Rossi does not know yet either!!). The plant MOST certainly monitors the drive time off vs that of on. Thus as a core drops off in performance (reduced SSM) then the time as to “when” to replace such a core is MOST certainly something that one can determine (same thing if a core stops working – it will be swapped out).

    As to the “complex” reasoning as to when to replace such a core? – that we don’t know but the plant MOST CERTAINLY knows when cores are dropping off in performance.

    I mean, when should you replace the battery in your laptop? Don’t really know, but when it reaches a point of not being that useful anymore would be about the right time.

    In Rossi’s case, you replace a core when it is a benefit to do so! That certainly suggests they may will run some cores with less performance then others, since over time you going to have a mix of fresh cores and ones that have been running for some time.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • hempenearth

      Thanks for that Albert, I had no time to search for those quotes

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Based on your view, then everything stated here by everyone is thus speculation. In fact this would also mean your above statement that everything here is speculation is ALSO speculation on your part!

    Funny how such circular logic works – the problem is your failing to apply you own logic and rules to you own posts which by your admission is speculation!

    And if you believe speculation is a bad thing, then one would have to wonder why you are posting speculation here?

    The simple matter is wild and stupid speculation and speculation WITHOUT MERIT should most certainly be pointed out.

    My comments and notes stand up well to scrutiny, and I provide supported evidence for these comments, and my logic and reason posted here is based on lock tight logical reasoning.

    As I stated, if there is a particular point or issue with my comments, then PLEASE do quote as such, and I will be MOST happy to clear up the SOUND logical reasoning using to make such conclusions.

    The simple matter is yes, every single post on this site is speculation – the difference is thus between the posts based on reason, and those posts based without logic or reason.

    The ones based on sound logic and reason are NOT irresponsible.

    However, given your position that all posts here are speculation then at least make sure you apply this newfound awareness to you own posts! Unless of course you think everyone else’s posts are speculation, but somehow your posts are not!

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada
    kallal@msn.com

  • hempenearth

    From following E-Cat World…descriptions of his control and monitoring system – around that time when there was a lot of talk about them setting up the control system

    Edit: sorry Albert has already covered it below

  • hempenearth

    Good idea, thanks

  • Omega Z

    There was a joke on JONP that Rossi doesn’t have to type in “It may be positive or negative”

    He merely presses the function key (F9) & it auto prints it to his posts.

  • Omega Z

    bachcole
    Was a joke on JONP April 15th, 2015
    ———————————————————–
    Another question I’m sure everyone wants to know. This is Really Important. 🙂
    Do you have a macro key like pressing F9 that automatically inserts the following to all your responses here at JONP.

    “I must add that the results could be either positive or negative.”

    Kind Regards,
    Dan C.

  • BillH

    #26 This update doesn’t sound like good news at all, unless someone has their maths wrong?
    From reading all the other updates you can see that testing must have started between December 2014 and January 2015, if not before. which would give a run time of 180+ days.
    I can see there has been some downtime but 180-136=44 which would be too much. It’s good to have a COP >4 but reliability of supply to a manufacturing process would be much more important. In any case we need to wait between 230 and 265 days to see anything concrete?

    • ecatworld

      This might be the reason for the relatively late start:

      Paul
      July 6th, 2015 at 4:56 PM
      Andrea,
      Were the 4 250 KW modules fired up on February 20th this year?

      Andrea Rossi
      July 6th, 2015 at 5:20 PM
      Paul:
      Yes.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      I think adding the 4 250 kW reactors was a later addition to the plant, and maybe the clock restarted when they were included.

      • Jimr

        It would be interesting to know the make up of each 250kw unit. Does it consist of 75 3.4kw units, etc?

        • Observer

          June 1st, 2015 at 5:24 PM
          … The 250 kW units are single, not assemblies made by smaller modules…
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.

          May 19th, 2015 at 12:19 PM
          Andrea,
          Does your 250 KW modules consist of one 250 KW reactor or do they consist of multiple reactors adding up to 250 KW ?

          May 19th, 2015 at 6:25 PM
          250 kW reactor.
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.

      • Omega Z

        Something of this nature is never a install & the clock starts project.
        There is always a shake out period before the clock starts.

    • kenko1

      I asked Dr. Rossi a while back if the inclusionn of the 250 mW hot-cat would add additional test time. This was his answer:

      http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=879&cpage=10#comment-1090643

    • yes seems lower runtime than expected.
      If you imagine that it did not have downtime this make a start on 20th february.

      can you all see what was said at that period?

  • GreenWin

    Perhaps the good doctor is feeling the heat from competing low cost energy technologies. He has little to worry about as the energy density of LENR is essentially nuclear. But we will see a variety of remarkable new energy technologies over the next decade. IH/Rossi should capture the industrial heat market. But supercaps, PV/storage, and micro-CHP will all enter the “energy appliance” market. Not to mention exotic Zero Point gadgets based on Casimir or vacuum energy.

    Not to worry. It’s all good. 🙂

  • Curbina

    Well, now we now, but so far 6 months is rather a good track record.

  • ecatworld

    Frank Acland

    July 6th, 2015 at 6:46 PM

    Dear Andrea,
    So this 136 day (so far) test has included the 4 250 kW E-Cats from the beginning?

    Andrea Rossi

    July 6th, 2015 at 7:03 PM

    Frank Acland:
    Yes.
    At the beginning we had many troubles and many stops for major problems. Very hard times. All problems resolved, so far. F9.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Gerard McEk

      That means that there are only 4 ecats running The system does not look like the plant being build on the pictures, at all! This is a completely new plant!

      • Gerard McEk

        Or that AR added these 250 kW ecats as a back-up, enabling the modification of the other ecats while keeping the system in operation. I surely want to know which ecats are delivering the energy the ~50 old ecats or the 4 250 kW ecats.

        • Gerrit

          just for clarification:

          4 x 250 kW = 1MW ?
          or
          4 x 62,5 kW = 250 kW ?

          • Gerard McEk

            If AR talks about a 250 kW unit then that produces 250 kW or a quarter Megawatt. You need only 4 of them to produce a MW. Today I have asked him if the 50 others are still used or that the 250 kW units have taken over the full load. I hope I will get an answer.

          • ecatworld

            Not quite sure what he meant here, but the question came up recently.

            Paul

            May 26th, 2015 at 6:30 PM

            Andrea,

            Shouldn’t we be calling the shipping container a 2 MW plant, or are you not using all the e-cat modules shown? (56 ~20 KW modules vs 4 250 KW modules)

            Paul

            Andrea Rossi

            May 26th, 2015 at 6:41 PM

            Paul:
            All I can say is that we are producing 1 MWh/h of thermal energy. The plant is redundant.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

          • Gerard McEk

            It looks like AR has added 100% redundancy to his original plant to ensure it will produce the required one million watts. I guess that the 4 250 kW units take most of the load because they are more advanced and lessons learned from Lugano were integrated in those.

          • BillH

            It is very unclear to me at least what AR meant, and I think it would be unwise to make such a sweeping assumption. It could mean he is producing 1MWh/h of thermal energy using 4 250KW generators, backed by his original reactors, or on it’s own, or that they are producing 1MWh/h of heat energy but the “plant” is shut down i.e. redundant, and the heat is just being vented. In any case, this all adds to the cost.

          • Gerard McEk

            I agree, we have to wait. Time will tell.

          • Daniel Maris

            Probably relates to capacity. Didn’t a previous 1MW test only produce 400Kws of actual output?

      • Observer

        Rossi is listening to a 250 kW module in this picture:

        http://andrea-rossi.com/1mw-plant/0p3ea770a61pq3mcaj3i05bjxobhjk

        The 250 kW modules are also shown in this picture:

        http://andrea-rossi.com/1mw-plant/byg6039e12m52hudu255bzhz9htsx7

        The smaller e-cats can be seen in the background.

        • Gerard McEk

          You may be right! Those two pictures with AR seem to show a different plant in comparison to the one being build and that has been published last year (where the corridor was in the middle).

  • Jonnyb

    This is great news, think maybe new teams etc. there for the 365th day (unless leap year) that would be the time to unleash it to the world. The odd world leader or two present for the unveiling would be good as well.

  • pg

    february 2016 it is.

  • Gerard McEk

    I had assumed that the plant started operation in September. I knew that they had quite a few problems in the beginning and now it seems that these problems were huge and unsolvable. It is only since February this year that AR produces positive sounds. So my conclusion is that AR has installed a completely new plant or added these 4 250kW units to the plant as a back-up. I have asked him that and hope to hear what units are producing the energy now.
    It can be however, that from September/October last year the plant produced energy, but not during 24 hours per day 1MW continuously. That happened maybe only since February this year.

