How Do You Launch a Potentially World-Changing Energy Technology?

It’s been over five years since Andrea Rossi first went public with his E-Cat. I don’t need to rehearse the twists and turns that have taken place since January 2011, when Rossi and Focardi held their first press conference in Bologna. In early 2011 Rossi was predicting that E-Cats would be on the market within a year, yet here we are, still waiting for the commercialization of LENR technology in a world filled with energy challenges.

To me it is sounding more and more likely that sometime in 2016 the E-Cat will be ready to go on sale for people to use. But how do you launch such a product?

However you do it, I don’t think it can be done painlessly, without upsetting someone or something. The fortunes of nations, businesses and individuals are tied in with energy production in one way or another. Even if you don’t work in the energy sector, billions of dollars of average people (maybe a good portion your retirement account) are invested in financial securities connected to the energy industry in some way.

Here are some possible approaches.

1. You launch a publicity campaign and say in effect: “Here it is, here’s what it can do, who wants to buy it? If you don’t believe me, here’s a report that shows how the E-Cat acted over a 1 year period”. You put products on the market, take orders, and trust the marketplace to take care of the disruptions that might occur.

2. A more low-key approach. You release a report with data verified by a third party and let people study it out for themselves, and invite them to contact you privately if they want to explore the technology further. Commercial development is done quietly under NDA.

3. A gradual and controlled introduction of the technology. You do all you can to soften the blow for people who will be adversely affected by a disruptive energy technology. You do all you can to keep information off the front pages but build support in private, making alliances and getting buy-in from a broad base of people in industry and government. You try to anticipate negative societal change ahead of time, and launch the product gradually in selected markets so as to keep the disruption to a minimum. You give governments time to prepare to introduce laws and regulations on how and where, and for how much this technology should be used and taxed, and how it can be prevented from being used for destructive and criminal purposes, hoping for social stability and providing compensation for parties that might be adversely affected.

4. You don’t launch it. After analysis and consultations you forsee too many serious social problems being caused by such a radical technology and decide it’s for the greater good to keep it from being released — for the time being at least — and somehow bury it.

I realized these are rather simplistic options — the real world is going to be much more complex than is outlined here, with lots of different variables to be taken into account. But the point here is that if the E-Cat works as Andrea Rossi claims, there has never been an energy product like it released into the world. It would be a truly revolutionary technology, and I can’t think of a precedent of how to deal with it. We might look at the launch of nuclear power, but that was rolled out by governments with strict supervision for safety purposes. The E-Cat is coming from the private sector, is vastly cheaper than nuclear fission, and the same safety concerns do not apply.

There’s no rule book in place on how this is to be done, so if this happens, however it is done it will be breaking new ground, and it will be very interesting to see what happens.

  • we-cat

    Frank, thank you for the article. I fear that “The Rossi Effect” will unleash, wanted or not, a revolution. John ‘Ted’ Kaczynski lost his marbles at one point in his life, but his “manifesto” has some interesting statements;

    “By the second principle, a revolution never changes only one aspect of a society, it changes the whole society; and by the third principle changes occur that were never expected or desired by the revolutionaries. By the fourth principle, when revolutionaries or utopians set up a new kind of society, it never works out as planned.”

    BTW, can somebody react on the below comment on JONP;

    “Philip Snove

    March 27, 2016 at 6:20 AM

    Dr Andrea Rossi:

    There are rumors that a very important University has replicated your effect. Do you know which one is it?

    Cheers,

    Philip”

    • Frank Acland

      I haven’t heard that rumor myself.

      • Omega Z

        Hey Frank,

        Can you pass this to Bob G.

        Even tho the patent was more about the Reactor then fuel,
        It shows a correction on Rossi’s granted patent that may have been overlooked on the E-cat Fuel preparation/process.

        http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=09115913&SectionNum=5&IDKey=F26FC7015AA9&HomeUrl=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2%2526Sect2=HITOFF%2526p=1%2526u=%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-bool.html%2526r=1%2526f=G%2526l=50%2526co1=AND%2526d=PTXT%2526s1=%2525229115913%252BB1%252522%2526OS=%2526RS=

      • Paul Smith

        Rossi has told many times that the E-Cat has to be integrated with all the forms of energies, otherwise LENR could be killed. So, it seems to me that he intends introduce the E-Cat softly.

        • Owen Geiger

          Introduce them slowly/softly? Rossi just said Leonardo had ‘warships’ ready to rapidly produce low price E-Cats.
          http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/25/rossi-leonardo-warship-ready-with-robotics-to-rapidly-produce-low-price-e-cats/

          • LarryJ

            This option makes sense. He does not want to give the competition years to get organized and start copying his IP. That would cause him years of patent battles. He will hold off on sales until he has lots of product on the shelf and then flood the market.

          • I hope so.

          • HS61AF91

            with an incalculable need ‘warships’ ready is softly.

        • TPaign

          You just do it. This is so disruptive, yet so necessary, that the short term collateral damage (maybe +/- 20 years) will be forgiven by our descendants.

          • Jostein Johansen

            This is what I think also. When the Ecat is finally out of the bottle things will move very fast, and there’s no way to make the blow soft. New winners will be made, and even more loser in the short term. But there is no doubt that it will be an epic even’t rewarding those who act fast.

          • LarryJ

            Tongue in cheek I am sure

          • dave

            Yes, just release it and let the world decide how to react. Few lamented the days of horse and ox power when the steam engine was introduced but many stockmen had to adjust. Cadalic made horse carriages and eventually started making cars. If it is good for mankind it will be accepted and mankind will adapt to the new paradigm.
            Beyond any question, the Ecat is beneficial and people will think of ways to use it to empower any disrupted commerce into different and maybe yet undreamed of realms.

          • Zephir

            By selling toys, demonstration kits and DIY toolboxes.

          • Mats002

            I remember another – at the time – high tech toy:

            http://www.ministeam.com/cgi-bin/ss000001.pl?PRODREF=WI%20D%205&NOLOGIN=1

          • Agree. There’s no rule that says that change must be easy on everyone, especially those who have ruthlessly exploited the current energy supply systems for power, control and every cent they’ll yield. This includes most Western governments and especially those that perpetuate wars directly or by proxy to allow them to gain control of reserves.

