Rossi: Two Poles of E-Cat Manufacturing — USA and Sweden

Andrea Rossi stated today that there would be a two-pronged strategy for the manufacturing E-Cats. He was asked on the Journal of Nuclear Physics where he was, and how the negotiations for the factory in Sweden were going. Rossi replied:

Andrea Rossi

Bob K:
I am in the USA, but the negitiations are proceeding because we are going to do it. The decision has been taken. We will have two poles of manufacturing: one in the USA and one in Sweden.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

It’s interesting to see Rossi state that there will be a manufacturing pole in the United States now, since previously Industrial Heat had the exclusive right to manufacture E-Cats in their territories which included the US. However, the recent press release from Leonardo Corporation announced that they had cancelled the license with Industrial Heat because of non-payment of license fees, so it seems that Rossi and Leonardo feel they have the right to do whatever they want in the IH territories.

It would seem from IH’s motion to dismiss the Rossi lawsuit that IH does not consider the license cancelled, and I would expect that if the E-Cat is clearly demonstrated to be a valid technology, and operates at COPs of 50-200 that Industrial Heat would want to hold on to the license, as the E-Cat would be the hottest property in the world.

This could all be tied up in court for a long time, of course, but it seems that Leonardo will carry on with their work as if the situation is settled.

  • Gerard McEk

    I would assume that the production/selling plants in the US would depend on the trial. I guess that if Andrea would really start selling plants in the USA, China, etc. IH would object. But it will take a while as Ged, below rightly says.

    • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

      The problem for IH is that currently, if they complaint about Rossi manufacturing in the US, they would have to explain to the judge why they claim for the rights for a product that suposedly doesnt work acording to their statements.
      The only way this can be done is if the motion to dismiss with the technicalities is acepted (wich i hope it doesnt) because if the judge considers that there is a possible fraud here, IH wont be able to say a single word against Rossi manufacturing a “unsubstantiated product”

      • Gerard McEk

        Yeh, that’s indeed a very valid point! Interesting to see how all this unfolds.

      • clovis ray

        Hi, Julio, I totally agree, they have no say one way or the other.
        They got caught red handed, with the goods, breach is the only way to precede
        As i see it .
        They can only hope to lessen the damage, bankrupt the shells, and get out.

  • Ophelia Rump

    It is a very difficult position to say you did not pay the man the tens of millions you owe him because the product does not work, and at the same time sue the man for control of the territory where he is manufacturing working product. IH has made it’s decision.

    I expect that any rational judge would club IH like a baby seal if the contest the territory after having abandon the payment obligation.

    • cashmemorz

      I don’t see why everyone is equating “unsubstantiated” with not working. All indications is that the E-Cat works. To me the substantiation is in the area of theory and safety. IH is smart enough to see that it works and that it needs the theory and the safety to be covered for the certification. Once those two points are covered to the satisfaction of certification, then its off the market.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Gosh, sounds like you have had a look at IH’s long-term marketing plan. I for one don’t think IH ever intended to actually build a product. That has not been their game. Can you identify what other efforts resulted in a manufactured product?

  • Mats002

    I guess the production line in Sweden will be piece of cake. No bribery, fast governance paper handling, hard work willingness, no delays. Good choice.

    • Hey Tuttietattie

      .

      You are not wrong, Sweden is the third least corrupt country in the World.

      Denmark is first followed by Finland.

      http://tinyurl.com/n8hsych

      .

      • Omega Z

        ->”least corrupt”

        That’s like a women saying she’s just a little but pregnant.

      • kdk

        Well, USA’s place on there is better than the real thing… Last check was congressional approval rating of 11%… I imagine public perceptions on corruption will be a lot worse than that in the coming years.

        According to such numbers, it’s almost like there should be alternative parties running for office, alas, the media is totally complicit in this horror show too and the alternative parties never get any air time.

    • cashmemorz

      Don’t put in the final programming/code for the E-Cat producing robots until the safety certification organization has given their stamp of approval.

  • J Storrs Hall

    Imagine that a QuarkX is of similar manufacturing complexity to an E-cigarette. E-cigs went from a 40 million world market to 2.8 billion in 5 years.

