E-Cat QX Goals Clarified (Update: ABB to Make Robots)

UPDATE (Jan 8, 2018)

Otto
January 8, 2018 at 5:08 AM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
Do you confirm that your robots will be made by ABB?

Andrea Rossi
January 8, 2018 at 9:19 AM
Otto:
Yes.
Warm regards,
A.R.

Here’s the summary of ABB from Wikipedia:

“ABB (ASEA Brown Boveri) is a Swedish-Swiss multinational corporation headquartered in Zürich, Switzerland, operating mainly in robotics, power, heavy electrical equipments, and automation technology areas. It is ranked 286th in The World’s Most Admired companies in the Fortune 500 global list of 2016. ABB has been a Global Fortune 500 company for 23 years.”

Seems like a very suitable company for Rossi to be working with he wants to build E-Cats with robots.

————————————————-

As many readers here will probably know, I have been asking questions on the Journal of Nuclear Physics trying to understand Andrea Rossi’s commercial plans for the E-Cat. Reading some of recent comments on the JONP, I have still had some confusion about the exact steps in his plans are, so I decided to ask a few more questions on the matter.

Here are my questions and AR’s responses.

Frank Acland
January 6, 2018 at 8:42 PM
Dear Andrea,

I’m trying to get a clearer understanding of your plans for the commercialization E-Cat.

1. Will the presentation of the first E-Cat QX product be made at the time you announce the launch of the E-Cat QX?

yes

2. Where will the presentation take place?

USA and Sweden

3. Will the presentation take place after the planned robotized lines have started operating?

yes

4. Where will the first robotized lines be operating?

USA and Sweden

5. Once you announce the launch and make the presentation, will industrial products be available immediately to buy and use, or will customers have to pre-order them and wait for them to be built?

The launch will be made when the product will be ready to buy and use

6. Will the robotized lines be making only the insides of the plants (i.e. E-Cats and controllers), or fully functioning completed plants ready to use?

it depends on the kind of applications

7. Do you plan for expansion of manufacturing following the product presentation?

yes

8. Do you think it is realistic to expect for this to all begin in 2018?

I dream of it and it is not impossible, albeit it will be very hard. But I am optimistic ( actually I always am and many times I am wrong ) after the developments we made from the Stockholm event up to now: I can assure you we have not spent this timeframe combing the puppets of my friend Thomas Florek.

Thank you for your responses,

Frank Acland

It’s certainly an ambitious plan, especially since he is planning for manufacturing in two countries. I suppose that they are thinking that that once they get a working product perfected, they want to have products ready for sale right away. Rossi admits that getting this all accomplished in 2018 is a hard goal, and so I don’t think we should be surprised that it doesn’t happen this year. If it happens at all, it will be a great accomplishment. Rossi is aware that he is not a young man, and I know that his goal is to see his technology used extensively worldwide in his lifetime, so I am sure he is giving it his all.

  • GiveADogABone

    I had thought that the product for sale would be heat.

  • Dr. Mike

    Perhaps a couple of good questions to ask Rossi would be: 1) Have you put together a plan for a timeline with important milestones that shows that product can be launched in 2018? and 2) Have all time milestones been met since the November demonstration? Rossi has made many comments about his “dreams”, however, I have seen no comments on having a plan that realistically shows a way of achieving a product launch in 2018. Does Rossi plan on introducing a product without any reliability testing of QX devices and modules that are manufactured on the automated line? If QX devices and modules manufactured on an automated line were available today, could the reliability be verified by the end of 2018? Unless Rossi has established some procedure for accelerating reliability testing, it may take 1-2 years just to verify reliability. I would think that a proper business plan would include delivering prototypes in a “beta test program” while reliability was being evaluated, rather than have a product launch when the product is ready to “buy and use”.

    • Vinney

      Did Steve Jobs release such a plan before the iPhone was introduced.
      Did he worry about the demise of many of the occupants in the marketplace, including giants as Nokia and Blackberry.
      Did he alert them to the performance and reliability characteristics of his product.
      Finally, was his product successful regardless of these shortcomings.

      • Dr. Mike

        Steve Jobs team spent 1000’s of man-hours making sure that the iPhone was reliable before releasing it to the public. The methodology for establishing reliable hardware and software was already well established. Rossi is promising the delivery of a new technology, therefore he does not have a reliability knowledge base similar to what Jobs had. Something more comparable would be to look at the reliability issues incurred by the first manufacturers of integrated circuits and the length of time it took them to deliver a reliable product.