            Whether those invested in the old paradigm try to gain control through fearmongering, or the IP owners themselves hold down the brakes to allow them to adapt, the result will be delay in introduction. This would allow all the evils of the current system – pollution, nuclear contamination, oil wars, corruption and exploitation to continue, and also provide the time that the losers will require in order to get their ducks in a row.

            If Rossi’s claim that preparations are being made for massive introduction – then bring it on. People will adapt easily, even if governments and corporations can’t – and social revolution is long overdue.

          • TVulgaris

            Much as I welcome this technology with tremendous excitement, it’s easy to be blase about the disruptive potential of this, and the tremendous negative potential for destruction it can bring, especially if TPTB react as I expect them to react (although perhaps this will all be suppressed, and we keep the status quo for another few generations, which will be entirely too late). I have the option of physical separation from close-by heavy urban population concentrations, and some chance of limited local communal support, as do others- but so many do not, and massive economic crashes take terrible human tolls in cities.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I guess there are different addressees: The „integration“ mantra might be thought as an appeasement for those who are afraid that this new technology could disturb their existing businesses; the “warship” metaphor is possibly an attempt to scare competitors in the LENR field.

        • LilyLover

          ‘Softly’ & ‘warships’ is a Rossi way of beating the establishment in their own doublespeak-game!!
          Owen, I was going to say the exact same thing!!

    • Weihenstephaner

      TIFR

      • SG

        Source? Or speculation?

  • Julian Becker

    http://www.bsscustip.com/newsinfo.aspx?id=846#

    Looks like the website of the Chinese Business Park in Baoding where they plan to build the ecat.

    http://www.bsscustip.com/appUpdata/file/20140925/20140925144640_8388.pdf

    This a pdf with renders of the site and more info

  • Michael W Wolf

    You launch it and sell it to the people that believe. When those energy portfolios begin to crumble, you’ll have all the customers in the world..

  • US_Citizen71

    Rossi’s device is not that complicated relative to other things we mass produce such a smart phones. I think the time of conversion may be shorter than we imagine if the holders of the IP decide to spread production licenses to anyone who wants in. IH can likely allow others to sell and produce in their territory for a fee, it all depends on how the contract was written.

    • Omega Z

      I agree with Billy. It will take much longer then those here at ECW imagine.

      This will require a lot of integration and engineering. A lot of skilled labor that is not available. New regulations and standards.

      And even tho the energy it produces will be cheap, the hardware and all that will be required to make it usable will not be.

      • TVulgaris

        Are you talking end use? For electric output, you need a transfer switch, micro-controller (at most), inverter, and some wire, and it integrates with every electrical system in the world, grid-tied or not. That is not free, but not very expensive (and it’s not a consumable like fuel, these parts should last 10 or 20 years). Someone above mentioned the limits in production- but if the QuarkX is truly like chip or solar cell production, a plant that starts at a million units/ year can scale to ten times that easily, and 20 plants world-wide would cover current global demand in a decade (but replacement would require at least double that)- a chip fab is big, but not that big; China by itself could probably satisfy global production requirements, and fabs take about a year to a year and a half to build.

  • LarryJ

    That’s why you need thousands of plants putting out millions of ecats each. Once they have a working plant they will be able to clone them pretty quickly. The reactor core looks similar to a battery so the construction process is nowhere near as complex as building a smartphone. Rossi has already said they will sell the ecats to OEMs who can integrate them into whatever products they want. I am assuming domestic certification but even without that they will require millions of reactor cores for industrial reactors.

    The US currently holds a strong lead in what appears to be a mega market in the building. Given the US business sense and the jobs this will create it is very difficult to see how entrenched interests will be able to hold back this technology. As powerful as the energy business might be there is far more to the economy than just the energy sector. As someone pointed out above even a large part of the energy sector will benefit. The only losers will be the fossil fuel industry and most of the people working in that industry are highly trained and they will have no trouble finding new opportunities in a reinvigorated economy.

    • Steve Savage

      A look at consumer Lithium battery manufacturers may be instructive here. Almost Every person in the world, owns multiple batteries, or will. These come in various sizes and serve many purposes. The Quark will be similar (although also quite different). There will be appropriate ecosystems that grow up around various usage scenarios. Currently, there are 23 companies that produce consume L-ion batteries, producing billions of units per year(month?) .. list below … I see no reason why, in 5 years or so, Manufacturing and distribution of Quarks will not look very much like this.
      Bexel
      British Ever Ready Electrical Company
      VARTA
      Uniross
      Toshiba
      Tadiran
      Sony Energy Devices Corporation
      Sanyo
      Rayovac
      Panasonic
      Mallory and Co Inc
      Nippo Batteries
      Mugen Power
      Kodak
      Hitachi
      Maxell
      Gold Peak
      Fujifilm
      Fujicell
      Exide Industries
      Exide
      Eveready
      East Africa Eveready Battery Company
      Energizer
      Enercell
      Eneloop
      Duracell
      Crompton Parkinson

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Rewind 60 years back to Walt Disney’s film “Our friend the atom” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDcjW1XSXN0 . The E-cat fulfils what fission power was hyped to fulfil at that time, and more. It’s “Atom-2.0”.

    The genie grants wishes and scientists wish for grants…

    • sam

      Interesting Film Pekka.
      Thanks Mr Disney
      That grant system leaves
      a lot to be desired.

    • Mats002

      Really interesting to see the expectations of the nuclear discovery. Today, after Tjernobyl and Fukushima we know better. The genie should be treated in a different way. Cold, not hot.

  • SG

    China will force the rest of the world not to trip up the adoption by onerous laws and regulations. The laws and regulations will be written to support adoption of e-Cat, because otherwise, those who don’t will be left behind.