    • artefact

      “Gerard Mc Ek:
      We will give technical data after the completion of the tests on course, hoping the final results will be positive.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.”

  • Private Citizen

    So frustrating to see this technology, if real, slow-rolled on the scale of years, when a different approach would long ago have thousands of the best minds in industry and academia worldwide understanding, perfecting and commercializing what might be the most disruptive invention in history. If it is money you want, you would have it by now. If it is glory you want, you would have it. What do you want??

    • Paul Smith

      Rossi says that only IP protection allows heavy funding for R&D and, at the end, low prices for selling. I think that it is true, but it really is frustrating waiting years after years…

      • Private Citizen

        Filing a detailed, replicable patent should have provided IP protection. As it is, they have none, while patent trolls are filling important gaps. It is going to be a legal mess if/when IH pops its head above the barricade with an openly testable item, in however many centuries.

    • Robert Ellefson

      It seems to me that Rossi wants the biggest pile of money the world has ever seen. Surely he has already produced enough of the technological basis to earn more money than he will ever be able to spend, if only he would allow this product to be released, but instead he is angling for as complete a monopoly as he can manage. I have difficultly imagining that this is the result of anything other than unrestrained greed.

      • bachcole

        Given he egregious slings and arrows of outrageous corruption that he has had to deal with, I am not the least bit surprised that he is trying to hold on to every single cash stream from the E-Cat that he can. If I were a multi-trillionaire, and if I were so stupid as to cling to resentment, I would go after some of the people who have unjustifiably wronged me. (Of course, everyone thinks that they have been unjustifiably wronged. This is a really good reason to let go of it.)

      • Michael W Wolf

        No, Rossi has been attacked and thwarted from day one. How he handled it is their fault and a feather in his cap for doing what he had to do to get his technology to move forward. I hope he becomes the richest man in the world. That will mean people are being saved by his technology and his detractors will be eating the biggest crap sandwich the world has ever seen. It is like everything you said is backwards from reality. Just like the marxists want. Wake up man. capitalism has gotten us prosperity, it has been hijacked by socialism and is causing all the problems being blamed on capitalism.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Private Citizen, Robert Ellefson: It is my opinion Dr. Rossi believes in the free market system. Not necessarily in the crony capitalism system. If he throws open his IP who will benefit? Those with the most money will exploit and control HIS new fire, and this does not mean the new fire will move into the market any faster and it certainly will not be cheaper! What happens if he tries to control his new fire by a combination of trade secret strategy
      and patent strategy, in Rossi’s words, “When we will put for sale the small units ( easy to buy for anybody) ) we will produce them with an economy scale that will make pointless the reverse engineering.” In other words the free market system, one that protects IP, is probably the fastest, and certainly the cheapest for the ultimate consumer, way to introduce his new fire.

    • Warthog

      If you think Rossi’s efforts have been “slow-rolled”, then you know little about industrial development. Progress has in reality been amazingly fast. I know of only one project in history on the scale you seem to want, and that was the Manhattan Project to develop the fission bomb. That was accomplished as it was only because it was an all-out effort during time of war. Not gonna happen in peace-time.

      • Private Citizen

        Rossi demoed the tech at Lugano. If they just allow more testing and more open testing the matter would be settled and the investment $billions would roll in.

        They don’t need Home Depot mass-produced units to both get rich and provide clean energy to the world as quickly as possible, just a demonstrable technology.

        • Warthog

          Which reply again demonstrates that you know little about actually bringing a product into production. I do, both on small and large scales. As long as the regulatory environment is as it currently is, and without the imprimatur of being a government project in waratime to cut through the “red tape” (as the Manhattan Project was), more money will make little to no difference in speed to market. I say again…..by current industry standards, Rossi’s rate of progress has been VERY good.

  • LuFong

    It’s nice to hear Rossi’s most recent disclosures about the test. I for one completely missed the bit about the 250K reactors–must of been all the replications going on. Surely it’s easier to control 4 250K reactors than 100 10K reactors (or are they 20K?). Maybe the 10K reactors are function like mice? I have expected Rossi to change things significantly as he progresses. It’s going to be a long rest of test but at least we have a date!

    • bachcole

      Hey, I am a big A.R. believer and have been ever since the first test in 2013. I think that the guy walks on water. But this news about four 250 KW reactors rather than one hundred 10 KW reactors is completely new to me. Did I miss something? Was it mentioned in some hyper-technical article that I would not have read?

      • ecatworld

        He’s talked about it on the Journal of Nuclear Physics over the last few months. Also it looked like they were shown in the most recently published photo

  • artefact

    It could be that his F9 finger is hurting and needing some rest.

  • malkom700

    The states or big corporations too can buy all of the rights because to the fate of the world is concerned.

  • Jarea

    Unfortunately, the people forget too fast

  • Jarea

    With the potential risk to become negative.. I hope he minds not so positive. How can this test be negative with a device already working good for 180days. I know the objective in the contract but the first unitsmust not be perfect. That F9 disclaimer make me nervous

    • I think Rossi maintains his caution for the following reasons:
      * When he speaks of success or failure he is primarily referring to whether the plant meets the contractual guarantees of performance and up time (rather than any scientific threshold). These won’t be clinched until much closer to the end of the test.
      * There won’t be any official results until the referee publishes them. Rossi must take into consideration that those results may have adjustments from the numbers he has seen so far.
      * He knows that once he confidently declares a successful test our little corner of the Internet is going to blow up. There are public relations timing considerations and competitive advantage considerations.
      * He’s been burned before by shady players. I think we are not quite aware of all the players in the game just yet. We assume the referee will be fair. But what if the referee has been compromised? Better to wait and see how it plays out. If Rossi blurted out ‘Success!’ and then referee followed up with ‘I have zero confidence in these results’ then we’re in for another round of whack-a-pathoskep.

    • Ged

      We’re pretty sure he is contractually obligated to say “positive or negative” in some form. He began saying that to everything immediately after the IH liscensing, never did before that, and even inserts it into weird places, as he uses it so much.

      Otherwise, LENR G covers the bases beautifully.

    • Daniel Maris

      I guess there is an outside possibility it might blow up or go into meltdown.

  • note that the test can be positive if there is 50days of downtime, so the deadline is 400days.
    350days is the minimum and it seems Rossi have downtime already.

    note also that it may take time for the official announce.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I often been perplexed by Rossi stating that the test could
    for some reason be unsuccessful. And I often thought the statement is much like
    a slang of saying “for better or for worse”.

    However, Rossi is quite direct and consistently makes an
    effort to point out the possibility of failure here.

    The only reason I can think of Rossi doing this would be
    to keep others guessing and keep them doubting. (he certainly has us all
    guessing). In other words, Rossi wants some doubt here, as this keeps skeptics
    happy and in a state of disbelief.

    I think without question Rossi has enough data and
    numbers on how well the plant performs. In other words the year of testing is
    required from a cost and durability point of view, but NOT from a performance point
    of view (they have that information now). I really don’t see any other reason
    for Rossi to state that results could be negative. The only other reason would
    of course be legal reasons (investors can sue if they been misled and thus
    always stating the possibility of a negative would remove this legal issue). So
    Ross’s past legal issues likely taught him well in this regards.

    I also caution everyone’s assumption that data or test
    results will be released after a year. We are all “assuming” that such numbers
    and test results will be released, but that is an assumption on our part.

    Such cost and performance numbers are much the property
    of the customer. And I not aware that Rossi stated when if at any time such performance
    numbers will be released to the public. This is especially so if Rossi plans to
    sell heat as opposed to the device. Like any vendor of any product you do NOT
    want the person purchasing the service to know your actual cost numbers since
    such numbers HELP VERY much in terms of negotiating a price for a given
    product. Just ask any car salesman how much the internet has hurt them since customers
    can easy find out the wholesale cost of the product they are purchasing and use
    that as leverage in negotiations.

    I have little doubt that such numbers will be used by
    Rossi to give guarantee to the next customers, but an outright release of the actual
    data and performance numbers is not a given and in fact likely will not be made
    public.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Jarea

      I vote for the legal reason regarding to his F9. I think that if that is a fraud that will not keep him safe. Is just for small delays

  • Optist

    Why does Rossi spend so much time answering these questions?

    • Obvious

      His corespondence has hugely improved his English skills, among other reasons.

      • nietsnie

        Well… maybe a little.

    • radvar

      Spends his days inside a cargo container full of equipment and engineers?

    • Omega Z

      What would you do if you need to spend 16 hours a day 7 days a week inside a steel container where most everything is monitored by computers.