        • HS61AF91

          I’ve been reading that folks are pretty peeved about iPhones being slowed down for battery conservation. Sometimes 1000s of man-hours just aint enough, while at other times, more than enough. Maybe selling heat to ‘3rd world’ countries who do not care too much for regulations and certifications, will happen, and the developed world will play catch-up. That would surely warm some ‘undeveloped’ populations, while demonstrating LENR’s prowess. Sort of free advertising. Or am I just dreaming again?

          • Dr. Mike

            I think the slowing down of the old iPhones was attempt to get people to buy newer models. Once the story got out Apple was forced to supply low cost new batteries for the old iPhones just to save face (and perhaps avoid some lawsuits). I don’t see regulations and certifications as a big factor in holding back the development of a QX product for industrial use. I expect that Rossi would not want to sell home units to even “undeveloped” populations until some third party certified the product was safe for home use.

        • LilyLover

          Since it’s a completely new domain of product category, by the time a framework for objections against the technology will be developed, the reliability testing would be proven. For initial sales, the certifications from SGS and the like will establish compliance with required regulatory needs. Dr. Andrea has been too smart to die at the hands of snakes, he won’t be too stupid to let the “regulations” steal/kill his E-CatQX baby.
          So, yes, he may not have established methods of reliability testing from IEEE procedures, but, then again, he will not have established modes of failures through corporate snakism through established modes of objections, either!

          • Dr. Mike

            I don’t see regulations as being a big issue for industrial applications. However, I think the time required to solve engineering issues and verify reliability of both the QX devices and the modules will be take much longer than Rossi anticipates, assuming he plans to verify reliability before beginning to sell products.

        • Vinney

          He built the last 1MW prototype in less than 2 months with staff of less than 10.
          He learned a lot from running that himself for one year for 16 hours per day to be forced to develop the Ecat QX.
          In the back of his mind all along was manufacturing and reliability whilst observing the faults in the last 1MW plant.
          The last year has been spent refining and testing the performance reliability of the QX module (not merely if it switched ON and OFF, but also if it reached several control temperatures, and stayed there for a predetermined, or even random generatex period of time before switching down).
          I believe the controller and Ecat QX shown off in Stockholm is not the latest generation (probably very hard to control, hence his concern before and during the test) just in case it was stolen or even confiscated.
          He is a notorious ‘multi-tasker’, and has been working on several issues at any one time. How he handled the court case whilst further developing the Ecat QX is example of that.

          • Dr. Mike

            I certainly agree with you that Rossi puts in long hours, but I don’t see how he learned much from operating the 1MW plant that is directly applicable to the reliability of the QX device. You certainly seem to have more knowledge than me on the reliability testing that Rossi has done in the past year. Perhaps you could describe the experimental work Rossi did on “reaching control temperatures” and explain how this is a factor in the measurement of device reliability? It seems to me the measurement you are describing is more in line with a determination of the reproducibility of a device output for a given input, rather than a measure of reliability. Do you know how many QX devices were used in reliability tests? Do you know how many controllers Rossi has built for reliability tests run in the last year?
            Since I have never worked with Rossi, I really can’t comment on his ability to multitask. However, most of the tasks critical to getting the QX device into production don’t seem to fall within Rossi’s areas of expertise- electrical design of the controller, robotics equipment design, heat transfer and electrical layout skills for the module design, and finally marketing skills needed to pick the best initial products and then sell those products to potential customers.

      • Rene

        Steve Jobs and the people who worked for him, knew what they were doing, knew what it took to get things done, had a schedule, and got many products out on time. In other words we had a track record. Rossi has no track record, not even close yet. It is appropriate to ask questions like this of him.

      • roseland67

        Vinney,

        Steve Jobs has/had many products that worked, many millions of people tested and verified this, anyone, anywhere could see them every day,
        Rossi and his Ecat? Not so much.

    • AdrianAshfield

      If I were in Rossi’s position I would find your questions 1 & 2 to be insulting and well beyond what should be asked about private business. Perhaps you would like to see his private diary too?

      The only thing that worries me about Rossi’s response the Frank’s questions was the lack of time for testing the modules. Unless, as previously suggested, he will start testing hand made modules of X’s earlier.