  • pg

    I said this before, and I know I will be insulted for it. But I think they are getting a deal.
    If anyone wants to check (before you give me the troll medal), I was the first one (heavily insulted for it) that said that Rossi and IH had parted ways, and I got the royal troll treatment for it, Anyway It feels now like AR and IH are both stepping back and the lawyers are getting what they want. AR wants the money, IH wants Unicorns. The deal will go money wise a bit AR way and a bit IH way which will pay some of the contract money (around 20/30 mil.) AR will be able to develop EcatquarkX and IH will be able to default on all their investors money, before they default on all other bad investments.Cheers.
    PS. To any lawyer involved, I am actually joking about all of the above and do not seriously believe any person or company would behave this way because I believe in people’s honesty.
    Thank you

    • Gerard McEk

      In a capitalistic world honesty doesn’t play a role, just money.

      • cashmemorz

        Honesty or not, practicallity plays a larger role. In the end it will not be up to me or anyone on this peanut gallery that will require the theory and the safety. It will be the certification organizations such as the USA UL or Canadian CSA that will need these points to be in place before they allow their logo on LENR powered devices. That, also is business.

  • Richard Hill

    No one is talking about certification.
    As Rossi has said, certification for industrial use is quite different to certification for consumer use.
    If Rossi is planning to make millions of units, are there millions of prospective industrial customers?
    As Rossi has said himself, certification for consumer use can take years. Also the certification people that I know would want to study a product produced for consumer use, made by the exact process that the consumer product will be made. Can you visualise a factory making millions of units that are stockpiled until UL and TUV etc have gone through their processes?

    • Omega Z

      Residential/Consumers make up 1/3rd of the energy consumption.
      Everything else is Industrial/commercial.

      The real question is not is there a large enough market,

      BUT,

      How many decades will it take to fill the need???

      • cashmemorz

        The benign reason is certification based on theory and safety. Simple, realistic, practical and what’s best is it needs no cloak and daggers. Most people, organizations are honest. But on the other hand, intrigue gets more attention than does benign stuff.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Actually, certification will be done by those purchasing the Quarks. So if you building a
      beast master 2000 LENR Barbeque grill, then that manufacture will do the consumer
      certification.

      Same goes for a camping stove, or a refrigerator with a LENR cartridge that you replace once a
      year. And if an existing company that builds dryer and washers wants to use these devices, then the same again. So who builds the bolts, the dryer tumbler, the dryer motor etc. means it not the suppler of the parts that are certified, but the final product.

      So if one wants to produce a lighting system for a greenhouse based on the lighting produced by
      the LENR Quark, it is will be the lighting manufacture that gets the certification.

      From what Rossi stated, he only going to be a supplier of one small part to any kind of manufacture that wants to produce a device that runs on heat or light (and that is massive
      market).

      So the endless uses of the Quark are quite much the same as the battery industry. Toss in the heating ability of LENR and you cross over into anything that needs heat.
      So the commercial products based on the Quark are near endless. Any product that needs light or heat is a potential customer of the Quark – they will be the ones that certify their products, not Rossi.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Please add hot tub/steam room/sauna to your list of appliances. Otherwise, an excellent summary…

        • Rene

          More specifically, hot tubs over 104F were deemed too high a risk, hence why lockouts exist to prevent consumers from cranking them higher than that. This is what a US domestic cert looks like for a hot tub. It gets quite specific on many factors:

          http://www.nsf.org/newsroom_pdf/11804.pdf

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Interesting that it does not cover steam rooms or saunas. I first thought that “NSF” was the National Science Foundation — wrong. A quick search of their site did not cover those two facilities.

            Although I mentioned is “tongue in cheek”, there is a significant energy cost associated with heating water for spas (and pools). Many use heat pumps. I have no idea how the steam rooms operate. Saunas, except for the “old timed” ones heated by wood, usually use electric heating these days.

      • Ophelia Rump

        I wonder if it would be easier to get certification as a battery. It seems to me that even as parts you need to get them certified.