      Unless there is a problem, his only task would be to take occasional manual readings to verify the data is the same as the monitoring equipment.

      Following on JONP, Rossi occasionally watches video’s, studies a lot of books, Consults with the members of his team, And spends a small period of time(How much time to respond to 5/6 questions.) corresponding with those on JONP. It is his window to the world.

  • Mats002

    Frank: You can make two counters, one for at earliest and one for at latest. I guess the conclusive answer will come from the referee and that makes the ‘at latest’ pushed a bit into the future. Maybe Mr Rossi/IH Mgmt can share some more insight in this part of the project plan.

  • standard model is probably not challenged by LENR.

    What is challenged is the usual assumptions of 2-body interactions, and alike…

    This is a failure of lack of imagination, of particle and plasma physics facing material physicists and chemist.

    Luca Gamberale introduce the concept of Coherent-QED.

    many other theorist, like preparata, Storms, ((and even Einstein with Sternglass experiment http://nautil.us/issue/7/waste/einsteins-lost-hypothesis ), concluded it have to be collective.

    we are at the age of the complexity and emergence revolution.
    CQED, groupthink, entanglement, chaos theory, statistic translators…

  • Jimr

    Also, would this indicate 4 different outages of 6 hours equal one day (24hr) or would it count as 4 days outage? Hopefully it would count as 4 days.

  • Omega Z

    I choose to consider the down time to be closer to 7 then 28. I also feel those down days were near the beginning of the test period as you would expect a hard learning curve at that point.

    As with many of Rossi’s answers to such questions, it is vague & leaves much room to speculate or to over think it. Regardless, (F9) will be determined according to a multiple of factors.

    Rossi has previously said problems have involved peripheral issues & not the E-cat reactor. At least 1 issue was leaky pipe fittings. These will all be taken into consideration after the test period is completed.

  • Jarea

    Please Frank, we want the test countdown back! XD. Now we have a date. If there is a problem, then you can remove the countdown again.

    • ecatworld

      What date would you choose?

      • ss dd

        Feb 29, 2016 would be perfect

        • Mats002

          Yey!

          • ecatworld

            Ok, Countdown is reset for test ending Feb 29, 2016.

        • Jarea

          Yep, 2016 will have 29 of February!

      • Jarea

        Apart of the good joke of ss dd XD. End of February is what we know for sure. i would choose that date, if it come before, then better 😀

      • Jarea

        Thanks Frank! you are amazing with this web! 😀

  • William D. Fleming

    In your picture you look like a young buck. What’s the deal?

  • Gerard McEk

    Around 5 months to go….. An endless time……Tension will be building up for us and it will be extremely stressfull for Andrea. Untill now the reactor part seems flawless and the conventioneel parts causing the problems. I wonder who designed that part of the installation. Such conventional equipment should heve been made to the best quality. Maybe AR had a limited budget, or was it done too quickly? I hope time will tell.

    • Omega Z

      Gerard, most of these components would be adapted off the shelf type of devices. There is little on the market that would be E-cat technology ready.

      You wouldn’t want to put to much funding in developing specialty components until after you have test results. You may find the need to redevelop those components latter. This is related to the measure twice, cut once.

      • Gerard McEk

        You are right Omega Z, I would not develop special equipment for the conventional part and that does not seem to be nessesary either. That does not mean that he could not use proper quality (industrial) coventional parts (control system, heat exchangers and pipe work, valves, sensors, etc) and have the design done by a good engineerings group. Maybe, because of the secrecy aspects, it was not possible to outsource this work to a well known industrial design achitect or engineerings company? Or as I said, maybe time/budget issues.

        • ecatworld

          Rossi said again today they were learning much about new materials to be used in the E-Cats. My guess is that they have had problems with resistors burning out over extended periods of use, and are working on making more durable ones with new materials.

          • Gerard McEk

            Yes, maybe, but the temperatures of the Ecat’s inside the 1 MW plant are not that high though. However, it can indeed be a mechanical problem with the heating element due to temperature variation stress. Maybe LENR requires a high dT/dt for controlling it.

  • Christina

    I just read Carli Fiorina’s book, “Tough Choices” which was excellent, BTW.

    My question is if on the day that there is no more question on the veracity and work of the X-Cat, and the E-cat is verified to be a working product, don’t the executives, not to mention the lawyers, of IH, Leonardo, etc. have to sit down with their boards and ignite the plans they have to sell these products.

    In other words, why on Earth would they tell us immediately that lenr is a success?

    Shouldn’t we be counting down to a later date, like 03-23-16?

    Just wondering.

    Christina

    • Omega Z

      Christina, I have my doubts that there will be a big press release in the near term. Probably they will let the results & others to talk about it while they focus on industrial production & such. I think this will be slower then what many expect. Keep in mind, Only the Lt-cat for industrial use will be available for some time. Everything else will still be in the R&D stage.

  • Jarea

    I am also curious. Roger why do you have that picture in your profile?. Any special history reasons?. In your facebook you have another one. By the way, i like both XD

    • bachcole

      That is a picture of my real self, externally manifest. Actually, it is a picture of The Real Self, externally manifest.

  • William D. Fleming

    72

  • Private Citizen

    If you want to defeat the oil cartels, disclose a widely as possible now. The E-Cat will never go back in the bag in this event.

  • Omega Z

    Your picture has always looked familiar to me.
    Then 1 day at the post office, it came to me. 🙂

  • So only two of the reactors show any sign of losing efficiency. That means he has two longer lasting fuel formulas to work with. It appears that changing the fuel will only be needed once a year at most in the commercial reactors. Further experimentation may yield even better results. He use to think the fuel would need a change every 6 months.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah, it’s fantastic. Think of it, a 400 second burst from a hot fusion experiment makes the headlines in MSM.

  • roseland67

    What exactly do you think is going to happen to this “Elite” you speak of?

    They gonna be caned in the streets?
    Gonna march them off to the gulag?
    Mass firings?
    Torches and pitchforks and drag them out of their houses?
    Take away their physics degrees and make them work @ McDonalds?

    If the ECAT works as stated, and that is still a bif if,
    these people will still have family’s & jobs, still pay taxes,
    still do work in the fields they are employed in.
    I would expect many of them would be tasked to the ECAT itself.

    • bachcole

      None of the above.
      Try fired, criticized in print, forced to examine their attitudes, demoted, etc.

  • Buck

    Thank you for the update about the customer’s desire to extend the lease or buy the 1MW plant.

    For me, it is this sort of information which simply enables one to prejudge the result at this 11th hour as a practical, pragmatic, realistic, dollars & cents success.

    Also, when a person responsible for profit & loss has this judgment about your product, it is far more easily understood by the average person on the street. At that point, the average person would likely ignore the scientific arguments about theory and conformance to known “laws of physics”.

    IMO, it is this sort of information which will cause an increase in the $3Billion in existing orders.

  • atanguy

    We know that there were a lot of problems to solve during the test. What should be important for the customer is to see how stable is the system during, for example, the last 3 months.

  • Omega Z

    Had Rossi answered “Yes” without the included caveat “if test is a success”, it would have far more meaning. It’s also likely Rossi would have said “Yes” with the (F9) caveat had the poster not included it.

    Obviously, if it works, the customer would have had such interest since the beginning. This will be a good question to ask again after the test is concluded.

    • timycelyn

      You’re right, of course. But…

      The flavour of the exchange is good. If things were bumpy with the 1Mw unit and the customer was looking a bit askance, I find it hard to believe that Rossi would answer ‘Yes’ so casually – there would probably have been a reinforcement of ((F9) in spite of the mention in the original question.

      • Omega Z

        That’s what I meant.

        Had the poster not put in the caveat, Rossi would have invoked the (F9).

    • Buck

      Oz,

      a focus upon Rossi’s state of mind and his phrasing only goes so far.

      This is a commercial contract situation where cost and benefit as well as the meeting of contractual terms come into play. As such, it is the customer’s opinion which is of great importance for the market place. Rossi has emphasized this point repeatedly.

      Ignoring the customer’s perspective on how the last 10.5 months of cost-benefit behavior impacts the customer’s answer gives a unbalanced, inadequate view of the meaning. Further to ignore the other information available to the customer, for example the evolution from 100 10kW to four 250kW E-Cat units and now the E-Cat X, further degrades the value of the customer’s opinion. And, the conformance between the Referee’s ongoing reporting of cost-benefit performance parameters and Rossi’s own record of the same performance parameters points to an upholding of agreed terms, another factor impacting the customer’s opinion. And there are more points to be included.