    • Omega Z

      China will adopt LENR, but they will also have regulations. They will also build localized grids as most of their population will not be able to afford off-grid home CHP systems. They will also be many years meeting their own needs…

  • Bob Tivnan

    Let’s also consider how reverse engineering will factor into the evolution of this new energy form. If the market is flooded with E-cat Quarks as Rossi has suggested, labs all over the world are going to dissect the technology in an attempt to figure out what makes it tick. I don’t think Rossi’s patent will prevent others skilled in the art from replicating and then improving the technology with materials and/or methods sufficiently different to make new patents possible. History is replete with examples, from Henry Ford to the Wright brothers. As brilliant as Rossi may be as an experimentalist, I haven’t seen any indication that he has nailed down a workable theory. Eventually, theory will catch up and give birth to new scientific fields with unimaginable potential for improvements upon Rossi’s E-KItty Hawk 😉

    • Omega Z

      It is fully acceptable/legal to study/reverse engineer a technology for R&D purposes. IH/Rossi are fully aware and it has even been addressed by Rossi on JONP. You merely can’t copy, manufacture for the product for sale. This is common practice. Likely this is why Rossi has developed and explored so many different arrangements of the reactor’s. Filing patents on everything of real significance. This makes it harder to come up with designs that work as good or better. Also a common practice.

    • LarryJ

      Rossi did recently report that he and Dr Cook are now very close to a theory due to experimental results of the quarkx. He is certainly in the best position to test a new theory.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Referring to my Disney post below, we have already been in this situation regarding techno-optimism and mentality at least once, namely in the 1950’s when atomic energy excitement was high.

    • Steve Savage

      Pekka, I see your point and it is a good observation. However, there were huge unforeseen downsides with fission. With LENR (so far) we have not seen these negatives. It does seems too good to be true. If it remains as it is currently envisioned, there is nothing before or perhaps even after that you will be able to compare it to. Even the most optimistic among us ( I am definitely in that camp) maybe unrealistically blind when it comes to the unlimited potential this technology has!!

  • Good question Frank. It’s of course difficult for us to know how this will play out, but at NewSymposium we will give it a try. At least one of the speakers that I haven’t yet announced will focus on this specific question, based on research in the field. I really look forward to the symposium and hope that I will be able to confirm it soon. Possibly I can present more speakers for the two-day event earlier.

    • SG

      Look forward to learning more about your presenters and look forward to attending (assuming, of course, F8 F9).

  • Ophelia Rump

    Big money can take care of itself. Poor folks will be best served by the employment opportunities which the new technology brings and direct personal benefit of the financial savings it will bring them, if they are not pay walled off from direct benefit. If the general public is pay walled off then do not ask them to weep for the fortunes of corporate opportunists.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      If there were only potential problems for some speculators I would agree. But a massacre on the markets would hit also the average citizen. I doubt that all people who would lose their jobs due to bankruptcies in the energy sector could immediately be employed by the LENR industry. Pension funds would have to face huge losses, and so on. Not to speak of unforeseeable effects on international political stability and possible consequences. IMO this scenario could only be avoided by a careful, responsible introduction of LENR technology.

      • Ophelia Rump

        A free market is self regulating, if only we had one.

  • Gerard McEk

    Yea, you can lie about things an other cannot check. But do you really think that the claims of AR are not checked by IH and that they have given him millions just believing his brown eyes? Even if AR is a brilliant magician then it is hardly thinkable that he was able to conceive them.
    But just wait a few weeks and then we all know for sure, I hope.

    • Reg

      IH gave him money back in the quaint days of the shipping container full of Ecats. Then came EcatX, now Ecat quark – the amazing device that produces heat and electricity and light of any color but nobody has ever seen. It’s the classic pattern. I know what it is like to believe something just because it seems impossible that somebody would say it if it weren’t true.

  • Brent Buckner

    Here’s a bit that corroborates Rossi on the 1MW test and is consonant with later claims:
    https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/

    [This and other links with commentary by Frank here:
    http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/ ]

  • nietsnie

    That’s only a downstream benefit of what this is all about. The main things are that the current technology is 1.) Running out; 2.) Killing the planet. In order to survive as, at best, a civilization and, at worst, a species – we need a new, clean, plentiful energy production system to take the current technologies place. It looks as if LENR can be that technology. The fact that it can become a means of de-centralization is only a side benefit.

    But, no matter how you do it the current technology is so infused into our civilization that replacing it is going to be extremely disruptive and painful. Vast fortunes and literally millions of jobs will be lost. Entire areas of the world, and all the people they support, will transition from being important – to backwaters. Millions of out of work employees who can’t buy products would be devastating to the world economy. So the smart thing to do to mitigate that is to, as much as possible, attempt to integrate the new technology into existing energy distribution pipelines. So – maybe Chevron ceases to exist – but Con-Edison, and all the jobs it represents, survives – at least in the medium haul.

    I think that Rossi, et. al. realize this. Our leaders are not going to allow a depression event to be part of the transition. They will pass laws to prevent instant adoption of LENR at the grass roots level to keep the world economy going. Industrial Heat plans to create solutions that continue to utilize electric and gas power coming from traditional sources to power the e-cats of the future. Why? Couldn’t they just as easily bypass them altogether with electric storage technology? Yes. But by integrating into the existing network, rather than replacing it – by not getting greedy about instantly owning the whole pie – they can help aid in the transition process. A gradual changeover will be a painful – whereas a quick one would be catastrophic.

    • LilyLover

      The mind-programming that the elites have done, prevents you from understanding that when you say “World Economy” you simply mean Developed world hegemony. We have some interest in slow introduction, but the open World doesn’t care. What’s catastrophic to you is fast ascendence to them.
      Besides, the whole World needs to understand that – 95% joblessness is a moral imperative of human progress. Be it in the personnel % or workhours %.

      • nietsnie

        The pink cloud you’re riding apparently prevents you from understanding that what effects the developed portions of the world also effects the less-developed ones. You seem to imply that there is no economic connection between haves and have-nots. At least in past world economic downturns, the third world has suffered the most. The development of a potentially cheap energy technology has no effect upon people who do not have access to it, have no education to comprehend it, have no resources to build it. The raising up of the downtrodden relies upon those who already have more than they need to eat today.

        >95% joblessness is a moral imperative of human progress

        I’m pretty sure you don’t understand what ‘moral imperative’ means.