        Are you suggesting that they fall outside of certification regulations completely? As a new technology I think you might have a little more wiggle room to define what the thing is. I doubt you can sell a power source even as a component, without facing some kind of regulation.

        I would be tempted to classify it as a Catalytic Converter. There are clear guidelines for Catalytic converters. No exhaust pollutants here, passed!

        • cashmemorz

          In the end it will not be up to me or anyone on this peanut gallery that will require the theory and the safety. It will be the certification organizations such as the USA UL or Canadian CSA. that will need these points to be in place before they allow their logo on LENR powered devices.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Who is responsible for the determination of which certification type is required?
            It could be a battery, a nuclear reactor, or a catalytic converter. Who makes the call which certification agency is required and what the initial definition of the device type is? In the end it is the certification agency as you said, and in the beginning who directs the inventor to the appropriate certification authority, or does the inventor get to choose?

          • cashmemorz

            Whatever makes it acceptable in general use. For me its theory and safety to be used in my home. What would be the consensus? Lets start with each blogger and see what results.

          • Ophelia Rump

            I think we can all agree that we want it to be totally harmless, although few things in our homes truly meet that test.

            We also agree that some knowledgeable authority which specializes in certification should and will get to make the call. Except for in the UK where certification is voluntary.

          • Omega Z

            If everything in our home needed to be totally harmless, then Kids would be banned. Along with everything and everybody else. 🙂
            Ah Shoot, We allow politicians to exist. Show me 1 that is harmless. That’s living…

          • cashmemorz

            But if it is the politicians that decide which certification authority LENR is to be certified by, then it opens the road to blockage of undeterminate type. Then, if other countries, with more of a voluntary certification environment, start producing E-Cats, then countries with tighter regulations might not allow domestic units to be imported at all. Trans border business war? Smuggling. If the country I’m in refuses to allow domestic E-Cats and I have one, will my house insurance be voided? What could happen to the market in such cases?

          • Omega Z

            Industrial will be no problem.(Technicians 24/7) This will be followed by commercial. Unless they find a serious safety issue, it will become available for residential.

            I’m not into playing this card, But- If other countries find it safe and make use of it, all countries will have no choice but follow suit. To do otherwise would put a country at a great disadvantage..

            This is also a technology that I think will be made available to ALL nations including the likes of North Korea. Of course, they will have to pay for it like everyone else.

            I also think that LENR will be used for home heating, but that a grid of some sort will provide the bulk of electricity. for 1, I think it will be more economical and it also retains all the current convenience. People like their convenience.

            I also think it will be a 30 plus year transition. It’s a purely economic thing. This is also a plus as should it happen very fast, you could suffer a major economic collapse. In which case it could take a century to transition.

          • Omega Z

            As before, theory is not necessary.

            But if you want to go with consensus, try this.
            How much money is to be made? A) Gazillions$$$
            How many people may be hurt? B) 1000

            Divide A with B. Consensus- They are safe enough.

            Note: Did you know that 11 tires out of 100K suffering a catastrophic failure while driving down the highway is considered more then acceptable.

            If theory was required, we’d likely still live in caves.

          • The initial process is rather informal. Rossi would need to (individually) invite in technical reps from the major testing companies in Europe and the US, and discuss the matter with them, without holding back on the nature of the energy-producing process.

            If/when he finds a company that is willing to produce ‘Standards’ for cold fusion reactors for both US and European markets, he would contract them to do the work in the normal way. I think it’s likely though that the chosen company would need more than the usual level of assurance that the reactors are safe, i.e., a large heap of evidence proving safety under various fault conditions, including tests to destruction with appropriate instrumentation. It’s likely to be both an expensive and a long winded process.

            One way to lighten the load might be to lease the reactors and to supply the trained staff to operate them. The safety testing requirements would be slightly less onerous in this case – but still demanding.

          • Rene

            In the U.S. it is a number of testing and standards agencies. Certification comes with extremely specific conditions which must be met. Here is one example for a lithium battery, which for a domestic e-cat is a reasonable analog in the sense that things can go wrong, so the cert spells out physical requirements, protection means and methods, etc.

            http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=1642_5

      • TheRepublicIsDead

        Thanks, good info

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        No uncertified install a light bulb in the chandelier to get a headache for the certification of the entire device.

