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.

  • Billy Jackson

    I am still firmly in the camp that the true fight for LENR and the e-cat has not even begun. Entrenched interest are going to try and regulate the hell out of this through manipulation of our laws and court systems. Before the first one can be sold to the general public, you will find that they are going to tie them up in a legal battle of some sort.

    The potential growth for this technology is simply unbelievable. I want to make one point.. Energy companies stand to gian more business with LENR, where as Big Oil stands to loose.. we are use to seeing those two hand in hand.. but in the end energy generation and oil production / usage are 2 separate entities.

    Just conversion alone will take years let alone the market for new uses.
    Vertical Farming
    Commercial Transport
    Travel
    Home / business – electricity & heating and air

    and this is just a few… you are talking for cars alone.. something like 1 billion e-cats needed just for existing cars let alone new ones..now add in all the houses and businesses and more than likely you are going to need something closer to 2.5 billion e-cats before its all said and done. (now there wont be 100% adoption and usage so .. of course the number falls.). but anytime we are talking billions.. well.. even if a plant was able to put out a million ecats a month.. it would be years and years before even put a dent in whats needed.

    • 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.

    • Owen Geiger

      “Entrenched interest are going to try and regulate the hell out of this…” There will be intense competition from China, etc. Consumers will demand E-Cats once they’re well proven and word gets out. Politicians will have to deal with unhappy voters if they enact archaic laws to stifle growth.

      • 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!

    • 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

    • 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…

  • 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?

  • 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”

  • 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

  • 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

  • US_Citizen71

    Personally I think you just have to rip the Band-Aid off swiftly to minimize the pain. Without knowledge of the energy source it is impossible to adapt and plan for it. The quicker the information is spread the quicker the world can adapt. There will be disruption no matter how the rollout is managed, in my opinion it is better to get it over all at once than try to manage it. Money and labor will change direction to deal with the new paradigm quickly. 7 billion minds working to integrate the new reality is better than 7,000.

  • You sell it to energy investment companies who bundle it and sell it to energy companies. Then it is shelved to protect their market.

    • LarryJ

      Tongue in cheek I am sure

    • That doesn’t sound like what Rossi in particular has in mind, and doesn’t mesh with the pattern so far. Besides, the profit to be generated from sales of heat, electricity and eventually reactors is a multiple of what any corporation could find in order to to buy and suppress the technology (only to discover quickly that others either already have viable systems, or develop them quickly using the information already available on the ‘net).

      Other ways to delay introduction may be available, but I am hopeful that no-one will be given the time or opportunities to use them.

  • 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.

  • 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..

  • Steve Swatman

    Like every other successful marketing campaigns, you first create the product, then you get it certified, get investors (who may be the initial customers) then start manufacture, while manufacture is in its infancy you contact all potential customers with news of the product and pricing, you take orders and the market will do the rest. It will be a slow start, and will not make any impact on the world energy markets that will not be noticeable untill millions of the said Items are in operation, if you are lucky you expand quickly. In this particular case, I would not expect a noticeable impact on world energy markets untill 10’s of millions of units are sold and operating full time.

    • 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.

  • Optimist

    It will be tricky to contain this technology. The interest of nations are different, some will benefit heavily from adapting to such a technology to drive economical growth while others will at least short term loose their economic fundations. Typical energy projects are amortised over 40 to 50 years and pay down the loans at a similar rate. Paragdigm shift causing the projects to become lossmaking will eventually cause loss by the pension funds and others that did invent. Typically all the smart people manage to leave the bus before this happens leaving the neutral investors with all the burden. So will the US or EU regulate this to hell to leave India and China with a wildcard to develop and grow or will they allow their own economy to take part? My guess is that EU will make the worst decision to regulate based on their mixed interest nature and they will lose the game. I guess that US will have a more flexible approach to allow the smart money to reinvest in the game. I bet that China will become a quick adapter in a mixed public-private regulated program. I bet India will grab the opportunity to drive up the economy in the quickest possible way by using the tools of the free market. Japan will be a quick adapter but in a regulated manner. I don’t like to bet what will happen in Russia. So there is really no single answer to the original question, it depends.