        • TVulgaris

          Excellent reply, nietsnie- the moral imperative is to replace the 95% of UNWANTED unskilled labor (and a very large percentage of UNWANTED skilled labor, too), to allow humans to do work they actually WANT to do. Eliminating 95% of the jobs is simply a recipe for social and psychological catastrophe.
          The unwanted work, however, winds up being the absolutely necessary work, most of the time, so the idea is for many millions of autonomous machines and systems to take that burden. Nearly unlimited energy sources at very low cost only addresses one of many challenges to achieve that.
          All of these utopian hopes people are expressing implicitly depend on people possessing the psychological tools to deal without scarcity (at least of energy supply) as the underpinning of their economy (and much of their reality), and I think very few are capable of that. What will happen to the concepts of energy conservation, efficiency, and sustainability as laudable principles for most people without the stick of scarcity? (and the oligarchs believe their power is far less secure without it, although history demonstrates the contrary repeatedly, that scarcity often reaches a critical point)

          • LilyLover

            Efficiency still stays paramount. You must understand the sagacity of ultra high efficiency with the luxury of abundance.
            In the inevitable future – THAT NECESSARY WORK will be done by the cops and soldiers. Commit a crime become a cop. Low grades in college? Become a soldier. Everybody else – live free. At their option, house the cops in the roadside coffin farms. Prisons are too cruel for advanced civilizations. High performance and completed work is your ticket out of copdom. People are rewarded per their contribution to the society based on their skill level factor.

            This is all good for the most people except trust fund entitled, low skill habitual parasites seeking to live off of rentism and interest.

            95% is a arbitrary but almost correct number. The goal is not to eliminate jobs but to eliminate virtual-work and fake-jobs and automation to the maximum extent. This will, over time, automatically take us to infinite progress and perhaps 99% joblessness. Income, not job is important to the masses. Freeing the masses from needless tedium is the act of angels.

          • nietsnie

            There are a lot of different ways that wealth is created in the world. Only the least of it is pulled from the ground. And there are also those ways that decrease it. I would say that the general moral imperative is to act to improve everyone’s lot – not necessarily to equalize them. The needs of the many are not served by decreasing the total wealth. And the idea that the needs of the many are best served by reducing the work force by 95% is just… hopelessly naive and sophomoric. A simplistic and empty platitude. Maybe there will come a point at which humanity will be relieved of any need to accomplish anything besides to seek its own leisure. But, I hope, if and when that is even possible (and certainly not today) that it will not prevent us from avoiding becoming like the inhabitants of the Axiom in the Wall-e movie – slugs with empty lives who are incapable of transporting themselves from their personal recliners.

            Personally though, I have no moral problem with everyone getting to spend energy lavishly. That would mean that it was plentiful and cheap. To me, conservation, efficiency, and sustainability are rational solutions to problems – not moral principles to be observed in and of themselves.

            But, suddenly ending the jobs of all the people associated with the current energy production and distribution solutions does not increase the general happiness. Rather, it results in a spiral of economic breakdown – of lost wealth in the world. Of reduced distribution of wealth in the world. All those people without paychecks don’t buy things. All those factories, responding to the lack of product demand, reduce production and layoff workers. As the wealth disappears there is less of it for everyone – not just those at the top. But, most noticeably, the availability of wealth disappears at the lowest rungs of society.

            Ultimately, you can’t count on humanitarian idealism as a framework that you can build an economic system upon – because there will always be cheaters and slugabeds that ruin it for everyone else unless sufficiently motivated by personal gain and loss. We shouldn’t be particularly proud of it, but you can count on human greed as a predictable motivational force. It’s not a perfect system. We reward those who increase the general wealth by allowing them to keep a commensurate share of it. Because it isn’t perfect, we also allow some who don’t increase the general wealth at all to accumulate some anyway. Legislating morality is very difficult, as it turns out. As an example, we have an entire, fairly well thought of, class of employment that mostly specializes in getting away with cheating after having been caught at it. In spite of the relative inefficiency, the system still manages to organize the distribution of newly created wealth in the world. If there was a more workable system – presumably it would be popular. But, so far, there hasn’t been one that works better than what we have.

        • LilyLover

          I guess, in your world up is down and down is up and moral is immoral and imperative means optional. Good is bad and bas is good. Must be the beneficiary of power accumulated through ancestral cruelty.
          And yes, the connectedness of world economies is what scares you the most – you are more afraid of role reversals of the producers and consumers.
          I consume therefore I feed 5 families in China must be what you tell yourself! MBA has inverted your causal understanding.
          BTW the Chinese would like to be the consumers and they’d ‘let you produce’ to satisfy their desires. They’d like that co-dependency, afterall global economy doesn’t operate in vaccuum.
          Education is not needed to enjoy the fruits of riches.
          Proof: US.
          Riches from hard work or theft can still be enjoyed by poor people.
          Before you die make your mother happy – learn good from bad.

      • clovis ray

        your first observation, is correct, this will be confirmed when the customer tells what he thinks about the test cat, from what i have read he was elated , and he wanted it promptly replaced once it was recharged and i would think the test cat should be replaced with a new and improved model, and the test cat be saved for historical posterity .

    • Pekka Janhunen

      According to AR, the gas-cat is no longer at focus of development, “I am afraid it has been made obsolete from the E-cat X” http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=22#comment-1134228 , “Now we are not focused on it” http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=53#comment-1149541

  • Ted-X

    I still think that Rossi may be (unfortunately) blocked in the business. This is because he has not patented the “secret sauce”. Whoever will will be the first to patent the working version of the “secret sauce”, will be able to block Rossi from making the Ecats and the Ecat-Xs for sale. This is well known as the problem with the “trade secrets”.
    ——
    Dr. Andrea Rossi, you are taking a big risk with not patenting the secret sauce!

    • Omega Z

      As with much about the E-cat’s, Likely everything is know and patented and people just don’t see it. Rossi is good at misdirection. Case in point, the lithium aluminum hydride was disclosed long ago… but overlooked.

    • Brent Buckner

      I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but perhaps matters are now different in the U.S. under the _America Invents Act_. “Before the AIA, an accused infringer who had practiced a patented invention in secret for many years prior to the patentee’s filing date could not rely on a so-called “prior user right,” unless the patent was for a so-called “business method.”6 Under the AIA, prior user rights were extended to any technology.7 Having a robust trade secret, and practicing that trade secret, prior to later patenting by another can provide an invaluable affirmative defense to patent infringement charges (through prior user rights).”
      [From http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=ff9f261b-eed4-4a0e-9805-4a01cba7a15b ]

      • Ted-X

        My understanding is that Rossi may be just forced TO STOP using his trade secret, without any responsibility for utilizing it before the third party published the patent disclosing the “secret sauce”. I doubt if the “prior use” exemption will allow him to keep selling the CATS (the regular Cat and the Cat-X). The purpose of the patenting system is to make the inventions public, not to protect the trade secrets. I also doubt if the prior use clause could be extended in time, maybe a year or two after the patent became known.