    • Jimr

      A 1 meg heat unit would require 10,000 , 100w cells ,so he would only need 100 sales to reach his million mark. I do think that would take a few years.

      • Brokeeper

        OK, in my perfect alternate universe I came up with the following algorithm for producing LENR plants in five years:
        I foresee one robotic machine spitting out three 1 x 30mm QXs per second. That would be 10,800/hr, 259K/day, and 94M/yr or at 100W/unit produce 9 – 1GW plants/yr.
        With 100 robotic machines per factory 900 – 1GW plants could be produced
        in one plant/year.
        As the money flows in, doubling the prefab manufacturing plants could be assembled ‘exponentially’ (per ARs response) every six months:
        (1 + 2) + (4 + 8) + (16 + 32) + (64 + 128) + (256 + 512) = 1,024 manufacturing plants built within five years. That provides nearly 900 1TW plants/year after five years. Accumulated over the five years it would be twice that amount of 1.8K – 1TW plants produced. OH OK, I had a glass of wine.

        • Omega Z

          Initially, Demand will outstrip supply. In time, supply will swamp demand just as solar panel production has done. Yet the world is still not powered by all solar.

          Demand isn’t so much about want, but the ability to pay. This is precisely why it will take decades to transition to LENR energy. This applies to individuals as well as business.

        • Brokeeper

          Oh I forgot, no squirrels exist.

  • Pweet

    Yes, I could, and if he had a web site which constantly stated they had robotized factories about to produce millions of ‘products’ then I probably would.
    I could say the same about Rohners Noble gas engine, Yildiz’s magic magnet engine, Stoen’s magic Orbo cube, and pretty much everything that appears on the PESN web site. They all fail to produce a working product in spite of them being on the brink for almost forever.
    I fully appreciate there are huge obstacles to overcome when trying to bring a new product to the mass production phase of development, specially when it is radically new. However, an essential part of that process is to convince the buying public that there is a need for whatever they are about to produce, and then most importantly, they have something which will fill that need.
    For the ecat, the first part of that was too easy. Everyone recognizes the need for cheap energy and would be happy to buy a product which would produce six times more heat than was put in. I would buy two. I haven’t been able to even see one. Not even a picture of one. I can’t even find a picture of someone who has seen a finished product. which to me proves there isn’t one. Five years later and there is still nothing; just more magic with factories on the drawing board.
    Mr Rossi seems to be having a lot of trouble with the second part of the process. and that is convince people that he has something which will fill than need by producing something which can be indisputably verified to work.
    The fact that he has been unable to accomplish this in five years, when it would be such a simple task, indicates there is something far more wrong with the process other than irregular results or not being able to fully control the reaction. The reality is, he has not been able to prove to the world that he has anything at all, controlled or not. That is incredible seeing as how he says he was heating a factory with the earliest and most primitive version for two years, or however long it was.
    There is a serious discontinuity of logic here which this long after the event can only be explained one way.

    • Omega Z

      Since at least 2005, Mills is always 6 months from market.

      All this has little meaning. In the real world, delays are common especially working in a new field of study. I’ll work this problem out in a few weeks can easily take years.

      Using existing technology and a world class Billion$ Corporation.
      Apple I-Phone between 6 to 8 years from concept to market.

      • Pweet

        Again, I agree. But Apple were smart enough to put their earlier products on the market and then go on with developing better versions. And why not? They can sell you a new one every time a better one is made. In the 1980’s through to now I bought computer gear knowing full well it would be obsolete in five years time. I still bought it.
        Mr Rossi could sell his earliest version. It would prove it works and he could go on to develop newer models every year and probably sell to the same customers who by then know it works. Here we are five years later with 99 percent of the population not believing any of it works.
        That is not a smart way to establish anything.