    • спаситель русских

      Russia cunning hybrid war will begin immediately with the West and do not hesitate,,,

      • SG

        What is a cunning hybrid war?

        • спаситель русских

          There is a war. You have not noticed? It is understandable, in the XXI century, the war goes on entirely different rules, not similar to the previous ones.

  • roseland67

    Prove to the world that it works,

  • 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.

      • HS61AF91

        with an incalculable need ‘warships’ ready is softly.

    • Rossi did say (write) that “slow integration” line to me (and others) way, way back but I think maybe Rossi fibbed about that or maybe just changed his mind, or maybe IH changed his mind for him. It could have been misdirection to keep the heat off his back until he was ready to (change the world) wipe many trillion dollar fortunes into the dumpster.

      I like the idea of managing the role out in a responsible way to prevent TOTAL chaos from occurring but I’m convinced at least some level of chaos is unavoidable at this point. I’m sure Leonardo’s Board has discussed it extensively and has formulated its plan. From the sounds of it I think the band aid is going to be pulled off relatively quickly and relatively soon. At least I hope so.

      We don’t have any time to spare when it comes to repairing the climate and bringing the poorest third up to a decent standard of living. I really hope the tech is pushed into developing regions first. That might be a great way to mitigate the downsides of this energy market disruption and have the greatest positive impact globally.

      • g

        There is chaos and then there is chaos. Good, creative chaos is exactly what we need in these times when a new mentality is essential if we are to live in free societies. Imagine a world where people can safely get off the grid and become more and more self sufficient, privately and collectively. If the ecat turns out to be real, the changes are inimaginable at this point. All one can imagine is a burst of creativity but no specifics.

    • 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!!

  • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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. As well as the banks through ownership of energy cartels, 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, media control and corruption, or the IP owners themselves hold down the brakes to allow them time to adapt, the result will be delay in introduction, perhaps a delay of years rather than months. 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 is true – then bring it on. People will adapt easily, even if governments and corporations can’t – and social revolution is in any case 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.

  • LarryJ

    I think you missed the one option that Rossi appears to favour. You prepare for a massive production and then flood the market. The disruption is minimized because anyone who wants one can buy it or buy it for delivery in a reasonable time period. There will be no need to advertise. Some will be quick to react and some won’t be so it is unlikely everyone in the world will order one the first day but as long as you have a massive production capability you can keep up with demand. Many customers won’t be ready to convert right away anyway and won’t be seriously hurt since energy costs right now are quite low. As the word spreads the demand will rise but so will the production capacity.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Yes and slowly the fossil fuel prices will fall. Until it hits a tipping point. At that point it could be a problem. However, by then, the benefit will outweigh the disruption. Remember, only the few who know it is real will use it. Then you follow the six degrees of separation. At the point I would say 20% of the population knows, it will grow exponentially. How fast and when that spike occurs will determine the economic damage. But at that point, even the fossil fuel people will be more excited about the possibilities and companies like Exxon fuel will become Exxon desalinization. If the world mainstream won’t except it now, releasing like Rossi wants to do is about the only hopeful way to bring it to the world slowly by one company. Will be like a turtle winning the race.

      • g

        If this technology turns out to be real, the changes will be so dramatic that it wont even make sense to discuss “companies” in their current form and “disruption”. Think about the psychological effect from the possibility alone to get off the grid. Think about the change in the mentality of the general population from the realisation that we have been played for decades.

  • Christina

    Happy Easter, everyone.

    • g

      🙂

  • 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

  • Tadej

    How do we provide warm home for millions of homeless and feed even more hungry?

  • 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.

  • 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 Chernobyl and Fukushima we know better. The genie should be treated in a different way:

      – How do you want your atom served sir?

      – Cold, not hot thanks!