      • Dr. Mike

        I believe that all potential customers for Rossi’s QX products should be asking exactly these questions- I might agree that Rossi may not want to provide an answer to the first question to the general public. I agree that there is a lot of work to do develop and test a module before it can be integrated into a product..

        • Omega Z

          I don’t see this as a problem as each Lithium battery is charged then discharged before assembly into car battery pack before shipping from the factory. Many products are pretested..

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Maybe Rossi is planning to use a qualification test where each reactor is run only for a short time such as a few hours. Since handmade models have already worked for months, it may be plausible to expect that robot-made ones will typically fail completely or run for months.

        • AdrianAshfield

          You are missing the point. Beyond testing of the QX reactor (that has had considerable testing) There is a need to test assemblies of QX reactors that will be the basis of commercial units.

        • Omega Z

          One of Rossi’s post indicated that each assembly will be test run before shipping or installation. I don’t see this as a problem as each Lithium battery is charged then discharged before assembly into car battery pack before shipping from the factory. Many products are pretested..

    • causal observer

      Dr. Mike, Is your estimate of reliability testing based on 1) having a final design for the QX core, through lots of R&D, and 2) then testing that design for a very long time? Most of everything else can be designed and even prototyped in parallel, waiting for the core. They might even do parallel testing in R&D, if they have enough coins (and NDAs). However, I can’t offhand think of a way compress the “duration test” timeline. If the QX core is thought of as an arc lamp, Rossi et al may be able to borrow some techniques from how those are manufactured. Except I don’t know how they would be able to predict how long the “cathode” and “anode” would last, those being the key to the whole setup. Particularly since they do not have a reliable theory to base the predictions on, that we know of. Hmm….

      • Dr. Mike

        I would say my time estimate to achieve and verify reliability is based primarily on my experience with the time it took to verify the reliability of new semiconductor manufacturing processes. Even starting with a good knowledge of failure modes and mechanisms and using accelerated life testing, introducing just one new piece of equipment into the process line could easily take 3-6 months to verify reliability. (Old equipment is used until reliability is verified when using the new equipment.) Rossi appears to be in a position where failure modes and mechanisms are not well investigated, and there does not seem to be any methods developed for accelerated reliability testing. In one of my previous posts I recommended that Rossi carefully investigate reliability of hand made devices (determine failure mechanisms, failure modes, and establishing methods of accelerated testing). If this had been done, there would have been a lot of information available once he was ready to verify the reliability of robotically manufactured devices. My guess is that there really hasn’t been that many QX devices built to a single specification, and there are not a large number of controllers available to drive the hundreds of devices that would have been necessary to investigate reliability (other than the ability to turn a device on). I certainly think that reliability testing on the devices can be done in parallel with building the initial modules and beginning reliability testing on them. However, without having a year or so of reliability testing of hundreds, if not thousands of devices already completed (and several reliability issues already solved), I can’t see how Rossi will achieve a reliability satisfactory for commercial sales within less than a year after beginning testing. Rossi’s “plan” would be much more believable if he was claiming the initial product was prototypes for beta testing (no real guarantee of reliability), rather than a reliable product ready for sale. Perhaps in a future post I will make an argument why I don’t even believe prototypes would be available until sometime in 2020.

        • Axil Axil

          https://src.alionscience.com/pdf/S&PSYSREL.pdf

          One way of improving system reliability is to add parallel redundancy to selected component(s) of the existing system. If the QX is a truly reduncent component, then the total system can handle a initial high failure rate in the QX.

          The E-Cat reliability is not constrained by the reliability of the QX. It is only constrained by the reliability of the single points of failure in the E-Cat.

          • Dr. Mike

            You are correct that redundancy can be used to to improve the overall reliability of many systems, provided failure modes and mechanisms are well characterized. As long as the failure of one device does not compromise the operation of other devices, it should be possible to greatly improve product reliability by adding redundancy. (If one device of 200 parallel connected devices fails as a short circuit, all 200 devices would probably fail to turn on at their next off-on cycle.)

        • Omega Z

          There are robots of every imaginable design already in existence today. It is mostly a matter of configuration. Kind of like LEGO blocks. Only a small percentage of new attachments may be needed and they can quickly and easily be made with 3D printers. What use to take 6 months can be done in a few weeks You can be sure ABB already uses 3D printing.