        • Omega Z

          It took Apple 6 to 8 years before the 1st I-phone sale ever took place. By Apple’s standard, Rossi still has 2 or 3 years ahead of him to make it to market and no such product of any version currently exists. Apple merely created an advanced Cell phone.

          • Pweet

            They sold computers long before that, so at least they had a reputation for producing something. Their plan to build phones was substantiated by their proven history of producing something, and more critically , something which worked. If their plan for i-phones fell in a heap they could still go on producing computers.
            I’m finding it hard to find anything that Mr Rossi has actually produced so as to establish a reputation for making products. I mean, products which worked. I can only find a string of non performance and disasters. Comparing Rossi to Apple is probably not a good example.

          • Omega Z

            Rossi actually had some lesser know patents on energy related products that sold. Of course these were minor improvements on existing products. You can make a buck, but it won’t make you rich.

            Rossi’s Petroldragon technology wasn’t new. Similar Technics had been used for decades. Rossi’s claim was his version did it economically. Those who appear to have copied his patent make the same claim today.

            If I recall, Rossi’s technology used a negative atmosphere capturing all the gases/fumes and cycled this to provide most of the energy to breakdown the organic compounds. The problem Rossi ran into was stepping on business interests of the wrong people. Recently, several of those people and a major politico went to prison for environmental crimes and corruption.

            The DOD TEG device was a contract to explore possibilities(Strictly R&D). This involved Multiple parties including a University of which Rossi was just 1. It was determined that materials and manufacturing wasn’t up to the task. Precisely what the DOD was trying to determine. This lead to future R&D funding for both material science and manufacturing technics.

            Anyone who has followed ECW knows that DARPA, DOD and other Government concerns do dozens of such projects every year. The purpose is to help move along certain technology to general use or to determine where the technology needs additional R&D to become useful.

            You see Rossi with a shady past. Having dug a little deeper, I see someone who has worked hard only to have others try and take from him. Those who know Rossi will say he can be a little hard to get along with. Having had my better nature abused many times, I also can be a little hard to get along with.

            Comparing Rossi to Apple is probably not a good example. You may be right.

            https://youtu.be/CW0DUg63lqU?t=10

    • Steve Savage

      One thing you might notice PWEET is that this is not PESN, and that the people here have been following the Rossi story for a long time and in great depth and detail. The same is NOT true for all those other stories found at PESN… they quickly lose their steam or are discovered as frauds or unworkable for many reasons.

      With Rossi we have a dedicated scientist/engineer who prevails against all obstacles and who will win most of the battles and the war. I agree, he may be too optimistic often times, perhaps that is a necessary characteristic for an inventor, but in Rossi’s case he does not let the natural optimism get in the way of the necessary and painstaking process of getting it all to work. Unlike you, I maintain my optimism and will do so until proven wrong. I have been following some of the stories on PESN over the years and they all only manage to hold my interest for a few days or maybe months. Rossi is different and I think there is plenty of evidence to show why and how he is different, but you disagree, so be it. One day soon one of us will be vindicated. Interesting times for sure!

      • psi2u2

        Very well put.

      • Pweet

        Quote from above;-
        “the necessary and painstaking process of getting it all to work.”

        But this is the whole problem He doesn’t. He keeps dumping the previous version without proving it works and goes on to the next, even though there is a ready market for the original. So far not even one of all these ecats has been indisputably proven to work, when it would be so easy to do so. That has been the big problem all along.
        If he could just prove one of them works as claimed I would join in the parade blowing his trumpet and singing his praise. As it is, my trumpet is packed securely away with no apparent prospect of it blowing so much as one note. (Probably just as well. I can’t play the trumpet.)

    • cashmemorz

      As I keep harping about the belief in Rossi versus knowledge about his E-Cat and how it works, its the knowledge involved with the theory of how the E-Cat works that is at core of delay. Without that its anybody’s guess how it really works. The lack of the secret sauce doesn’t help in getting at the theory. When that is known then the safety is mostly engineering and the back and forth between the certification agency to get their stamp of approval. These two points will get investors the last bit of convincing to invest, the factories to tool up and the consumers to buy.