  • 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…

  • Steve Savage

    At some point, LENR explodes into mainstream consciousness, there will be shortages of actual product no matter how potent Leonardo’s factories are. Money will flow in huge quantities towards anything to do with this technology. It will disrupt everything no matter how careful you may want to be. There is no way to foresee the most of the impacts that this will have. The technology will be licensed for manufacturing as well as distribution. It will spread very quickly indeed. Within 10 years the Quark, along with other emerging technologies (AI, Robotics, 3D Printing, Gene editing, Materials, Nano, etc. etc. etc.) will so completely change the world that it will be almost unrecognizable.
    We are truly on the cusp of a huge economic expansion and a shift from centralized (unequal control and distribution of wealth) systems to more equal and democratic economic systems. The current system is on it’s last legs, it is obviously not sustainable for the bottom 99 % of the people on this earth, it must and will change and LENR will be a major factor in that change. The conservative / establishment political perspective will not give up easily. Societal / cultural changes arrive more slowly than technological changes, but they always follow inexorably, and the conservative perspective will be overwhelmed with the changes that people will demand. You can easily see, throughout almost every country in the world, that this is already happening. In times of great change the pessimists among us find it far more difficult to justify their regressive point of view.
    LENR will be a revolution unlike any ever seen before, energy is everything. There is no business strategy that could possibly be envisioned that will make any difference to this revolution.

    • LookMoo

      Actually, it is amazing that LENR is still not on big business radar. LENR will be a total re-tooling of everything we knows today. In parallel with the industrial revolution that was supported by the steam engine (industrialists was able to build factories away from streaming water).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

      How steam worked was well known by the Greece’s, Chinese and Romans. Still they did not invent a steam machine (just toys). Why.. ?? because they had slaves.

      Production of LENR related products will probably be more robotized than anything we seen before.

    • 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!!

  • sam

    Hire New Fire Salespeople.

  • PappyYokum

    Or you tie Rossi to a mountainside and have an eagle eat his liver every
    day like what the gods did to Prometheus for stealing fire.
    At this point, we really don’t know how reliable and practical this technology
    is. As far as I know, nobody has been able to do what Rossi claims he is doing.
    Assuming it is everything he says it is, the tech will diffuse itself into the economy. How long did it take for the steam engine to supplant wagon trains? How long did it take for the internal combustion engine to replace steam engines, horses and oxen? How long
    did it take for electricity and plumbing to reach the common man?
    Look at Iceland. They burned peat for fuel until a few decades ago when they
    harnessed geothermal energy. That has made the Icelanders much richer despite the peat bog harvest people being thrown out of work. The buggy whip manufacturers were crying with the introduction of the automobile, but the car is vastly superior to the horse and buggy. People are better off without them.
    Once it is shown the new fire works and people know how (Thankfully, the knowledge of fire did not stay with Prometheus) to make it work, people will start replacing more
    expensive and less dependable sources of energy with it. It isn’t going
    to happen overnight or even in a decades.
    I believe this technology is more a threat to wind turbines, solar panels and other supposed green energy sources than it is to coal, oil, and natural gas in the
    immediate future. The windmills will go first – in my estimation. Marine applications are ripe for this tech as well.

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 Nikolaus Otto 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.

  • g

    I am trying to point out the benefits of this technology in allowing for off-the -grid solutions, both privately and collectively, and the creativity that it will enhance, but it doesnt seem to get through. I wonder why. Dont people in this forum value off the grid solutions and disempowerment of the current economic structure? I thought that was what it is all about

    • 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.

      • 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

    • 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!!

  • Observer

    What happens to technology that adversely affects national security?

    Why has this not happened to the E-Cat?

    It may be that the most effective stealth for disruptive technology is to have the appearance of a pink elephant.

    • Zephir

      Because it’s not USA technology and it evolved long time in Italy.

      • Omega Z

        Actually, Rossi’s patent was taken under consideration of national security and it was allowed to go forward. This NSA review was shown in the patenting steps.

        • SG

          I’m actually somewhat surprised and relieved that a secrecy order was not slapped on the patent. Secrecy orders can wreak havoc on business plans.