      Despite this above argument, the situation is still akin to a Heisenberg “Cat in the Box” situation: the facts will only become facts when the box is opened. But, this is not equivalent to that black box analogy . . . we have have been remotely monitoring what has been happening in the black box. As such, I think the odds have been shifting towards a statistical certainty.

  • Curbina

    This, said about 44 days before the test ends, tends to make the “if the test is a success” almost meaningless. No one would express interest in keeping something that has not been useful.

  • Mark S.

    Wake me up in 44 days. Nothing to see here until then.

  • Stefenski

    Good idea to agree on extension ; only if the customer tells the World about it.

    • Owen Geiger

      That’s not likely to happen. They’ll probably keep doing what they’re doing to keep their competitive edge.

  • Gerard McEk

    It takes a while to scroll down to this section. My styles wares….
    Perhaps you can just leave the latest update in the top erase the rest, Frank?
    The 1 MW plant seems quite stable lately and update is still positive. 44 days to go.
    What would make AR decide it will be ‘negative’, after so many positive days? Probably only if it runs out of control. But before AR decided to devote a year of his life to the interior of a shipping container, he must have done many shorter term tests. I estimate the probability of failure very low.

    • ecatworld

      I understand the issue with scrolling, but I can’t figure out an easy way around it, and I would like to preserve the history.

      • Buck

        Preserve the history. I can cope with the exercise of a few clicks/flicks of the finger.

      • Rene

        Add a button link to comments at the end of the new update.

        • ecatworld

          Great idea, Rene — just did it! Thanks.

          • TomR

            Thanks Frank, I used it and it worked great.

      • Private Citizen

        I suggested a simple named anchor at the bottom of the long article with a link at the top a long time ago. Assumed it was ignored because people might skip over advertisements.

        Code at the top (replace my brackets “[ ]” with “”):

        [a href=”#AnchorAtBottom”] Click here to jump to comments [/a]

        at bottom

        [a name=”AnchorAtBottom”] [/a]

        Look up HTML anchors for more examples.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Most readers will have noticed Rossi’s following comment:

    Andrea Rossi
    January 13th, 2016 at 5:04 PM
    Oeystein Lande:
    With the Customer I meet daily; about the ERV, visits are made with no pre-advice to check instrumentation and measures registration, and also to check the camera registrations of the videocameras put by the ERV inside the plant. The measurements made by the ERV are substantially coherent with the measurements made by us, so far.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    “ERV” is obviously related to the “referee”, but does anybody know what it actually means?

    • ecatworld

      AR said “Expert Responsible for Validation”

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Ah..Thanks. Maybe they should update Wikipedia.

        • Skip

          That was funny…

  • Jouni Tuomela

    Just my thoughts; Who of us would/could have done what Andrea Rossi seems to have done, like during the past year? The man seems to have superpowers and huge devotation to his task spending his time in the container in the plant of the customer as he says.
    The big picture beeing either “positive or negative” to me anyway Mr. Rossi is a hero. Even having the nerve to have a blog, and answering questions to us followers. Hope he enjous the blog, even the spelling my name wrong so many times 🙂

    • Pekka Janhunen

      The spelling error is a bit surprising because the diphthong ‘uo’ also occurs in Italian, at least in word uomo=man. I guess ‘ou’ is much more common, though, in latin-based languages.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The average price people in the U.S. pay for electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour.

    1000 kilowatt in a Megawatt.
    =$120 dollars per hour.

    7x24x365=$1,051,200

    If that company purchased the E-Cat for 1.5 Million, they would have another six months
    to go on depreciation before the power becomes free. Assuming they depreciate 100% up front,
    and not accounting for the cost of running the E-Cat Plant. It seems fair to assume that the power plant
    would pay for itself totally in two years.

    • Owen Geiger

      I thought they were selling the electricity to them, not the reactor.

      • Jonnyb

        Or heat?

        • Owen Geiger

          Yes, heat. Sorry.

          • Ophelia Rump

            I was not sure, but the current customer’s deal is not very significant. Having that customer is a great opportunity for the customer and IH, but the significance to potential customers is what they should expect from their investment.

            I just wanted to explore the motivation level.

  • A reference to Wikipedia reveals the currently acceptable view of any such phenomenon. In this case it’s apparently OK to discuss ‘sonoluminescence’ provided that any proposed explanation doesn’t include hydrogen fusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence).

    As soon as the possibility of ‘bubble fusion’ is raised however, it quickly becomes a case of dismissal on the grounds of ‘junk science’, cheating, misinterpretation of results, etc. etc. – just as for LENR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusion).

  • Ophelia Rump

    That would still be a phenomenal return on investment with extremely fast depreciation.
    The numbers are so good that it becomes difficult to justify not going with the E-Cat plant for your power needs.

    I do not expect IH to be selling the units for 1.5 Million when they go to mass market.
    I don’t know what price they have in mind. I have to believe it is somewhat lower and they have an approximate value in mind since they anticipate tens of billions in initial orders.

    IH must have floated some numbers to potential buyers, meaning that corporate leaders around the world are already quite well informed on the reality of LENR.

  • Omega Z

    Rossi is aiming at $50 per Kilowatt.

    1MW would cost $50,000

  • Gerard McEk

    Thanks Frank, for ‘Go to Comment’, excellent!
    Regarding #33: I believe AR is more curious than concerned about the changing COP.
    Besides that, he said also that he had solved the ‘problem’:

    Tobias
    January 16th, 2016 at 3:51 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    Can you give an update today, after the efficiency decrease of yesterday?
    Tobias

    Andrea Rossi
    January 16th, 2016 at 9:07 AM
    Tobias:
    Time: 09.10 a.m. of Saturday Jan 16
    After a fighting night we assessed the problem.
    1 MW E-Cat: stable
    E-Cat X: still oprative and very promising.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • ecatworld

      To me ‘assessed’ the problem, is not quite the same as ‘solved’ the problem. Maybe they have a good idea of what is causing the decrease in efficiency and they are figuring out the best way deal with it.

      • Gerard McEk

        Yes, I agree. It is just that I think ‘assessing’ and ‘fighting’ do not belong to each other. I think there may have been some stability problems too. Possibly does a decreasing COP also cause stability problems e.g. that one Ecat tries to compensate for the other.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I guess every time the 1 MW plant has some problem, Andrea “fights” because he then basically races against the clock – because according to their contract they have a limited number of days to perform offline maintenance.

  • QUESTION

    Has Rossi stated that they are doing a complete fuel analysis before and after the test?

    • Buck

      Christopher,

      I could easily be wrong . . . however, my 350 day count puts us at February 20th. And if memory serves me well, it has been estimated based upon Rossi supplied information that at least an additional two weeks should be added due to down time, putting us at about March 6th.

      • ecatworld

        Yes, Feb 20th is the starting point. The countdown clock on ECW is set to run out on Feb 29th, so it could be off by a week or more, depending on how many down days there have been. Rossi says they have time to play with (I think they have to have it running 350 days out of 400), so I suppose the very latest it could end is early April.

        • So the end could be just 34 days away. It sounds to me like the “modest” lowering in COP might have been a hydrogen leak.

  • artefact

    On JONP about the lowering of the COP:

    “Gerard McEk January 17th, 2016 at 11:26 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    You wrote that after a long night fight you have assessed the lowering COP problem.
    Can
    you tell us if that means that the COP is back to normal, or were some
    other issues solved that were bothering you because of the decreasing
    COP?
    Can you define when you consider the test positive?
    Thanks and kind regards, Gerard

    Andrea Rossi January 17th, 2016 at 12:26 PM
    Gerard McEk:
    The COP has slightly diminished its value, but we stopped the tendency to go lower, now it is stable.
    The test will be defined positive or negative when the 350 days of operation will have been completed.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.”

    • Gerard McEk

      Yes, only a pity he did not wanted to go into the definition of when the test would ‘positive’.

      • Omega Z

        From the varying posts, Rossi has indicated things are good at present.
        What he can’t say is the test is positive as the test is not concluded.

        I also wonder if some of this has to do with the referee. That Rossi isn’t allowed to say one way or the other until they say it’s positive or negative.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Nobody would expect that such sensible information will be released in an uncontrolled manner. Whoever pays the “referee” has certainly an interest to see the result before it becomes public.