        • Brent Buckner

          I emphasize that I am not a lawyer, but this bit seems to me to indicate that Rossi would not be enjoined from *future* use of what would formerly have been a trade secret: “the defense provides a safe harbor for an accused infringer who had been commercially using a process for more than a year prior to another’s application for a patent covering that process – thereby doing away with the significant risk that might otherwise exist for an inventor who maintains as a trade secret his invention, and who could otherwise later be sued and enjoined from practicing that invention.”
          [from http://files.bakerbotts.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Maier_DEC11.pdf ]

          In part my concern for Rossi’s standing is assuaged by IH paying for rights. I have some trust that they wouldn’t pay for rights that they thought likely to be enjoined from use. Further, I wonder if the setup of the 1MW test was designed to fulfill “commercially using a process” per above, noting that Rossi has always referred to a “customer” being involved in that test and so the test would satisfy one year of commercial use.

        • Warthog

          Your understanding is woefully wrong. “Prior use” doesn’t keep Rossi from doing anything….it just means that OTHERS can do it as well as he, and he cannot keep them for doing so. But there are probably dozens of other patents in the works on aspects of using LENR that WILL prevent others from making “improved” LENR devices “if” Rossi gets those patents issued.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Rossi said last year that they had filed additional patent applications for the so-called “catalyst“. They are only not published yet. I do not know patent law but I guess that these applications would already count as prior art as soon as they become accessible.

    • clovis ray

      Do you really think, Df.R. don’t have all kinds of legal representative’s, patent lawyers, and corporate lawyers, of all kinds if needed, money’s no worry.

  • DzogchenPhysics

    type in my last text: BORROW instead of LEND!

  • DzogchenPhysics

    [corrected version]:
    Let’s not be too adventurous about how this product is going to be released!
    First of all the various nations will restrict the distribution as long as they don’t have the necessary laws and taxes to control this technology. First there will be some discussions about technical security, than national security and at last social security. After some years, the states simply can not longer hold back and they let certain big companies introduce this technology with heavy taxes on “energy generation” or similar stuff.
    You’ll not be able to BUY such a product but rather BORROW it as you already do with software and ebooks in many places. The government will do everything to control the usage.
    If A. Rossi actually wants to revolutionize the world energy network, he’ll probably have to publish his technology for free to the public after years of fighting the obstacles made by the governments.
    Of course this is a rather pessimistic view and I truly do hope for better – but this is what I expect to happen.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Smart folks here and elsewhere have pointed out how the strategy will pivot on China. They need this most and their political system can manage to incorporate it in their economic structure effectively. It seems Mr. Darden is paving the way for this. Once China adopts it competitive pressure will force others to follow.
    I do hope all this is real. We are very fortunate to have a person of Darden’s character helping out. He seems genuinely concerned with the environment and our future. Let’s hope the report comes out soon and the new QuarkX version is unveiled to great effect.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Italo R. March 27, 2016 at 9:44 AM
    Dear Dr. Rossi, your technology is so disruptive that the first concern is if it has to be introduced slowly or fast. What do you think?
    Kind Regards, Italo R.

    Andrea Rossi March 27, 2016 at 3:25 PM
    Italo R.:
    The People is the sole sovereign of the market, the People will decide the speed of the distribution: we will be ready to respond to the demand.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    I think this indicates that Rossis plan is: eyes shut and go for it

  • Albert D. Kallal

    First, I don’t think the disruption issue is “too” great to worry about. This issue is no more than the introduction of the personal computer. When the Apple II sprung forth from a garage, it took MANY
    years for business to adopt the computer, and the internet to come along. So while the Personal computer was a black swan and game changing device, it took time to adopt.

    And sure, LENR can be adopted faster, but it not an overnight process.

    Now of course LENR likely will be one of the largest game changing technologies ever to come along, but introduction of this technology will take time.

    As for how to introduce the product?

    I would do two things:

    First, simply invite 60 minutes to do a follow up story on cold fusion. That story simply would show a working reactor, information and interviews from those using the reactor (the company). And toss
    in a few more from labs etc. that have been given a device to play with. And not just one customer but several, including any “blue chip” company that is running such a device.

    And then a few interviews with Rossi or IH as to when the product is available for sale. (or if they are ALREADY for sale).

    Once above story breaks, then release a nice commercial video showing the product, the pricing and the cost of energy and available sizes. This commercial video step may be pointed towards industrial
    customers, as I think the consumer devices and markets are several years off into the future. But for industry product, or even a consumer model, the above two step approach would make the most hay for the given efforts.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Roland

      When the Apple II sprung from the garage it was pathetically slow at lowly tasks like word processing, there was little in the way of software so you practically had to be a code geek to make any use of it and its utility in any kind of business was far from clear. It wasn’t until all these issues were resolved and computers became broadly cost effective and obvious spurs to productivity that the trend gathered momentum.

      Nor was it immediately apparent what enterprises and professions were going to be negatively affected in a few decades.

      The economic case for E-cats and the impact that will have on a very foreseeable range of enterprises and occupations will lead to disruptions well before E-cats are widely disseminated as their doom becomes painfully clear the moment that the reality of LENR hits the general populace.

      The first impact will be a steep deflation of various asset classes as their future profitability is widely reassessed; this will, in turn, affect the financing of these endeavours quite quickly and put them under enormous pressure to service debt, redeem bonds and maintain accounts payable.

      The current straights of the O&G business is a harbinger for the rapidity of the shift that’s possible in what is, potentially, a current response to a mere validation of LENR well in advance of any meaningful deployment of any technology what so ever.

      I think Rossi is correct in his assessment; be prepared to step up to the plate in a big way and make this transition as rapidly as possible for the greater good from several perspectives.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Actually, the word processor I used on the Apple II was rather fast. Used that Apple II to help run my parents business for years. And not only did we use the Apple II for word processing, but also for payroll. (and we talking 1981).

        No question however when the Apple II came out, the “general” software industry was immature. So adoption of the PC technology took a long time.

        However, even by the late 1980’s, the PC industry was quite mature, but MANY business at that time still had NOT adopted computers.