          • Zephir

            A. Rossi was lucky, as he brought the fusion in the times of energetic crisis. If A. Rossi would be American by origin, some classification would be undoubtedly applied from its very beginning. But in this case the USA would risk, that A. Rossi will sell his technology to China or another country instead. In addition, the E-Cat is apparently not so easy to plagiarize without detailed information, which isn’t indeed subject of any patent.

          • clovis ray

            I have said this many times over the years, that, if you had a product that has never been invented before and does thing that this amazing as this machine and then someone else comes along and says hey look what i made, and it does the same thing,who do think will win that case. I/H has china, Dr. R, has the area all around his home country, I/H will sell to china, one robo factory can build as cheap as another, it the secret sauce that that makes the difference the rest is mainly just common stuff, to be assembled.

          • LilyLover

            Secrecy orders would have turned us into third world country. Therefore…

          • Andreas Moraitis

            That’s what apparently happened to Brillouin’s application in India:

            http://ecat.org/2014/patenting-lenr/

        • Zephir

          Of course – this was the reason, why A. Rossi own patent wasn’t granted with USPTO and he had to sell all rights to USA company for to get patent in USA. USA government can protect its interests well and it currently controls all important LENR patents…

          • LarryJ

            Rossi never sold his rights. Leonardo controls the IP. IH has a very large territory but so does Leonardo.

          • Zephir
          • artefact

            On JONP:

            Andrea Rossi March 28, 2016 at 7:13 AM
            Fortune-Seeker:
            To be clear and avoid any confusion: Leonardo Corporation is the sole
            owner of all the Intellectual Property and Tredemarks related to the E-
            Cat.
            Leonardo Corporation has sold licenses to several Licensees among which
            Industrial Heat, each of them having rights in their Territories to
            manufacture and/or sell in exclusive the E-Cats.
            Warm Regards,
            Dr Andrea Rossi, CEO of Leonardo Corporation”

          • Zephir

            Andrea Rossi apparently no longer owns the Leonardo Corporation, Leonardo Corporation now property of a trust of investors
            http://ecatnews.com/?p=2038

            Another question is, what the “ownership of trademark” actually means? And regarding the Intellectual Property, the technology described in patent apparently apparently isn’t replicable – so that nothing actually prohibits the IH to present whatever else technology as its very own. If I start with my own E-Cat, how would you want to prove, I’m using the just A. Rossi technology – and not Russian or Piantelli’s one? All they use the nickel and lithium. If I add some inert element not mentioned in any above patents, how would you prove, this element is not important for my own version of ECat, once I will start to sell it with it?

          • TVulgaris

            USPTO absolutely will not grant a patent for technology that’s non-replicable. The grantee can legally impede anyone else’s violation of that patent, but it MUST be replicable.

          • Zephir

            /* USPTO absolutely will not grant a patent for technology that’s non-replicable */

            In this case the USA should have at least thousand of perpetuum mobile technologies and cold fusion granted already. Do you for example believe, you could reproduce the way, which is described in his patent?

            http://www.google.com/patents/US20110255645

            What Zawodny wrote about his own LENR patent:

            “While I personally find sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I remain skeptical. Furthermore, I am unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy”

          • roseland67

            Damn,
            Zawodny thinks just like me,
            As of today, this is still a lab experiment that suggests promise
            And that more Study is needed.

            I do not expect to see any “for Sale” item from IH or Rossi
            For many years, regardless of what the report shows.

          • clovis ray

            Clear, enough, for me.

          • LarryJ

            Andrea Rossi

            March 28, 2016 at 7:13 AM

            Fortune-Seeker:

            To be clear and avoid any confusion: Leonardo Corporation is the sole
            owner of all the Intellectual Property and Tredemarks related to the E-
            Cat.

            Leonardo Corporation has sold licenses to several Licensees among which
            is Industrial Heat, each of them having rights in their Territories to
            manufacture and/or sell in exclusive the E-Cats.