        • Gerard McEk

          I just wanted to hear from him what criteria he would use to assess it is positive/negative. e.g. When the COP drops at the end, would that cause lead to a negative? Or if the control system would fail, because a PLC fails, would that be a negative? etc.
          In fact, I had hoped he would say: ‘Well if the reactor runs out of control and melts OR if the Ecat has shown so many problems that you couldn’t say the design is mature and reliable, even not after ‘all lessons learned’, OR excess radiation is measured, then the outcome is negative’

    • Axil Axil

      It sounds like there is fuel still remaining in the problematic reactors whatever that fuel may be but the LENR mechanism that utilizes that fuel is faltering. It is like a car with a full tank of gas but has burnt spark plugs. The reactors are misfiring. Rossi has stopped the decline of the LENR process. Did he polish up these LENR spark plugs? It also looks like the LENR reaction is established in a fuel/LENR preparation stage. It all has a feel of magic to all those who do not understand the details of the LENR reaction.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Sebastian January 17th, 2016 at 2:19 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    If there were no regulations issues, do you personally believe that a domestic e-cat could be run off-the-grid in a safe manner?
    Many thanks

    Andrea Rossi January 17th, 2016 at 2:20 PM
    Sebastian:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    • Omega Z

      Can I run an E-cat off-of-Gasoline?
      No, But you can run an E-cat Off-of-the-Grid…

      Rossi never misses an opportunity to play games with your head…

      However, Rossi has said you can run an E-cat “off grid” by using batteries, Inverters and power conditioners. If you so choose, you could loop it to itself, but the inverter & power conditioner would still be required. Just note that it would be unsafe and should it become unstable(Pressure explosion or 2000`C melt down), you will probably be buying a new E-cat at the very least. Likely a several times a year possibilty. So much for cheap energy.

      I find this wanting to be off grid to be silly. You will still require things from the system. You will not be off grid in reality. It’s plying mind games with ones self. That things become cheap is the best you can hope for.

      • Leonard Weinstein

        While coming off the grid in the near to mid term is not realistic, nevertheless, the eventual goal has to be full independence of the grid. This is for three reasons:
        1) the grid is vulnerable to weather and possibly terrorists, as well as adding cost for new or replaced infrastructure and has large transmission losses.
        2) oil, natural gas and coal will eventually phase out due to finite supply. This may take several decades or more, but it will happen.
        3) Alternate energy sources all have problems: For solar and wind it is location and dispatch ability. Nuclear fission has same infrastructure and transmission loss issues as conventional, and has a public acceptance problem. Large scale fusion is also a problem, and does not even show realistic promise at present.

        While the infrastructure does presently exist, every major storm takes sections down. Also telephone poles are ugly. Phones and computers are going to transition to cell and satellite, except where there would be buried fiber optics for super wide bandwidth, so land lines are going the way of the phone booths. Full transition may be a century off, but if you do not start soon, you have a problem.

        LENR seems to be an ideal source of the power and heat that can be local, either as local small neighborhood system with buried lines, or even individual households with realistic power conversion capability.

        • Omega Z

          1) vulnerable to weather, possibly terrorists and costs.
          I agree, but a localized grid would minimize weather related issues and greatly reduce infrastructure costs as well as transmission losses.

          The biggest threat of terrorists is actually the internet. Who’s brain child was it to link power plants to the internet. And why does my water treatment plant need to be accessed form around the world.

          2) I Agree, that day is coming with climbing prices with it.
          3) I Agree.

          I fully agree with the localized grid system. It appears to be the most economical arrangment with E-cat heaters in the home.

          Personally, I don’t have an issue with the telephone poles, but that could be partially mitigated by main lines that string off to underground conduits along with fiber optics into the nieghborshoods.

          Of course, where will people place their posters, Yard sale, missing persons and the all important, Have you seen my kitty. The Cat lovers will be all over this. Believe me, You don’t want them as your enemy. 🙂

      • atanguy

        “I find this wanting to be off grid to be silly”
        I do not think that it is silly to get rid of the grid,its multiple problems on reliability,its maintenance,its age in the US and finally its cost. It should be an advantage of CF not to need the grid power to work.

        • Omega Z

          The large central grid can be replaced with a micro-grid. Such as at the cities edge. You will likely find this much more economical then eliminating the grid all together. There is still a lot of economical advantage to a grid.

          Most want off the grid because they think it will be more economical or mistakenly think it will be cheaper or free. Modern society is mostly clueless as to how much power they use at peek periods. Just flip a switch & you have power.

          They also over evaluate images like the Hot-cat which was about 11,000 Btu’s, or the equivalent of a single burner on the kitchen range. Most homes will need 30KW to 50KW to meet peek demand. That’s a lot of wasted power when not in use most of the time & a lot of hardware involved. A grid needs far less power & hardware per capita & you have shared costs. It’s similar to ride share. 1 car shared by 3 or 4 people.

          Another micro-grid advantage is should something break down, It’s someones else’s problem to fix. If it’s your’s, you call a service tech. They can have someone there a week from next Wednesday. $200 to start & $100 an hour per tech gets expensive pretty fast.

          However, If some want to pay the price of going off grid, Possibly they may be able to. I’m certain the general public wont want to. They prefer cheap, convenient hassle free energy just a switch away without the stress that would come with off grid service.

          • Manuel Cruz

            In some places like Greece or Spain, it is more economical to be off the grid. Not because of electricity costs, but because the politicians have put taxes on the electricity bill totally unrelated with electricity. They place taxes where they do not belong because they think it will avoid tax evasion. That’s why as people started to install solar panels in their roofs to go off the grid, the politicians outmaneuvered and placed a tax on the Sun.

            The irony is that the biggest tax on the electricity bill are the multimillion-worth grants to renewable energy; people not wanting to pay the cost of renewables react installing renewables on their homes, and the government puts a tax on renewables to stop people installing renewables, so that they can finance the grants to promote renewable energy.

            The underlying problem is that renewable energy is a scam, but in Spain the electricity bill is a bigger scam, so a lot of people have installed solar panels and now there is a real risk of electric and economic default.

          • Omega Z

            Placing taxes on unrelated topics.
            I fully agree that this shouldn’t be the case.

            Buy an electric car & don’t pay gas tax.
            They put in place a mileage tax. I don’t have issues with this as long as it goes to roads & they are accountable on this.
            ——————————————————————
            “and the government puts a tax on renewables” – “so that they can finance the grants to promote renewable energy.”

            Yes,
            The (U.S.)government will help pay for our health care by placing a tax on medical devices. As stupid as this is, there are many people who don’t get it.

          • LarryJ

            I think the primary disadvantage of the grid, besides aesthetics, is its vulnerability to the elements, sabatoge or even solar flares. There has been a lot of talk about how devastating a massive failure of the grid could be for the population. We have had large weather related regional failures in the past and it can cost lives.

          • Omega Z

            E-cats will be susceptible to solar flares as any other electrical device is. The only fix for that is build your entire home in a faraday cage. Note a single line going outside the home to a pole light is an entry point that negates the faraday cage. Ever notice in the movies when an EMP hits the earth, only non computerized vehicles work afterwards.

            Economically, a localized grid is the best option. Should weather cause outages, it is localized. Large regional outages would be eliminated & local power quickly restored.

            Note: Meant as an example.

            A 1MWh plant can provide energy to about 75K people. It works because not everyone is drawing peak power at a given time. They also have backup capacity for peak Grid demand when needed. As Individuals, you would need 20/30 times this capacity. The hardware costs would make your energy costs as high or higher then you pay now. As most of this will be financed, you’ve merely moved the monthly payment to the bank instead of the utility company.

            You will still have outages. As there is a shoratge of skilled labor, I wonder what the wait times will be to restore you power. How much will it cost$. With a locaized grid, this is not your problem. And you energy costs will be much cheaper then today.

            You have a decision to make. independence from the Grid or Cheap energy. Very likely not synonymous.

    • Don’t worry. The regulations will be changed. You will be able to buy a LENR power source for off-grid living. The public will demand it and politicians will oblige to be “green.” They will even promote it.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Politicians will do what the money tells them to do. What big money interests would lose?

      • Omega Z

        “You will be able to buy a LENR power source for off-grid living.”

        That may be a possibilty, but you will find that it is no longer cheap energy.

        “The public will demand it”

        A few may, but realize that you/they are a small minority. Most people want convenience & piece of mind. They do not want another appliance to worry about. Especially 1 that will be more complex & require a heavier maintance schedule. They want to flip a switch, set a thermostat & forget it. These are people who pay a furnace technician $75+ to squirt a couple drops of turbine oil, vacuum some dust & change a filter. Convenience.

        A Large portion of the population will have zero say about any of this. About 40% of the U.S. population rents. No say. Split ownership condo’s. Bring on the lawyers. High rise apartments. A whole different set of standards and in many situations, No Say.