        However, I must agree that if one “already” has electricity, then
        adoption rate of a refrigerator going to occur rather quickly.

        So in this light, I do accept that LENR can be adopted rather quickly. This is especially the case due to Rossi not selling the commercial product. Rossi intends to sell the correct size ecat-x “module” designed to a given size to a customer. The customer then will take that module and place it into say a back yard barbeque that runs on LENR. And so even camping equipment manufactures can make small stoves etc. that run on these small type modules in place of a propane canister.

        So anything today that can run on heat is a potential purchaser of those ecat-x modules. We don’t know how efficient the electric part of the ecat-x is.

        As noted, Rossi stated he wants to build a “basic” devices that will spur many companies just like the computer industry spurred many startups.

        In other words, a company can build a fridge based on e-cat-X. And if existing companies ignore this technology, then startups will take over. This is exactly what occurred to computer companies like Sperry-Univac, or Digital (they ignored the new PC industry). IBM ignored it for some time, but then went full bore into that industry and made billions with their PC that became the industry standard.

        So given that Rossi intends to sell the basic “heat” block and let the rest of the industry build products based on that technology, then adoption rates can occur rather fast. However, this still means a relative gradual adoption. As I pointed out, EVEN when the computer industry had matured, still MANY business say in 1990 still had not adopted computers.

        So people might not toss out their existing dryer right away. However, they WILL be tempted to buy one of those new LENR dryers being sold at Home Depot. That dryer likely will still plug into the wall socket, but the heating system will be much like a ink-jet or toner cartage for a printer – you simply purchase a new LENR module and toss out (or return) the older module.

        So the ink-jet, or toner replacement module is the business plan here.

        Regards
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • LuFong

    LENR is such a basic physical phenomenon (not to say it’s not difficult to produce) it’s not really accurate to consider it as a technology. Once it becomes reproducible who knows what nuclear processes will be further discovered and who knows what novel technologies and products will come about because of it. If Rossi is to be believed just look at the progress he and possibly a few others over the past few years have made.

    That is why I hold Rossi, and now it looks like IH’s, attempt to corner everything having to do with this kind of LENR with such low regard. They are trying to pick off the low lying fruit and just delaying a revolution in energy. Make the science open. Patent your devices that use it.

    • GreenWin

      “Low lying fruit” is bound to be bruised as it has fallen from the branch…” old Chinese proverb.

      • LuFong

        早起的鳥兒有蟲吃

  • Alan DeAngelis

    How could things be any more disrupted than they are now?

    Bring it on.

    • TVulgaris

      You mean we haven’t had a remarkably constrained status quo for at least 35 years in the US, even with the internet?

      • Brent Buckner

        I gather that the choice of pursuing a patent versus maintaining a trade secret is complicated. For example, Dart Container Corporation has heaps of patents for cups and lids –
        http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee/DartContainerCorporation.html
        but is also known for maintaining as a trade secret how it molds
        expandable polystyrene – https://www.google.com/finance?cid=2504075 )

        Perhaps Rossi has tried to patent a device because he’d be selling it, so it would be immediately reverse-engineered, while seeking to maintain as a trade secret a process for pre-treating fuel.

        • Omega Z

          You do not need a scientific explanation. You only need a working product that’s been tested and preapproved as safe. There are many things in the world that have no scientific explanation other then opinions and many that do that are wrong. However, we use these things regardless.

          • Jacques

            Uh, name some if these things, please. 🙂

          • Bernie Simon

            The physical explanation of how airplanes generate lift is still controversial.

          • Jacques

            Well, only in that there are a couple of contributing mechanisms, none of which are outside the realm of known and accepted physics.

          • Brent Buckner

            One thing along those lines is high temperature superconductors. (see “Ongoing Research” section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductivity )

          • Jacques

            Okay, you got me there. Although I am unaware of any widely used commercial product employing them. 🙂

          • Brent Buckner

            🙂 Heck, high temperature superconductors are themselves commercial products! https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=high+temperature+superconductor+for+sale

          • psi2u2

            You mean you have no doubt of it. Many others doubt it quite a bit, but that’s because we’ve actually looked into the larger circumstances, something that doesn’t seem to be your cup of tea.

          • Bruce__H

            No. I mean that there is no doubt that he has had a history that is scam related. He has been prosecuted for fraud and had multiple people accuse him of running scams. There is no doubt about this, it is a matter of record.
            I’m talking about reputation. A reputation that has to be overcome if he really has made a discovery here.

  • LilyLover

    Not launching is not an option. Progress we must even with temporary upsets. Status quo wins with lack of progress, keeping people sad.

    No matter what we do, the adoption will be gradual – in the sense that 0%->1%…98%->99%. Not in the sense of controlled introduction “to soften the blow”. This will allow vicious vampires to acquire all the E-Cat power for themselves to be sold to the paupers to perpetuate serfdom. So, deliberate slow introduction is worse than status quo. Think universal empowerment vs selective empowerment of the already empowered!

    Low key approach is pointless! Chindia is going to flood the market in that case. And late adopters – countries or people – will be left behind, and rightfully so!

    Publicity campaign with invitation using “read this report” is needless. Fulfilling the pre-orders in Tesla-like fashion should suffice. But I think we must go with “Magic-Bullett” approach – flood the advertizing with happy faces and money-back guarantee and keep everything production-ready and let them know their position in que and anticipated delivery date. Late adopters will lose out – hence all will rush at the earliest conviction. This, still allows the well-studied to be the earliest in the que. Perpetual satisfaction of early adopters builds the demand and order-backlog. Market takes over.

    Disruptions happen.

    Only through fastest possible path, maximum disruption can happen wherein scope for regulatory manipulation gets minimized. No “advanced” country can afford to lose this ship else they’d be left behind as undeveloped countries and the other adopting countries will begin to exploit American-slave labour much in the same manner that we do today to Chinese labour. Ignoring adoption is as good as fomenting unrest, back-stabbing your own soldiers, children and parents, tantamount to creating hyperinflation, and losing the grip of hegemony a lot faster.
    For all these reasons, even OUR, non-SI-units, politicians are not that stupid.