            Warm Regards,

            Dr Andrea Rossi, CEO of Leonardo Corporation

          • cashmemorz

            How does this fit into the legalities of LENR legalities? http://gbgoble.kinja.com/u-s-lenr-manhattan-project-u-s-advanced-lenr-techno-1586883119

          • LarryJ

            I wouldn’t even hazard a guess about the legalities.

            I do know that after the demo of the original ecat 1MW reactor back in 2011/2012 that it was rumoured that Rossi sold that reactor to the US military and Rossi reported after that on his blog, that he was working with the US military, I assume in a support role for that reactor and it was during this period that he made his first hot cat breakthrough. I recall he was quite effusive at the time about the support he received from them.

            I think that the US government would be happy to have the inventor that created a commercially viable cf reactor on US soil take that invention to the market as long as they are kept up to date on exactly how the tech works, for national security reasons. It would not surprise me at all if the US navy is now experimenting with a cf-> steam powered ship using tech derived from that first industrial reactor.

        • Zephir
        • Observer

          By denying the functionality of the E-Cat, the government put themselves in a difficult position when it come to evaluating the E-Cat’s effect on National Security. My guess is that the time limit to make a decision ran out while they were doing their best to ignore the E-Cat altogether.

          The fact that Rossi can claim it was not invented on U.S. soil, and that foreign manufacturers are already lined up to build E-Cats also muddies the waters for the decision makers.

    • LilyLover

      It was going to happen to the E-Cat, Rossi survived Italian mafia, OilCos, and a whole lot of snipers. Then, China came to the rescue and now the E-Cat will live on.
      BTW widespread adoption of the E-Cat is in the national interest of all nations, including ours 🙂

      • Zephir

        Yes, but I’m not so sure about short-term interest of national governments.. 😉 And many people aren’t motivated to think in longer horizon, than their own personal carrier. The limited timespan of people makes the subject of good will from many “interests”. They simply ask: “how the cold fusion / E-Cat can help just me?”

  • GiveADogABone

    I do not believe that Rossi should be in the business of making any final products. He should use OEM partnerships to make products that contain the QuarkX. Ceres Power had the same issue with their fuel cell development and they changed to the OEM route. Many of the arguments presented in the video at
    http://www.cerespower.com/technology/why-the-steel-cell-is-unique
    mirror those presented for the E-cat.

    All Rossi and his robots have to do is make QuarkXs as fast as the OEMs order them and nothing else. Leave the end customers to the OEMs.

  • 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!!

  • Zephir

    How would I launch a new energy technology? By selling toys, demonstration kits and DIY toolboxes.

  • Reg

    I have only personally known one pathological liar in my life. This person began with little lies about health problems and relationship problems, but it escalated. Over the course of several years it became cancer, at first treatable, then in multiple organs. I believed it all (how could anyone lie about something like that?). Finally there was a last hope surgery that was either going to be fatal or hopefully remove the tumors. Then I figured out it was all a lie. No cancer, no operations, just lies. It was an unforgettable realization that I had been duped for so long by somebody who otherwise seemed completely normal, intelligent, and successful and as far as I can tell had no motivation for the lies.

    I have the same feeling again. Eventually it all comes apart.

    • 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.

      • pat

        There are plenty of ‘inventors’ who have convinced VCs far larger than Darden to part with far larger sums. Look up Pixelon. They raised $30m from investors in 1998 for a magical video codec which never existed. There are many more like Pixelon.

    • 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/ ]

    • Steve Savage

      Reg … There are two likely causes for your dilemma.
      1. You have not examined and/or do not understand the evidence.
      or
      2. Your initial bias prevents you from reaching appropriate conclusions related to the evidence.
      In either case, it is not my problem and I do not care… However, I do hope you get help soon.

    • Roland

      Being credulous sure is painful.

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

  • 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).

  • 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).

    • lkelemen

      Mats: do you have links to some info on “research in the field” ?
      thanks
      Lajos

      • I will present most of the speakers in a few days. Through their bios you might get some help. Abstracts will be presented later, together with the preliminary program.