        The most likely scenario is a localized grid. The primary inhome E-cat will be for heating purposes. Dependent on where 1 lives, could be from 20KW to 60KW of heat output. Preferably, in 1KW increments to be ramped up and down as needed. This would work if they can be brought to power within 15 minutes. Otherwise large well insulated holding tanks will be required & a means to dump lots of waste heat.

        This is all far more complex then some can imagine. Few people have any idea what their peak demand is. The hardware to meet this peak will be expensive. It isn’t just the E-cats but pumps, pipes, cables, fans, heat exchangers and much more. Before discussing how cheap & simple something will be, you must 1st figure out what the task to be accomplished is. And the task at hand is not simple.

        • I think low cost, high energy density battery/supercapacitor systems are on the way. When you combine that with LENR, you will have something that is affordable and efficient for off-grid use. I am not talking about the Tesla system, which is neither affordable nor efficient.

          • Omega Z

            Batteries/Caps,
            Your just trading hardware cost for hardware cost.

            A local grid divides cost.
            Put 60KW of power on the property line with your neighbor. Your peak demand will likely be offset, so what you’ve done is split the cost while retaining the ability to meet your peak demand & likewise for the neighbor. To make certain that each pays his share of energy used, you have a meter.

            Obviously, this may not work well with just 2 people, but a neighborhood grid depending on it’s size would. Most of the energy would be used thus losses limited & costs divided among all concerned. And no Batteries/Caps related costs.

            Understand I’m merely looking at this from a dependability & economic point of view. A local grid less effected by weather. Cheaper then a highly centralized infrastructure & cheaper then at the individual level.

            Anyway, we are speculating on what we think we know. Things can always change.

        • the way it is sold and maintained can be made independent to the way it is engineered.

          An autonomous generator can be maintained by a dedicated company, and even leased to the client, or rented, or even just the energy be sold.

          The best usage of LENR at home is a good CHP for central heating with some power for electronics.
          question is how to transform a CHP into a fully independent generator (how to evacuate heat), or else how to share peak consumption with neighbours (microgrid).

          Grid is not cheap, but as said here you save capacity.
          I don’t think it is really interesting to share LENr generators capacity as when weather is cold, everybody will run the LENR boiler at full.
          At best a building micro/nanogrid can propose easy sharing of heat and power.

          an alternative to those CHP/microgrid or GHP/GEN models, is the “French model”, with big powerplants (block or city scale), with electric heating.
          With cheap electricity it is very practical as electricity is easy to transport.

          Note that about grid, the cost of gris is twofold.
          one is the local “last mile” microgrid of the neighbourhood (the low voltage network), and the other is the intercity grid.

          This second network is doomed.

  • MarcIrvin

    I am fearful, I’m sorry, for Rossi’s welfare. A, B, or C. Doesn’t anyone remember that Rossi had predicted 6 months lifespan for individual E-cats years back. The one year test is necessary to generate metrics to predict failure rates. We don’t tell Mr. Rossi how to handle his business, but as a long term supporter I think the following. Six months is assured. But like we do with computer chips, give them extra cells to swap in when randomly when some fail, e-cats can perform similarly. If it is possible to change a 6th month engineering feat into a 1 year engineering mega-feat with additional standby cores why avoid the added benefit. This was my vision when I first heard of Mr. Rossi’s year long adventure. His goal, un-refutable evidence whose only equivalent is Nuclear power plants. What about his welfare; the Manhattan Project had government backed security, not for the materials, but the inventors that would be targets. The New Energy business is littered with casualties, and I a Christian am praying every day that Rossi first has continued health, and second that he succeeds where others have gone the way of the Dodo. Make no mistake, Rossi is embarked on a Manhattan project and God protect him. My thoughts.

    • Omega Z

      MarcIrvin,

      I think the 1 year longevity goal is a business requirement.
      Unlike us ECW readers, Business will look at what this technology could cost them as well as the savings. For them, there is no savings if it’s off line very often. In fact it could easily cost them more then it saves.

      While ECW readers want this on the market as quickly as possibe, I think everyone would be greatly disapointed if the E-cat heater was under maintanance during 50% of the heating season. Patience really is a virtue that everyone needs to practice.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    The present price of oil and even gas is not an issue. It has been this low in the near past and goes up and down. However, they are real finite resources, and will become more expensive over coming decades or more, so a transition is needed. The fluctuation of oil and gas is also a problem to businesses, so a stable price for E-Cat heat and power would be desired even if it is not always cheapest.

  • It would be very surprising if any detailed information is released at the end of the pilot test. Rossi will obviously want to crow a little, but in hard commercial terms there would be absolutely no gain from releasing operational data, and possible hazards in terms of firming up what until that point is just soft evidence, i.e., Rossi’s claims.

    He will probably be permitted to issue some form of words to the effect that he will no longer need his F9 key because ‘the customer’ is happy and will continue to use the pilot unit, and I think we’ll have to be content with that. It’s unlikely in the extreme that there will be any word from Industrial Heat or its principals, or from any Leonardo Corp spokesperson, all of whom will be busy quietly progressing their plans well out of public awareness.

  • Owen Geiger

    I don’t know exactly, but from what I gather it’s extremely inexpensive… almost insignificant.

  • Omega Z

    The energy will be extremely cheap.

    Rossi has mentioned $50 per 1KW reactor(Pre-charged) what looks like 1 year use. 8760KWh’s of energy output. At a 60% conversion to electricity by direct means, would be about 1 cent per kilowatt hour for the reactor & fuel combined even if the reactor needed replaced annually.

    Of course there is other hardware that will have a longer life cycle involved and how the technology is distributed to consider. Consumer cost could be around 3 to 4 cents per kilowatt.

  • Manuel Cruz

    Actually, it’s not exactly like that.

    The most corrupt and incompetent government in Spain’s history, looking for a way to divert huge sums of money to their pockets, attempted to illegally buy the biggest energy company in Spain (Endesa) with the money they would get by selling parts of it. A plan that backfired because Europe forced them to allow offers from third parties, and the price offered by the government was so low that anyone could best it . So, the government brought a “friend” (Enel) that offered to buy the company for two dollars and they ignored the rest of offers, hoping their “friend” would sell the company back to them. Alas, the “friend” found it was much more lucrative not to sell the company back to those thieves. Europe didn’t like this blatant illegality, either, and forced Spain to pay one of its biggest fines in history.

    After this fiasco, the corrupt politicians looked for the next best chance to steal huge sums of money, so they started campaigning about the need of installing renewable energy despite Spain having a surplus of electricity and renewable energy being the absolute worst form of electricity production. They acted as follows: they forged a lie in the mass-media about how doom would happen unless we all installed “green energy”, then wrote a shady law to “promote” it that would give owners of solar panels over 400€/kW (far, far more than the installing cost), for over 20 years uninterrupted, and with a clause stating that it would cost more to stop this scam than to keep it ongoing for 20 years. Of course, the grants were only given for actually producing energy, so they wrote another law stating that “renewable energy” would have topmost priority over cheaper forms of energy when purchasing electricity for the grid, so the consumers are forced to always pay for the most expensive energy, but because the costs are hidden as grants, they can lie and say it’s actually “free energy”. Because Spain already had a surplus of electricity, that means that a lot of the more efficient energy plants would no longer be used, but because “renewable energy” is unreliable, the electric companies had to have stalled plants as a backup. The government then is forced to pay the electric companies for keeping those stalled plants.
    To finish their misdeed, they opened the gates so that not only the corrupt would install the plants, but also hundreds of small investors that would act as helpless victims, to make it harder for the next government to undo this crime.

    However, what they thought would only attract a few victims, instead attracted lots and lots of speculators wanting to get plenty of assured free money for +20 years for not doing anything. People would spend all their money, and then get huge loans from banks, to install the most “solar farms” they could to further increase the profit. Because the government had not put any limit to the installation of solar panels, and because the return of invest was the biggest one in the world, the entire world started planting solar panels in Spain. The cost of the grants skyrocketed and it became unpayable, so the government moved the cost of these grants to the electricity’s bill. Spain’s electricity bill quadruplicated in one month. The incompetent government told the electric companies to hide this dramatic rise on costs, raising the bill by a small percentage every month. The companies forced the government to pay the difference, was the government renamed as “pricing deficit”.

    When the corrupt government bankrupted Spain for sheer incompetency, the grants were still in place and companies all around the world were still installing solar panels, furthering increasing the cost of the grants. The next government was forced to “change the rules”, a.k.a. no more renewables installed for the foreseeable future, and instead of paying the grants in 20 years, it would be in 25. For a lot of speculators, the reduced income per month meant they no longer could pay the huge loans they had, so even though they would be filthy rich at long-term, they went bankrupt for being unable to pay bills in the short-term, in pure “Monopoly” board game fashion, and had to sell them. The big speculators still benefit from this scam and will do so for 25 years.