    Perhaps it will hurt some of you but the rapid introduction of E-Cat is analogous to negative interest rate or equalized credit score or end of trickle-up parasitism or empowerment of the disenfranchised of the World. Old parasites that have benefited from the inequality of system-bias will no longer be benefited. Note that this is the best they are going to get in the long term without any bloodshed and revolution. Hence they’ll shut up after making some noise.

    All in all Viva-E-Cat!! Energy to all!! This is going to equalize people, a lot more that guns ever did!!!
    Enjoy!

    • SG

      I enjoy your prose. Well done.

  • LilyLover

    I think we go a little further … We deny any importance to the grid. The grid may stay connected or get lost, but the ability to not need the grid and let it wallow in self pity as a discarded doormat in our homes is even better.
    There is no need to get away from grid … which in itself awards some undeserved significance to the grid.
    To make off-gridding unimportant is better than to be off-grid!!

  • SG

    What is a cunning hybrid war?

  • LuFong

    I definitely think Rossi is in it for more than the money. He has a reputation to rebuild (rightly or wrongly), there is always ego (with the possible exception of Gluck), and he may even be a narcissist. But it’s pure hubris to think that one can come out with a product, to lay the golden egg that all humanity will worship. Like all technologies we commonly use today, people will laugh at the first versions and the shortsightedness of the application. In a short time others will pass Rossi’s achievements. If Rossi has what he says he has, then his place in history is assured (right after F&P, Forcardi, Piantelli) in addition to certainly profiting on the patents his head start, hard work, and inventiveness has managed to secure him.

    That said, I am not Rossi so I don’t know exactly his circumstances and what he is up against. If he is to be believed, Rossi has achieved phenomenal things. But from my vantage point I would not withhold the underlying science about the basic LENR reaction. Now some will say that it’s been replicated–so Rossi’s done that but I’m not entirely convinced despite promising reports or replication.

    Also some will say IH now has the secret to replication so Rossi has disclosed it but now I’m worried about their so called LENR thought leaders. Yikes! Business people always try to squeeze every possible penny out of the consumer with their technology all in the name of profit-oriented progress. Rossi has been saying much the same thing.

    All of this could very well go away this year or certainly by the next. Replications appear to be closing in and at the very latest once a LENR product is released, the science will follow one way or another.

    Sorry about the long rant. It’s been a long wait!

  • LarryJ

    Every new technology is introduced more quickly than its predecessors. Look at vinyl records, to tapes, to cds, to dvds to flash drives. This technology will appear with blinding speed. Once they have a robotized factory they can clone it very quickly.

  • Roland

    Being credulous sure is painful.

    You can, however, take comfort in being part of the herd.

  • mycropht

    I believe a key factor is completely missing from this analysis. We are heading into a major ecological disaster and something like e-cat is needed not tomorrow but day before yesterday. The e-cat technology should be on the market as soon as possible.

    I understand Dr. Rossi is waiting until he is ready for a forest fire approach but I just hope it will be sooner than later.

    Our planet is way more fragile than our rulers (mostly undereducated in natural sciences) are able to grasp. At a point where the disaster would be obvious even to the likes of Trump, it could already be too late.

    Btw, the e-cat could be a key “ingredient” for our survival on Mars and elsewhere… It is year 2016 already and we have total of zero space colonies. 🙁

  • Karl Venter

    Lets say they launch their product
    I for one will buy them but them I have to incorporate it into the system/infrastructure
    Be it central heating or your houses electrical supply etc not an overnight job
    Who is going to do that hardware – the unit that takes the heat /electricity and puts it into practical household/industrial use
    Rossi cant do that so that’s why he makes Quarks
    eg Tesla redesigns their cars to take Quarks – best 6 months- So incorporation by OEMs will take time – some large corporation don’t change fast and will suffer as a result but having deep pockets will eventually get there
    Factories producing goods don’t have a design team to redesign their manufacturing process to accommodate quarks overnight or even 6 months. This will all take time
    So the list grows.
    The challenge is going to be how to integrate the quarks into the current infrastructure and then the design of a whole new system / paradigm in energy production will start
    So I predict a massive spike in sales of quarks initially then the race to bring the units with their practical application to market -( and we know that’s vast ) — will be more gradual as the new systems come on the market.
    How long does it take a person to build a system that integrates to a house hold heating system and then lets say he has no problem selling them but has to keep up demand. ( which will be huge) here again the race will be on as to who is first
    The skeptos will fight it I believe on the radiation front – cant have a nuclear reactor in your house or it must be controlled by the nuclear authorities making big corporation the only ones with access to it lets hope they don’t get government on their side. I certainly hope not.
    Interesting dilemma for APCO to solve
    Wonder what they will come up with as a launch plan?
    After publishing the 1 MW results how long before we have a launch and a product on the market
    I know its 2016 but I have my doubts that you and I will be able to buy a quark and intergate it into a system
    Are they going to have preferential customers first then us plebs – Rossi I believe says not he want to flood the market
    I believe if they have prefeerential customers they will be copied quite quickly – and that makes me hopeful that they will selol to all
    Am very very keen to see what a Quark looks like as I am sure most of us here do

    Anyway good to speculate a bit

    • Gerard McEk

      For the QuarkX you need sun glasses! 😉
      Initially AR and IH will just deliver the industrial market and I am sure AR will do that as quick as he can. But even that will take enormous time. The raising for the money to support the fund-flow for erecting plants and delivering products as well as to organize and build-up service centers world wide will take considerable time. Banks and investors need convincing the product is real, even after the ERV report. I would guess 5-10 years, so it will go gradually anyway.
      Not delivering is no option, others (countries) will do.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Well, you only need sunglasses if you have the device opened and you are looking at the light. (the question assumed that you cannot look at the light unless the devices is opened to allow such light out).

        The industrial market will no doubt be first. Perhaps 2 years we could see industrial sales occur.
        I think the consumer side going to be a challenge, and that challenge
        will be assuring government regulators that such devices are not emitting radiation,
        don’t produce radioactive waste, and they cannot be used to make nuclear bombs. So 5+ years as you note is “possible” but not assured. The regulatory challenge could take a short say 7 years, but it will take time.
        Remember, to build a typical say hi-rise apartment in a city, it takes about 5 years of passing through regulators in terms of traffic, and environment impacts. With nuclear, then such timeframes are larger. I do think it possible that say within 10 years we see consumer devices.