      • MasterBlaster7

        Incorrect. A successful commercial product is needed to jump start Main Stream Science. Once money and brains pour fourth from MSS…that is when you will get your theory. Within 10 years, I would, conservatively, say. It would be nice if there was a theory first; but that is not the world we live in.

        But, consider this. If Rossi is to be believed;…a COP of 200….10% electricity….50% light….100% heat (all variable); Imagine the improvements if a sound theory is established.

        perhaps 20%, 30%, 50% electricity? 99.5% electricity?

        …I mean the holy grail has already turned into several holy grails before theory…think about that for a sec.

    • psi2u2

      And in your opinion, Rossi is just the same? I see many reasons to think otherwise.

      • Pweet

        Of course you can. You’re supposed to. That has been the main task of Mr Rossi for the last five years and he’s very good at it. I give him credit for that much at least.
        What we are not seeing is a working product that indisputably works, and for such a simple process as heating water, that is simply unbelievable after five years of trying.

        • psi2u2

          Of course it is. That is your assumption.

  • georgehants

    Good to look on the positive side and the one thing that Mr. Rossi has definitely achieved in the past five years is to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the existence of déjà vu

    • Gerard McEk

      I do not hope he will prove that for ever!

      • georgehants

        Gerard, ha, it is certainly time for a little humour as we wait for him to hopefully show beyond reasonable doubt that humanity can gain from his brilliant work. (if genuine)

  • Brokeeper

    Amos
    June 18, 2016 at 1:21 AM
    Dear Rossi,
    How long do you
    think the fuel mix would last if the Quark X is allowed to run indefinitely?
    Amos

    Andrea Rossi
    June 18, 2016 at 2:13 AM
    Amos:
    1 year.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    This is great news considering Quark X can be turned on and off within seconds, most likely extending the life of the unit’s life for months in many applications – a phenomenal performance.

    • DrD

      It’s useful lifetime might be less. I’m not saying it is but possibly the output falls, as we saw during the last weeks of the 1MW trial.

      • cashmemorz

        Rossi is answering to the “indefinitelt” time period. The maximum operating time that Rossi is aware of inside the indefinite running time allowed by the question can, in some realistic occasions, be as much as a year of -one charge- operation.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The tolerances for semiconductors was not as high as it is now when they were introduced either.

    The important factor is not the tolerances at which you are working, the critical value is the failure rate of the manufacture at the current level. An automated plant has never made hundreds or thousands of Quark-x cores, the rate of failure is a complete unknown. It could start out insignificant or be a substantial percentage.

  • Sorry clovis ray, but that can’t be the case as there is as yet no recognised ‘Standard’ against which to safety certify a cold fusion industrial plant. The Standard for industrial fuel cell plant are probably the closest thing available, but are not applicable in their present form.

    In any case, industrial plant is certified individually, not generically – i.e., each plant installed bust meet a whole raft of safety requirements for electrical, thermal, pressure integrity, environmental impact and operator safety.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Your thoughts are most likely correct, but whether something can be installed and operated is often covered by local zoning ordinances in the US. For example, if it connects to the power grid, is it covered by UL? CSA? TUV? Does it conform to fire safety standards? Is it structurally sound? Does it emit pollutants. I suspect that Rossi will find a customer who has a facility in a country or municipality that allows installation, say in an industrial facility with little or no certification.

      Then there is the fact that as a “research” device it can possibly be installed with little or no certification, provided the facility/organization so states that it is of research interest. I suspect that in the US, all of the government labs are suitable sites and will install a device, especially if it fits in their mission statement. NASA, DoD, DoE, even DoT are potential customers. In the US, aircraft are required to be tested prior to sale. On the other hand, there are Experimental Aircraft provided to kit builders that fly under an experimental exception. Each year thousands of them blot the skies over Wisconsin on the way to the Experimental Aircraft Association “Fly-In” in Oskosh, Wisconsin. On that week, Oskosh becomes the busiest airport in the world.

      And, of course, there will be countries who will set up shop for open commerce in LENR devices, trying to attract companies that will have a need for cheap thermal or light (or maybe even electrical) energy. Just look at the off-shore banking industry for an example.