    Because the electricity bill had raised so much, Spain was one of the few places in the world in which installing awfully inefficient solar panels on your roof would get you net savings, and people started doing it so much that the grid got faulty, with many grid points burning down, leading to blackouts. So the government placed a tax on people that had solar panels connected to the grid. The rise of the electricity bill also destroyed Spain’s industry, who has moved to other countries with cheaper electricity costs.

    Spanish people are total imbeciles and actually think that their electricity problems will be solved rather than worsened with an even bigger invest in renewable energy, when we have far, far more energy that we will ever need. Actually, the only way out of this mess is the E-cat (if it works), because the E-cat would mean no grid, and no grid would mean a way out of this huge scam.

  • Gerard McEk

    @ #34: It seems indeed a fair to conclude that the problems occurred were serious and multiple. It does not mean that the the LENR principle is disqualified, it just means major changes and more lengthy tests before delivery can start. I do hope that information will be given about the COP and the satisfaction of the ‘customer’. Maybe companies (like greenhouses) can voluteer for hosting test plants?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Installing initially a few plants of the second generation would certainly be better than starting mass production too soon. The number could be increased carefully in consideration of the maintenance expenditure that the running plants require.

    • Tom59

      So far we have few commercialisation attempts of LENR but at the same time no reproducible model openly available showing its working and save. Some successes (IH, Brillouin) , more failures (MFMP) – this paints the picturre of a technology that requires luck and near magical skills to make it work. If Rossi and the third party observers manage to shift that perception as the only outcome – phantastic.

      • Omega Z

        It tells us that even tho it seems a simple technology, it is actually quite complex.
        Actually, if it were simple, it would have arrived decades ago.

  • John

    I fear 2016 will be another year of testing only 🙁
    I wonder if the current path of development of such an important technology is the right one (all done by a single research group). I hoped they would be more open after the patents.

    • bachcole

      Keep in mind that this is an entirely new energy source never seen before since the beginning of the human race. At least the people of 1903 had seen paper airplanes and such fly.

    • Mats002

      Group? The R&D of the Rossi effect is one person, his nearest tech expert said so.

  • LarryJ

    He mentions that his current industrial core tech is over 4 years old and that he plans to change the internal structure of the reactors. I wonder if he is contemplating upgrading his industrial reactor core to the ecat-x technology. He also mentioned today that he is satisfied with the normal operation of the ecat-x and will now begin destructive testing. Maybe he intends to fast track the ecat-x. If he is planning major design changes to the core that might be the logical way to go.

    • That is what worries me. Taken together with other recent comments I get the firm impression that even if the 4 x 250MW design meets the test requirements, its back to the drawing board for Rossi, now he has something even more promising.

      My hope is that the pilot design will be passed to a separate development group, who will iron out the kinks in order to develop a viable product, leaving Rossi free to venture off into pastures new. Otherwise the whole project is in danger of becoming an endless round of development cycles that never quite result in a product that can be series manufactured.

      • Yes, when apple would have delayed the iPhone release each time when new technology (better CPUs etc.) was getting available, we would today not have seen the first version on the market.

        At one time you have to set a baseline and bring it to market maturity.
        In parallel you can work with the new technology to develope the next generation.

        • Omega Z

          It took over 6 years from concept to the 1st I-phone sales.

          Had that 1st I-phone proven a disaster, there would have been no further iterations. The customers likely would not try them a second time.

          Competitors also watch their rivals and take there cue from the results. Many times they shelve products they themselves had in the works waiting years for the consumer to forget a bad experiance.

          Other competitors take a whole different approach. Like- Well it was a great Idea, but as everyone can see, it just isn’t dependable or doesn’t work. Thus we will go with the tried and true. We will build conventional nuclear power plants in every city.

          The1st product doesn’t need to be absolutely perfect, but it better meet certain expectations or you end with a disaster. It’s important to get this right. From what we know, Rossi isn’t there yet.

      • GreenWin

        I would imagine Mr. Darden has put one or more delivery clause into his multi-million dollar license. This is typically how VCs prevent ‘indefinite’ development hell. While Darden has said he leaves Rossi alone, in this case IF there is a positive outcome – Darden should have leverage to take the current design and Rossi’s suggestions for improvements and set a team (development group) to work building units for industrial sale. Without some manner of timed or delivered milestones, VC investment can be suspended beyond prudence. It is doubtful Darden and Woodford – experienced VCs – would have invested the millions they have without such guarantees. IMO.

        • That sounds reasonable. So long as the initial business model is sale of heat only, with IH or Leonardo carrying capital costs and supplying supervisory staff, it’s not important that the design iterations are not fully optimised, provided that the basic (common) design is easily upgradable by sustitution.

          The exercise would allow field testing of a number of variants and evolutionary development, as failure-prone variants are eliminated by upgrading, and successful ones are replicated. It would also provide a modest return for investors as well as multiplying logged hours of safe operation rapidly.

    • A positive result regarding LENR itself could anyway boost the replication efforts.
      That’s at least my hope.

      We need public available knowledge about working LENR reactor and fuel design.
      Rossi is going the comercial way, so he won’t tell us anything. So we need replicators like me356, MFMP and others to find the details of the recipe by try and error and spread it to other scientists and/or assist them to replicate their replications (resulting in a snowball effect).

    • Jimr

      I cannot believe any one thought mass production would start after Rossi considered the test successful. With 170 problems in 8 months (= 255 a year) ( someone on JONP said it seemed there was fewer problems with 1 meg plant the last few months, Rossi’s answer ,you are wrong but thank you). I believe we are 1.5 – 2 years from any mass production, perhaps 5-6 a year for testing.

  • Private Citizen

    E-Cat may or may not work, as Rossi repeats, but surely he has invented a very capable perpetual moving goalpost

    • Jarea

      Bad feeling

  • Jarea

    Never end

  • mike wolf

    I don’t know Frank. Where is the first computer, was that on the market? It is in a museum, like the ecat will be. To make the next 1mw system, he’ll chain the xcats. I feel as though he is holding back his enthusiasm not moving goal posts like the person lacking integrity below says. At this point it is all about the electric bill compared to last years bill. That will be the proof in the pudding. Either they saved money, no matter how little, and changes the world or they didn’t save money and IH left their bad investment run while not working. I don’t think so.

    • Private Citizen

      >At this point it is all about the electric bill compared to last years bill.

      Just the mere presence of Rossi at Lugano gave fodder to skeptics crying fraud. His being camped out on the test facility site 24/7 lends fodder to those who might claim he had ample opportunity for shenanigans. Most likely the report from the test facility will cause a slight ripple here, but will not convince the world in the slightest.

      >the person lacking integrity below says

      Comments have Reply buttons so that folks can reply with integrity regarding objections to a particular post, not embed a cheap ad hominem shot in a new thread. Just say’n.

      • Omega Z

        It has been strongly indicated that the Certifcation company is watching everything very closely. Even installing video cameras that operate 24/7.

        Probably this has been required by “all” who have a vested interest in the credibilty and outcome of this test run.

        If this is a credible certification concern, they will also be concerned that everything is on the up and up. There reputation would be at stake.

  • GreenWin

    I see little to fret about here. With any artist/inventor the invention is never ‘finished.’ Film studios regularly take a film from its director to meet exhibition deadlines. Where Rossi envisions an improved design – his major investors Darden and Woodford will settle for current design with options to upgrade. This is the historic struggle between investors and inventor/artists. It is well known and one can assume Darden and Woodford have prepared for development hell in their multi-million dollar license.

    It is also probable the artist protects their ‘key-man’ status by hinting at vast improvement ‘if only I had more time to make them.’ Again, any prudent investor holds a key-man clause in their contract. In part such a clause protects the investor by delivering the product ‘as is,’ allowing an investor development group to bring the current design to market. The ‘key-man’ clause also protects the investor in case of death or disability. Typically a VC will take out a $$M insurance policy able to cover the entire investment. IF the E-Cat LT sufficiently passes this test – expect to see Industrial Heat to become active albeit at low profile. They will not expose their investors to development hell. IMO. :>)

  • ecatworld

    Passing the year-long test while saving a customer money in a real industrial setting would be a major milestone. It sounds like they have learned a lot in the course of the year, too, which is part of the normal cycle of bringing products into the market.

    I wonder if they’ll keep this plant running. It sounds like the customer likes it, and it’s saving him money, but Rossi has had to camp out in the container continuously for more than a year to keep it operational, along with a dedicated staff, and that could be expensive to keep up.