        So the consumer ready products are many years away, but industrial customers COULD occur in say the next 5 years.
        The above timeframe are shorter then I expected, but given the 1MW plant, then I now see above timeframes as possible!
        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • TVulgaris

        How many phones get sold on release day? That is how fast it COULD happen, if the same sort of effort in promotion was made. I think that would be insanely unwise, but it COULD be that fast. Do a release for early adopters to generate some buzz and the capital for your promotion budget, and then those 10’s of millions of units could flood the market literally overnight.

        • Zephir

          While I consider the finding of new energy source extraordinarily important with respect to geopolitical stability of the world, I’m not a huge fan of cold fusion and I hope, it will be replaced with overunity technologies from simple reason: the cold fusion devices could be still abused as a dirty bombs or even triggers of classical nuclear bombs, which would be very dangerous tool in hands terrorist groups and regimes.

          • SG

            We shouldn’t worry too much. There is no radioactive fuel and no radioactive waste. Only X-rays interior to the reactor, which can be easily blocked by certain materials such as Pb and W. X-rays can be generated using sticky tape. I don’t see how a dirty bomb let alone a bomb is even possible.

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            We need an international control over the conversion of uranium 238 and thorium. Piantelli patent proposes to use them is very dangerous.

          • psi2u2

            You don’t know this, and nobody does until the science is better understood.

          • Zephir

            The people like you also insisted, I cannot know, that the cold fusion is real.

          • psi2u2

            “the people like me”?

            I think you may be confusing me with someone else. Really, I’ve been following this story and blogging positively about LENR on my website since 2011. So, you’ve got me confused with someone else.

          • Zephir

            You simply cannot know, what I or other people know – so don’t pretend otherwise…

          • psi2u2

            What evidence do you have for your claim that LENR can be used for “dirty bombs.”

            We know very well that existing fission processes can be used to create nuclear bombs, but please explain to us, with some links to your sources, what evidence supports your claim. If you convince me that you know it, then you do. Until you convince me, I have every right to retain my skepticism over your claims to knowledge.

            And kindly don’t tell me what words I can or cannot use. Its a really rude thing to do.

          • Zephir
  • DrD

    I see an intersting Sci Fi story here, about the scientist who invented the philosophers stone and all the chaos that ensued. The former is not fiction, the chaos I can’t begin to imagine but I hope it won’t be. it’s food for thought for a talented writer which I’m not.
    I picture acres of rusting wind farms (I was surprised yesterday how many have apeared since I last went that way). I see fields of stockpiled new cars that no one wants. I see crumbling power stations and petrol (FILLING) stations.
    NO, I assume that AR is correct, it will take time to achieve all the vaidation needed to get that far. UNFORTUNATELY.

  • Brent Buckner

    cf. Frank’s “Why I Believe in The E-Cat”
    http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Rossi keeps using Microsoft as an example, a company making billions on software that runs on other company’s hardware. In my opinion Rossi and his competitors are going to sell their new LENR energy, in a form similar to batteries, to be used in the hardware created by thousands of companies. It will happen as fast, probably faster, than the computer industry.

  • psi2u2

    You seem to be pretty new here. You might want to consult some more reliable sources, like Mat Lewan’s biography of Rossi. Those who have been discussing here for a while are well aware of these accusations. You can doubt as much as you like, but your arguments are not persuasive to those with a more thorough grounding in the history.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    The issue of Rossi stating the device being safe is MOOT.

    Sure they are safe, but if regulars play the nuclear card, then long delays before introduction this product to consumers could occur.

    I don’t “think” regulars can prevent LENR based on the nuclear scare, but it could slow adoption down for a bit. So this kind of issue is not Rossi’s choice at all.

    I don’t believe Rossi stated products will be on sale this year?

    (anyone have a link or quote of text???).

    Quite sure Rossi stated he wants to have products on sale, or it might be possible, or he “hopes”. So anything is nearly possible, and I bet Rossi wanted the device to be on sale 20 years ago.

    Wanting, or hoping is not even close to a statement that products will be on sale this year.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Maybe Rossi could profitably sell “scientific e-kits” to his followers with all the necessary precautions and admonitions. “May be harmful to ingest.” “Keep away from small children.” “It is only legal to operate an e-kit where not prohibited by law.”

      • Obvious

        Do not add the enclosed yeast to this brick of raisins and add water…

    • US_Citizen71

      I’m not sure that nuclear is even a point to worry about look at the extreme measures MFMP are going through to even detect what X Rays there are. If it doesn’t make their Geiger counters jump then they have no laws to currently use to control it. LENR so far produces less detectable radiological energy than a smoke detector, which has Americium 241 in the ionization chamber and virtually every western home has at least one..

  • Brent Buckner

    Perhaps because with a patent one can enjoin others from using the innovation (with such exceptions as that prior use defense above).

  • SG

    Mr. Rossi and Dr. Cook are working on that. Also, bear in mind, there is no dearth of scientific theories for LENR. There is only a lack of consensus as to which one should be the accepted one.

  • psi2u2

    I did not refer to that issue in anything that I wrote. I have no direct knowledge about that matter at all. I was responding to the vaguely and condescendingly remarks about Rossi’s so-called “scam related” history. I see now that the remark also included a comment about the patents. The problem is that the “Rossi is a scammer” narrative has been pretty dead for a long time among those who have followed the development closely. As to the status of the patents, like I said, I really don’t claim to know.

  • cashmemorz

    Why doesn’t anyone here acknowledge this: LENR manhattan project
    http://gbgoble.kinja.com/u-s-lenr-manhattan-project-u-s-advanced-lenr-techno-1586883119

  • HS61AF91

    Right, the oil lobby will fade and the politicians will too. This leads to the end of business. When energy to do whatever is abundant, accessible, and in the not too distant future, free; trade and wealth accumulation as now exists, disappears. The second amendment, and an e-Cat will have a lot of entrenched, debt-indentured Americans feeling free; able to excel at whatever. Nikola T.’s vindication. “Entrenched interests” will be rebelliously overwhelmed, people will have time enough for love and the good things in life. Yeah!

  • psi2u2
  • psi2u2

    No I don’t, but MFMP has recently validated some of the key findings of Rossi’s argument and has finally (after months of inconclusive results) stated unequivocal confidence in at least some critical aspects of Rossi’s theoretical constructs. See other posts on this forum.