  • 😀
    Note the expression ‘combing the puppets’ which in Italian (pettinare le bambole) is an expression, used particularly in Milan where Rossi comes from, meaning that you have really nothing useful to do. Since Milan is the most productive part of Italy, it’s filled with people who work a lot or at least think that they have lots of important things to do. And to point this out, they’d say: ‘sono mica qua a pettinare le bambole!’ (I’m really not here combing the puppets!). Very Rossi 🙂
    http://www.sapere.it/sapere/dizionari/neologismi/gergo/pettinare-le-bambole.html

    • Thomas Florek

      and the poor puppets have to go around with messy hair…how unthoughtful! 🙂

    • Gian Luca

      Dear Mats,
      yes…..this is a tipical italians expression for to say “I have no time to lose in useless things”.
      Recently the phrase has been used several times by Italian political figures to make it clear that they are working ……..
      but you are right….Very Rossi…. 🙂

  • LilyLover

    US corporations have lost so much leverage that they cannot afford to lose leverage at much faster rate. Ratio of food cost to energy cost is too high in USA and too low in the China. When that ratio equalizes, then the March of Chinese dragon onto each technological sector would decimate every US industry including technology sectors. Eventually, that’ll reduce American skill-set to “I look beautiful, so pay me UBI.” That’s not far from truth. At least for now, before the advent of laser weapons, the US can threaten and extort from the globe. Energy abundance will eradicate that leverage.

    • Omega Z

      The U.S. has some of the cheapest food in the world with the exception of eating in restaurants.

      As to manufacturing, In the automated world and robots, The cost of products are pretty much the same no matter where you manufacture them. There are many imported products to the U.S. that can be manufactured and sold cheaper in the U.S..

      What many don’t grasp is that the U.S. policy for decades has been to export jobs to other countries. It’s called wealth redistribution. The main tool the U.S. has used to implement this is taxes from the corporate level all the way down to the consumer. The U.S. also places export taxes on many U.S. products to make them more expensive in foreign nations as well as import taxes applied at the foreign nations end. China applies as much as a 100% import tax(or more) on some U.S. products to keep them from being competitive with Chinese products. The public image seldom reflects reality of what takes place behind the scenes.

      • LilyLover

        “It’s called wealth redistribution.”
        >>
        It’s more like tedium redistribution or drudgery offshoring. It’s freeing “our” masses from real work and inflating the work-hour value solely based on military might and lack of consequences for non-repayment of debt. Thus we engage “others” to produce fruits for our servitude.

        “U.S. policy for decades has been to export jobs…”
        >>
        The policy in nutshell has been — Why work? It’s easy to rob and be rich.

        Most of my fellow Americans are immune to this truth, no matter the education level.

      • LilyLover

        Food as a fraction of hourly wages is the cheapest in the US.
        In other words, rest of the World, including Europe, works way too hard to consume equivalent food. These benefits come from being powerful.

        • Omega Z

          Has nothing to do with being powerful. It’s about being innovative and quick to adapt new technologies. You’ll also find about 50% of U.S. farmers have college degrees. You’d be surprised at the number who have mechanical engineering degrees. They can be very creative in designing improvements in farming equipment and then sell the rights to manufacturer’s. This all leads to being more productive which leads to lower cost product..

          Shifting jobs to poor countries allows it’s people to earn their own keep. (Give a fish or teach to fish). China wouldn’t be creating a large middle class had jobs not been transferred there. Perhaps you would prefer they stayed poor peasants.

          Another surprise. The U.S. is still the #1 leading manufacturer in the world.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    When I think of the energy of the QX being used to make QXs, this is what comes to my mind.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsfiUR0ZzLw

  • Gerard McEk

    Would Andrea really start to production locations more or less at the same time? I would gather that he would sort out the most efficient production at one location first. Let us hope he really succeeds such an ambitious plan.

    • Vinney

      The reason is more to distribute risk.
      Rossi is worried that patent ‘trolls’ will work with authorities (including competitors and incumbants) to block his progress.
      He wants to continue to move forward regardless of such impediments.
      I also recently recommended a good ‘pilot’ market for his device, and that is Brazil.
      They have been waiting for this opportunity a long time to progress ahead of North America and Europe.

    • TomR

      Gerard, it looks like there is a parrot repeating your words in a post above.

  • sam

    domenico canino
    January 8, 2018 at 2:00 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    How many e cat quarks will you assemble in your first industrial prototype to test the controller, design of heat exchanger, reliability?
    i wish you the best

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    January 8, 2018 at 5:30 AM
    Domenico Canino:
    1 MW of power.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dr. Mike

    Good to see confirmation that Rossi’s robotic assembly efforts are backed by this strong company.