      Finally, once it becomes apparent that this is a major ground-breaking technology, agencies like UL/CSA/TUV, etc. will start trying to out-compete each other to get a standard. I saw that happening in the Solar ratings when SRCC in the US could not meet a backlog of certifications — the European certification agency was allowed for US installation. I even participated in a test of a solar thermal array tested to “SRCC or equivalent” under the state laws here.

      I guess I don’t worry about certification in the short term. Longer term, for consumer products, the standards will evolve.

      • TheRepublicIsDead

        I believe he set up a test industrial unit in a Swedish concern. Have been searching and can’t find the story.

        • The only ‘certification’ of which there is a public record is the 2012 one conducted by SGS on a 1MW prototype in Italy. However this ‘certification’ was only against an EU ‘directive’ relating to safety of machinery in general (EU Directive 2006/42/EC Annex 1 – “Essential health and safety requirements relating to the the design and construction of machinery”). This is a voluntary certification that is not a part of the safety certification required for manufacture and sale, and in any case applies only to the prototype submitted to SGS.

  • Cashmemorez is correct. No industrial power plant would be permitted to operate without appropriate certification to ISO, ASTM, DIN, BS Standards (as appropriate) issued by a reputable test house such as UL, TE, BSI, TUV, et al.

    Safety certification can’t be obtained for prototypes (such as Quark X) and (AFAIK) there is no suitable Standards set in existence against which 1MW units could be certified.

  • OK – so what are the Standards Codes for cold fusion reactors, and which test house has issued safety certification for reactor core design and completed 1MW units? If you can’t answer that, please stop banging on about your claim that both have been completed – both Standards sets would be a matter of public record.

  • MasterBlaster7

    This is good news. From this point on, all I want to hear about is the progress towards industrialization. It is the only relevant hurdle left. Yes, the law suit. Yes, the theory. Yes, the proving it to skeptics…have all become tertiary. It is time to make the doughnuts.

    • Mats002

      Agree MB!

      The first market is central heating and/or electricity producers.

      No need for a perfect mass produced product like the IPhone.

      Just get on with it, install and educate the customer personell.

      The best product development happens at customer site together with customer insights of practice.

      Do not worry about delivery threatens IP security because

      a) Patents exist and
      b) The hard part is control, and those algoritms can be burried in a vast digital mesh that is not possible to reengineer in any short time frame.

      I see no reason to hesitate now.

  • MasterBlaster7

    5 years. I have been rolling that number around in my head, reading all of these posts.

    It has agreeable symmetry. 5 years ago this all started. 5 years from now this should be product. We have the 1 year test. We have the quarkX mini test. There are no more reasonable excuses left between now and product. 1-5 years…5 years being the upper bounds. No excuses beyond 5 years.

    Yep, my mind is made up. End of 2021 or bust. But, I hope for sooner.

  • MasterBlaster7

    The law suit could complicate the timing of decision to start in Florida. But, not in Sweden…..unless maybe he builds it in Florida and ships it to Europe? hmmmm…that just occurred to me.

  • clovis ray

    Frank, can we ask if you have any info on this subject, i just can’t remember, where it is in the archives. it was as i remember the largest certifier in the E.U
    we been through this time and time again, Dr. rossi can as for as i know sale in sweden, or any other country that they want, that will offer an operating license,

    • Frank Acland

      It was SGS who was the certifier for an early industrial plant

  • Rene
  • Thomas Kaminski

    Good job, Clovis. Your memory is sharp! I though it was not approved.

  • @ clovis ray

    As you say, prototypes may be tested by manufacturer’s trained personnel without more than basic safety documentation. How is that relevant to H&S certification for production purposes?