        • lkelemen

          Thanks

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Do not worry about the financial market, it is a heartless beast which cares about no one.

    • 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.

        Major corporations are systematically killing off the labor force, LENR levels the playing field putting power literally back into the hands of the individual.

        • clovis ray

          Hi, O.R
          One hope we have is Dr. R and mr darden, are in control at present, and they show a genuine caring attitude, for the common man, and nature, and hope is everlasting.

  • 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

    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 LEND 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.

  • 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.

      • cashmemorz

        The raw uranium ore that the USA’s LENR Manhattan Project http://gbgoble.kinja.com/u-s-lenr-manhattan-project-u-s-advanced-lenr-techno-1586883119 is more advanced form of cold fusion or LENR that uses the ore in one charge for duration of the plants life~50 years. Not only patented but developed as a black ops under private/government project since 1989.

      • Bruce__H

        I’ve been reading the US patent applications Rossi made and I don’t totally understand them. Rossi was granted a patent last summer having to do with lithium aluminum hydride but no mention of LENR. He was denied a patent 2 months ago having to do with LENR. What is the essential difference between the 2 patent applications do you think?

        • clovis ray

          Hi, bruce, as i see it, when you put the lenr in your petent you can’t prove it is lenr. no one actually knows what the effect is, correct, lenr is just something it has been called, along with cold fusion and a few others. for the lack of not knowing what the Rossi effect really is,
          and he’s not telling, and as for as i know, no one else knows either.
          so i think it will stay this way, until they have products on line. then like he says, by then it won’t matter anyway they will be so far ahead of their competition, sounds like a great plane to me.

    • 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.

          • Bruce__H

            If all this is true then why has Rossi bothered with patents at all?

          • Brent Buckner

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

          • 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.

        • 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

    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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Oystein Lande

    What everyone needs to understand is:

    1. 98%+ of the the world transport system is based upon hydrocarbons: airplanes, boats, trucks, cars etc. It will take decades to change the present system to LENR based systems.

    So LENR being now just in it’s infancy, will in any scenario only Gradually be integrated in the energy systems of the world.

    2. The energy consumption of the world is increasing considerably.

    From 2011 to 2012 the energy consumption of the world increased by 80 000 MW.

    So when will LENR products even be close to keep up with only the increase of the worlds energy demand, from the day LENR products are rolled out?

    By exponential growth of LENR production possible a decade ?

    My conclusion:

    LENR will only cause an initial psychological shock to the market. Then when things calm down, it’s back to normal, where LENR will be just another competitor to all other energy sources, like wind,solar, hydrocarbons etc.

    • Warthog

      “98%+ of the the world transport system is based upon hydrocarbons:
      airplanes, boats, trucks, cars etc. It will take decades to change the
      present system to LENR based systems.

      Not at all. The energy of LENR can be easily used to convert the carbon content of urban garbage into hydrocarbons. Major airports are all located near large urban areas (often more than one), which currently ALL have large waste streams that are currently “difficult” to get rid of. The necessary hydrocarbons to power IC vehicles of all sorts will essentially be a FREE byproduct of the necessary destruction of urban waste. This is “doable” almost immediately and is exactly the sort of process that “Industrial Heat” is chartered to target.

      • Oystein Lande

        You suggest Waste to biofuel refinery systems. But to implement the scale of these systems you suggest to have a real impact on fossil fuel consumption will take decades to build..,.in my opinion.

        • Warthog

          Ever worked for a major chemical company?? I did…for twenty years. Time frame to design and build a similar plant is about five years, max. And that is not an opinion…it is an observed fact. Also note that “biofuel” is not the correct term….although there will be lots of “bio” stuff in the waste stream, there will also be “non-bio” (plastics, and other things).

          • Oystein Lande

            I fully agree on the Five years for a single “bio” fuel plant. But do you think there are enough construction capacity to build the hundreds you need around the world to have a serious impact on the fuel supply within the next decade? I think not. Give it two decades may be.