    • roseland67

      Dr. Mike,

      A confirmation by ABB that they are working w/Andrea Rossi on automating
      some kind of Ecat product manufacturing cell would add credence to another “Rossi says”

      • Dr. Mike

        You are certainly correct!

      • LarryJ

        Industrial concerns may comment on their own business plans but they certainly don’t comment on their customer’s plans.

        • Dr. Mike

          You are also correct!

  • akupaku

    Usual but unrealistic optimism from Rossi that we have seen many times before during the years. A more realistic view is a time scale of a few years before any large scale usable and well working production will be seen. First production rounds will have unexpected and unforeseen problems both in the reactors and the control systems and it will take a couple of years and several redesign rounds to iron out these problems. At worst case Rossi dies before and takes his secret formula into the grave with him and we will wait a decade before others catch up to the same level. I hope I am wrong but this is the realistic forecast.

    • scottlshman

      .

      In 1939 Ernst Heinkel demonstrated a turbojet fighter aircraft to several senior nazis. They told him it was a novelty item and would not be needed in WW2.

      In 1943 the nazis realised that a jet fighter was urgently need to counter the waves of allied bomber who every night were wrecking the nazi war machine, and various German cities without any military manufacturing industry.

      They had thrown away a four year lead because hitler did not like Ernst Heinkel.. Apparently when the nazis had put up a flagpole with a swastika outside Heinkel’s factory Heinkel had torn it down and replaced it with a German flag. Goering. himself had to intercede and he told Heinkel that he could only defy Hitler for so long then he would be arrested and sent to concentration camp.

      So, the flag was re-instated but Heinkel was henceforth more or less ignored by the nazis. Interestingly the Messerschmitt 264 was nearly a carbon copy of Heinkel’s He280 fighter.

      The moral of the story is: It isn’t what you know but who you know that matters.

      Andrea Rossi’s ideas and eCat will undoubtedly be copied by othere but he still has a lead over them and the longer it takes to bring product to market the closer his competitors will be to replicating his ideas.

      .

    • Omega Z

      Rossi is partnering up so it will no longer just be Rossi.

  • Frank

    I wonder why nobody seems to care anymore about Rossi’s past statements on having reached Sigma 5 (whatever this may mean in his opinion). If true, what he claimed, he must have passed all R&D phase, must have an almost certified, well tested, and well designed and reliable device (aka “product”) which is ready to be produced by his robots in millions…so no need for further design changes.
    He must have made a joke (some may call it a lie?) and seems probably still (far?) away from a real product to manufacture and sell, otherwise this current discussion or his statements and comments from the folks here would not fit to the Sigma 5 story…
    Building up a robotic production line, that delivers millions of little QX stickers to be bundled in tons of MW plants for generating heat requires a product that is ready and working. Did anybody see a product? I did not. What was on the desk in Stockholm was not even a proof of a product. if Rossi had what he claimed (Sigma 5!!) then this entire event was simply a farce…and hard to believe that this did convince investors to spend millions in robotized factories….

    • sumdum

      I think it was pretty clear from the public demo late last year that Sigma 5 applies to Rossi’s control system. Likely the major breakthrough of the ECat QX is that it can be cycled on and off. In the demo, it looked like it was being cycled on and off (and thereby maintained in stable performance over time) every few seconds. Sigma 5 therefore probably refers to the number of on/off cycles without failure.

      Elsewhere in the sciences, 5 sigma refers to a 1-in-3.5-million probability, so likely that is the number of cycles Rossi needed the ECat QX controller to perform reliably without failure. There are 31 million seconds in a year, so depending on how frequently the system cycles, it could take many months to reach 3.5 million cycles. That is likely what he was working all last year to achieve, and that he finally reached in “Sigma 5” shortly before the demo. It’s also likely why he was able to set a timeline when he knew if would be achieved.

    • Dr. Mike

      Based on Rossi’s statements, it appears that his achievement of “5 sigma” is in a single reliability factor, that is, the ability to turn the QX device “on” and “off” successfully some large number of times. Although it is fairly obvious that the ability to turn “on” and “off” a device that is to be operated in an on and off mode a large number of times is one of many factors that should be measured to verify reliability, this verification probably represents well less than 5% of the effort really needed to establish a reliable product. I think that all the time Rossi claimed he was working toward 5 sigma reliability, most observers assumed he was doing comprehensive reliability testing toward a real 5 sigma achievement. It appears there is still a lot of work to verify reliability of the QX device (and eventually the modules using these devices).