    Today Rossi talks about wanting to run the E-Cat X for a year, so that will take more time and attention. And if the E-Cat X is superior to the low temp reactors he has been working with in this plant (which he says need to be redesigned), maybe it will become the default reactor.

    It’s hard to know. We have been privy to some of Rossi’s lab notes via the JONP, and it’s interesting to learn somethings about the E-Cat evolution of the E-Cat, but there are still a lot of unknowns regarding product development and commercialization. We’ll just have to see how it all plays out over time.

    • Jonnyb

      Yes looks like we may be at least another year away from a marketable product.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Right, but that is where Darren should step in to bring a product to market, and prove LENR is the long term solution to not using fossil fuels. Rossi will not give any information about his relations with IH. I have tried to ask him, my questions are removed. From this can we assume his relation with IH/Darren have deteriorated?

      • ecatworld

        I don’t think we can assume that, Bernie. As far as I can tell the licensee relationship is still intact. But all discussion about it is considered confidential by AR.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          I hope you are right, why not simply say all is well with IH/Leonardo. Before, Rossi was very open about the relationship.

      • Roland

        To quote Tom Darden on the subject:

        He (Rossi) is very rapid at iterating. He is constantly coming up with new things, “Try this. Try this.” I think that’s a good thing. I like that attribute. I think it’s society’s problem to say to someone like that, “Ok, stop. Just work on this. Make a hundred things like this and let’s finalize something.” Well, it shouldn’t be like that. He should be able to do what he needs to do.

        You’re welcome to assume (why present yourself as the whole crowd) but why bother when you could read Tom’s views on the matter instead.

        A commercial product that only makes the equivalent power of small industrial diesel can’t require a full-time crew to babysit it; the economics don’t work. Both Darden & Rossi recognize that the inventive phase isn’t over until you can walk away from an operating plant and let the automation run it for extended periods between visits, that’s what success looks like.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Nonsense, I am not suggesting Rossi stop his research.
          If IH has the contratual ability to put an LENR devise on the market they should do so, to prove the concept to unleash more research. Right now LENR is thought to be a scam by the vast majority of the scientific community and this fact is increasing the longevity of fossil fuel use.

          • Roland

            “Ok, stop. Just work on this. Make a hundred things like this and let’s finalize something.” Is this not exactly what you’re proposing that Tom Darden do?

            If you stop to think about recall issues in the automotive industry, 1st steam car built in 1768, and had to make the decision about when E-cat based devices are ready for the market while your test bed still hiccups on an almost daily basis, a little caution might seem the prudent course.

            Then again you might not be troubled by failing spectacularly with an inadequately tested product based on a physics that is already a butt for humour.

            There is much more at stake here than changing hearts and minds, and the carbon biz is already doomed, with or without LENR, as renewable economics undercut O&G and coal as energy sources; and this before the next generation of battery technologies drive a stake through the heart of the yesterday’s bright ideas.

            Getting this right the first time is the difference between leading the pack or being an also-ran who showed everyone the way.

            Given what I know about the ethics and philosophies of Rossi and Darden I’d rather they be the ones to succeed than this generation’s version of the Koch brothers, and if it takes more time to insure they don’t fall on their faces more power to them.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            What! I am not suggesting anyone stop the research. Darden is not the inventor/researcher, he is a Wall Street type, an investor, a hedge fund manager. He has also said he is an environmentalist, wants to end coal use as a fossil fuel. If those things are true and he has a contact that says he has the right to build and sell an LENR devise, it is simply my opinion he should do so as fast as possible, for the reasons I have stated above.

          • Roland

            I believe that you still misunderstand my point, I never suggested that you had advised stopping research. I am pointing out that there is no commercial product yet, to which Rossi accedes, and that there won’t be a product until a number of persistent problems are addressed in a fresh iteration, which Rossi also accedes, and that what Tom Darden is trying to convey in his interviews is that Rossi is already working flat-out to resolve them, is very good at this stuff at multiple levels, and that everyone familiar with Rossi notes that he has maintained this pace for years.

            Tom Darden also recognizes that creatively solving high order problems while surrounded by unknowns has its own rhythms, and that insights usually require a gestation period to translate into tangible gains, and that he (Tom) doesn’t know enough to be helpful beyond providing the means for Rossi to make his ideas manifest as hardware and engineering solutions as quickly as lots of money and resources allows.

            I can’t help with this and, I would suggest, beating a drum louder won’t either. What I’ve written should not be considered to, in any way, diminish your concerns for the planet’s future; I share them as do countless others including very specifically Andrea Rossi and Tom Darden. I personally am haunted by being a participant in the sixth extinction and the vastness of the slaughter levels me every time I allow myself to feel the weight of it, and I’m here in no small part because I realize that LENR is one of the few causes for hopefulness. To my mind this is exactly why it’s important to get this right even if it takes more time than we may hope it will as mistakes in the early going will exact a heavy price in the medium term as momentum stalls and the vultures gather.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            I am not misunderstanding your view, I just disagree with
            you. Do you agree that a high percentage
            of scientists believe LENR is not possible and/or a scam? If you believe that as I do, this non acceptance
            is now and has in the past held up the acceptance/research/application of LENR. It is apparent to me and I hope to you that
            Rossi has proven the commercial viability of his E-Cat with his yearlong
            practical test with a commercial customer that has undoubtedly saved the customer
            money. Even to the point where Leonardo/Rossi
            have plans for commercial production. It is time to prove to the world and the
            scientific community that LENR is real and a viable alternative to fossil fuels. If Darden has a contractual arrangement with
            Leonardo that allows IH to build and market an LENR devise, I say go for it, the
            sooner the better.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    There was the 8000X and now we have the E-CatX. I’m trying to imagine what the world will look like in 30 years (assuming that the
    charming psychopaths don’t manage to kill us all).
    http://image.slidesharecdn.com/2015foss4gseoul-151005044315-lva1-app6891/95/geopaparazzi-state-of-the-art-20-638.jpg?cb=1444020320

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      By the way, do you see that bright object behind Michael Douglas?
      “…At the center of the Sun, fusion power is estimated by models to be about 276.5 watts/m3. Despite its intense temperature,
      the peak power generating density of the core overall is similar to an active compost heap…”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core

  • Jarea

    I still have hope. I know, i am doof but i am not counting only with Rossi. The problem with him is that all what we know about the Rossi’s facts are coming from third persons in a secretively way. Now, Rossi say this, and this is so typical of bad companies or smoke sellers…
    I just want to prepare me for the earth’s end if LENR of Rossi turns to be a fake.

  • LindbergofSwed

    It would be interesting to ask him how long the improved 1 MW system has to tested. Do you the address to where in JONP I can ask the question? I cant figure out where to click when I am at that side. If he says at least a year or something, its good to know, then I can stop pay attention for this for a year. He keeps luring you in and then prolonging.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    What’s wrong with this picture? Whether or not this is the final version of the E-Cat reactor shouldn’t be a concern. The very fact that
    it did REAL WORK in a factory for a year should be the headline.

    It’s a big hairy deal when the hot fusion people have a 400 second burst.

  • US_Citizen71

    The current 1MW plant seems to be an advanced engineering prototype, not a pre-production one. The pre-production version will be smaller and not need a shipping container to house it, IMO. If you look at the images of the plant there is plenty of space to move around and it house two 1MW plants. Further improvement and consolidation should end up with a 1MW unit that can be delivered by a panel truck. When we see pictures of such an item then I will believe that production is on the horizon.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Keep in mind that Rossi’s cigarette packet sized E-CatX puts out 20 kWs. The Sun’s core (hot fusion’s model) puts out 276.5 watts/m3.
    [Which is similar to an active compost heap (See my comment bellow)].

  • Dirk

    The way I read this, the shipping container is exactly the one from Bologna. It was shipped to the US and Rossi put it to work.

    • Omega Z

      It is like the Bologna container. It is not the same container.

      The Bologna container had many holes cut into it for the plumbing that was attached.

      The smaller 10KW units are also different. In the original 1MW container, they were larger. So much so that a dozen of them needed to be placed on top of the container and some of the plumbing was mounted on the outside walls. In the new 1MW there are fewer of them and allows room for the four 250KW reactors and the plumbing and all are self contained within the single container.

  • LindbergofSwed

    When Rossi gives his Ballpark sizes of reactors, do you think he is near that already or why is he answering like that? Now he says 500 W will be size of a pencil.

    • ecatworld

      My understanding is that he is working with 3 E-Cat X reactors, each about 1 kW. So maybe each is the size of 2 pencils!