          • Warthog

            Once you have a design, such plants can be mass-produced, just like cars, train engines, and anything else. Time for that, probably a year per plant, if that. Of the transport modes (air, rail, highway), the first will probably be the hardest to switch away from carbonaceous fuels, highway second, and rail easiest.

            “If” it turns out that we need to “do it immediately” due to incontrovertible evidence of pending eco-catastrophe, the world will find a way. See what the USA did during WWII as an example of what is possible. But I doubt we will need any such rush changeover.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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

    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.

    • TVulgaris

      The caveat being that a very good (if not the very best) prognosis isn’t necessarily the determinant of future events.
      “For all these reasons, even OUR, non-SI-units, politicians are not that stupid.”- They may not be that stupid, but they are mostly that OWNED by the oligarchs.
      I am a US citizen, but I am completely aware this is only a semblance of an open, free market- which, wouldn’t be the worst situation were the circumstances of empire different. Ultimately, the US could fall completely (all empires do) as a result of the disruption this could cause and the measures the oligarchs take to protect their interests. In the long term, it wouldn’t matter AT ALL, as then one of the planet’s two worst polluters would suddenly decimate their pollution (that last tenth would probably be really, really bad ABC shit, though)- provided the BRICKs nations adopt these disruptive technologies to the hilt, but they have their own oligarchs- so the prospects (I think, but wish otherwise) aren’t good this will be anything but bloody and difficult, with the least able sustaining the greatest suffering, as always. Whatever it takes, though, because the human species is very close to the precipice, and nothing other than something this disruptive will make us stop and take sufficient notice.

  • 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.

  • PW

    But still a lot of talk about E-cat and LENR between people who hope for a LENR solution. But Rossi and Industrial Heat do not even blink or give a bit of insight. You have to see and look for Rossi on the internet and you find a lot of scam-related info and even info about important patents that are denied so Rossi or Industrial Heat could not even start to produce!
    I am beginning to doubt if there is even a E-cat, yeah maybe on paper or in someones head …

    • Brent Buckner

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

      • pw

        Thanks Brent for this uplifting link!
        I think i needed this in my moment of doubt!
        here is another link in a 5 part lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN_wJ4Hg0io (part 2)

        • clovis ray

          Hi, Guys,
          This was an all round good presentation, A few things but over all i think it was correct,

    • psi2u2

      You seem to be pretty new here. You might want to consult some more reliable sources, like Mats 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.

      • Bruce__H

        The information about a patent being denied is completely accurate as far as I can make out. The US LENR patent that Rossi applied for was denied in January in resounding terms. The patent examiner couldn’t really have been harsher than he was. Do you think that this information is inaccurate?

        There was another US patent that Rossi was granted last summer but as far as I can see it has no LENR angle to it.

        • 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.

          • Bruce__H

            There is no doubt that Rossi has a scam-related history. If he really has made a discovery then that is a problem for him to overcome.

            The recent denial, in January, of patent application number US 12/736,193 is another problem for Rossi. If he really has made a discovery then it is not covered by patent as far as I can see so how does he hope to commercialize it?. If the scammer narrative was dead then this wakes it up.

          • 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 Rossi 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 he has to overcome if he really has made a discovery here.

          • psi2u2
          • Bruce__H

            Yes. This is why I wonder if anyone has tried to build the device that Rossi describes in the July 2105 patent that was awarded to him. Supposedly, this procedure he describes should allow someone to build a functional version of Rossi’s ecat. If that is not possible, based on the description in the patent, then the patent itself is voided. Do you know if anyone has tried?

          • 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.

          • Bruce__H

            The reason I ask specifically about attempts to build the device described in Rossi’s patent is that if it can’t be done (because the description is vague, incomplete, or just plain wrong) I think the patent is void and I thus don’t understand Rossi’s comments about vigorously defending his IP.