  • Acecrafter99

    Would Andrea really start to production locations more or less at the same time? I would gather that he would sort out the most efficient production at one location first. Let us hope he really succeeds such an ambitious plan.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Just because Dr. Rossi says that ABB will build robots doesn’t mean that any robot factory will be forthcoming. We have seen claims of robot factories by Dr. Rossi before.

    We need Rossi to start building some ECAT QX’s and SHIP them to customers so that we see them in the market as confirming evidence that this is more than a plan. I hope Rossi will indeed do this, but without further evidence, it remains a hope.

    • cashmemorz

      I wonder how litigious ABB is to slander: regarding someone lying about their involvement in a project involving them based on a false premise or out right lie? Could Rossi be laying the ground work for his demise by calling out ABB to risk all?

      • Dr. Mike

        Since ABB is a company that manufactures and sells robotic equipment, there can be no slander on libel by Rossi saying or writing that he intends to buy his robots from ABB. There might be a problem if Rossi claimed there is a contract to purchase robotic equipment if there really was no contract. Also, Rossi should be able to change his mind up to the point where a contract is signed.

        • Vinney

          Looks like Rossi was much further in product development using the Ecat QX than his recent demo made out.
          I hope his 1MW product has the option of 1MW conversion to power (CHP) using something like Climeon technology.
          I am pretty certain that Climeon has had a big injection of funds from the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund to have developed such a world class product.
          From power densities previously mentioned by Rossi, this means genset footprints smaller than half a shipping container.

          • Dr. Mike

            It would have been huge error in marketing strategy if Rossi was further along in product development than he demonstrated in November. I have seen nothing in Rossi’s recent statements that indicates product development is further along than shown in the November demonstration.

  • Alan DeAngelis
    • Brokeeper

      Great analysis and visual, Alan. Rossi`s goal is to keep it below as long as possible before mass commercialization. His public announcement of production will be surely put it above. I’m sure there will be a selected very few companies that will be testing first products before that announcement.

  • LilyLover

    “It’s about being innovative and quick to adapt new technologies.”
    >>
    With initial advantage of massive surplus robbing, there is ample worry-free time to “be busy innovating” while the rest still need to work thrice as much harder to scrape by and thus no time left for innovation and patent-parasitism through laws enforced by military might.
    Declining the existence of favorable starting point, damages your self esteem, I get it.

    “You’ll also find about 50% of U.S. farmers have college degrees.”
    >>
    American college degrees still cannot produce European equivalent of an 8th grader.
    Coursework is too light, too shallow, and the definition of learning is “coming across a topic”.

    “You’d be surprised at the number who have mechanical engineering degrees.”
    >>
    No I wouldn’t. I attend farmers conventions. But, again, a Mechanical Engineer from non-top-10 US schools are still worse than an average “Mechanic” or “foreman” from Europe. Educational standards in US are too low to be proud of a “degree in Mechanical Engineering”.

    • greggoble

      Funny nonsense… A poem comes to mind. Frame it.

    • Omega Z

      Sounds like a koolaid overdose and lost all contact with reality.

  • greggoble

    If one considers the LENR Quark X (E-Cat QX) – Beyond the most efficient Carnot cycle… heat to electricity.
    The QX delivers heat as a by-product… not electricity. This is a reverse formula. Go figure.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The launch will be made when the product will be ready to buy and use.
    This requires a considerably larger investment up front.

    Earlier it was said that they would not be selling the devices but the energy produced, is that no longer true?

    These are indicators of a high confidence level in Dottore Rossi’s backers.

    I seriously wonder if the product will be sold for personal use in Sweden, this really sounds like that is a potential.
    If that happened, the US might be motivated to approve the home use certification quickly, before other markets grab the financial benefits for their own economies. The increase in personal spending power for the average person would be insane.

  • sam

    Donald Anderson
    February 3, 2018 at 3:10 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Are all the components of the control box off the shelf, or you had to invent something that is not already ready for sale?
    Cheers
    Don

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    February 3, 2018 at 8:36 AM
    Donald Anderson:
    Some of them had to be invented and made from scratch.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.