    The voluntary safety testing that Rossi had carried out in 2012 was specifically related to EU Directive 2006/42/EC (Annex 1), otherwise known as the Machinery Directive, as this applied to a prototype machine submitted to SGS Italy. https://docs.google.com/viewer?docex=1&url=http://www.fmmi.at/uploads/media/MRL_neu_engl_02.pdf

    Annex 1 of the directive – “Essential health and safety requirements relating to the the design and construction of machinery” – is a generalised set of health and safety provisions that relate to all machinery and which are designed to confirm that there are no unnecessary hazards from sharp edges, moving parts, hot surfaces, chemicals and so on, that basic operations such as starting and stopping work, that there are no obvious hazards when operating, and that the design and construction standards appear to be adequate. Certification of conformance to the Directive applies only to the machine submitted and cannot be used in connection with derived designs which would need to be re-submitted.

    As you seem not to understand the purpose and limitations of this certification I suggest you read the following summary provided by Intertek: https://docs.google.com/viewer?docex=1&url=http://www.intertek.com/uploadedFiles/Intertek/Divisions/Commercial_and_Electrical/Media/PDF/Industrial/Guidance-Machinery-Directive.pdf
    – you might also note the second and 14th items under 2) Exclusions.

    Confirmation that a prototype does not exhibit any obvious or avoidable hazards is not relevant to production of subsequently developed machines. Manufacturing production of a finalised design will require full certification to a set of recognised Standards covering all aspects of design, construction and operation specifically applicable to the type of device concerned, aka a ‘Certification Scheme’ as I’ve already tried to explain.

    As well as Standards relating to electrical heaters, pressure vessels etc., this would necessarily include a Standard relating specifically to LENR reactors, which does not (AFAIK) yet exist. I can only suggest that you visit some of the links below and educate yourself about what is involved in safety certifying a production boiler or generator design.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_certification
    http://www.sgs.co.uk/en-GB/Energy.aspx
    http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg436.pdf
    http://www.sgs.co.uk/en-GB/Industrial-Manufacturing/Services-Related-to-Production-and-Products/Product-Certification/Pressure-Equipment-Certification.aspx
    http://www.sgs.co.uk/en-GB/Industrial-Manufacturing/Services-Related-to-Production-and-Products/Product-Certification/Electrical-Installations-Certification.aspx

    The fuel cell example I provided previously might also be helpful:
    https://docs.google.com/viewer?docex=1&url=http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f12/csqw_radley.pdf

  • See reply above, re. SGS certification to EU Directive 2006/42/EC (Annex 1).

  • See reply above, re. SGS certification to EU Directive 2006/42/EC (Annex 1).

    http://disq.us/p/19bgxu7

  • Steve Swatman

    Integrity and honesty died with the slow but very deliberate deregulation of corporations and banking.

    There may some left in the poor masses, but most certainly there is no such thing above low to middle management.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Certainly agree. So often parts of a given assembly do have previous certification. It depends on the application, and I it not clear if the individual Quark-X will be certified separately, or as a final product (or both).

    The consumer side will certainly take longer and have many hurdles. However, the uses of these smaller LENR devices is near endless – it will be interesting to see what the first consumer LENR devices will be.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Rene

    Significant in that the Machinery Directive (2006/42/EC) annex 1, which is what the given cert is about, is primarily about machinery that is safe and is designed and constructed so that it can be used, adjusted and maintained throughout all phases of its life without putting persons at risk. Because annex 1 permits safety mitigation by protective measures and/or personnel training, it is suitable only in industrial use (trained operators) and most definitely not for domestic use. So, the big plants are cert ready for industry only, which is a good thing in that space.

    http://www.ab.com/en/epub/catalogs/3377539/5866177/3378076/7131353/print.html

  • OK, I give up. I’m sorry you find the language or the information I’ve tried to convey too difficult.

    ‘The nuclear’ has not ‘passed muster’ in the US or anywhere else – but ignorance is bliss. Just don’t be too surprised when health and safety certification in the US and Europe turns out to be a rather larger problem than you imagine.

  • sam

    Carolyne Vanbeek
    July 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    You had written that the robotized line has been already studied and designed with the help of the manufacturer, which is ABB: do you confirm this ?
    Thank you,
    Carolyne

    Andrea Rossi
    July 16, 2016 at 3:39 PM
    Carolyne Vanbeek:
    Yes, I confirm.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Mats002

      ABB as in Asea Brown Boveri?