    • clovis ray

      Hi, PW.
      Your opinion is not new here, and has been debated many times over the years, so Dr. R said, no one will believe this discovery, until they can hold it in their hands, so, that is one of his main golds , and i will suggest you sit back and get some popcorn, because the show is about to start, and it going to be so incredible it may over wham, some folks. for some here it has been years of observation and many interesting developments,

  • 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. 🙁

  • 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. 🙁

  • Jas

    Dont forget that there are many other companies, corporations and organisations wanting to spread the technology and profit from its introduction.
    Most of the talk on here is about Rossi and IH and how they will go about their stratedgy of sellng their product. The other players such as Airbus and Nasa and Lenr-Cities, Lenr-Cars and many more will want to be involved in its future.

    • 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 . they have enough customers, that when those orders are filled, word of mouth will be suffice.

  • 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
  • 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

        • clovis ray

          Hi, guys,
          DON’T WORRY, Dr R has said he would not sale anything that was the least bit unsafe, he also said he would have products for sale this year.
          commercial type, i would say also.
          I really don’t know but i assume,Dr. R will be working on the e cat x, and I/H will be working on the commercial version, and as for as government regulators they have already look at it and approved it as safe.,

          • 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” safety regulation 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 current laws to use to control ECats. 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..

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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..

  • 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. Is the science better understood by now? Just visit the http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat and learn what you can read there…

        • 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… And forget using the “science” word as an argument – according “science” the cold fusion is still impossible.

          • 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
  • Jacques

    However it’s rolled out, it will have to be preceded or accompanied by some scientific explanation.

    • 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.

      • roseland67

        And a total lack of any known operational LENR device
        providing measurable excess heat.

    • 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 )

  • Brent Buckner

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

  • Edac

    Frank,

    I think your ‘sometime in 2016’ too optimistic; probably far too optimistic. It was only three days ago that Rossi said he had signed a MOU for the production line. That means that he has not yet signed a contract for a production line. ABB will not start designing a production line without a signed contract, let alone start to build one. Preliminary discussions for a MOU are one thing, a completed design is very different.

    To build a factory, design a production line, build and commission that production line, test the product that is built on that production line, sign agreements with companies that will integrate the E-Cat into their products and get to the point of selling even one E-Cat will not happen before the end of 2016. And all this is based on a few handmade samples of QuarkX made in the last couple of months.

    By the end of 2017, may be. But even that is pushing it. And I consider I am an optimist.

    Don’t get me wrong. I have great faith that Rossi will succeed. I agree with US_Citizen71 (below) when he says “I think you just have to rip the Band-Aid off swiftly”. I would love to be proved wrong, but I would put a large bet on my prediction that a product will not be available for sale in 2016.

    • FRAN 34

      I would put a large bet on my prediction, that product will not be available.

  • David Dow

    It won’t be buried now, not with what MFMP did.

    • roseland67

      How about
      “Build it, and they will come”
      Stop talking and blogging about how great it will be when it gets here, if ever, like Nike, just do it

  • 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

  • DanG

    I have a theory of how the Orbo power pack works. I propose that the Orbo cell is made from a highly pre-charged dielectric material known as an electret with conductive electrodes on each side. As the electret slowly depolarizes with time a current is produced in an external circuit as long as the dielectric material continues to depolarize. The amount of current will decrease exponentially as the electret depolarizes. In principle, the gradual depolarization of an electret which has both a sufficiently high a dielectric constant, and initial field strength would have characteristics that a Orbo power cell is claimed to have. I don’t know if such a high energy electret can be made but it would not violate any physical laws. Further it would eventually depolarize and stop producing current.
    A quick google search on electrets indicates that current produced as depolarization occurs is proportional to area of the electret. One paper mentions that depolarization can be accelerated by heating the electret, and its characteristics can be measured this way.
    I see a parallel between the Orbo and EEStore’s ultra-capacitor in that both are theoretically possible, but because of the limitations of real materials, may not meet desired specifications.

  • 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.

  • OMGWTFZPMBBQ

    Its possible, also there are a lot of not-yet-peer-reviewed superconductors which are only marginally stable but could be if someone was brave enough to get a research grant for them. MgB2 was found *by accident* when looking for superconductivity in a related material and as of January this year is being used in cryogen free MRI scanners.