Rossi: E-CatQX Prototype Ready, Robots Not

There have been some interesting comments from Andrea Rossi today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics regarding progress on the production of the E-Cat QX.

January 11, 2018 at 2:46 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Did you make progress from the day of the convincing demo of Stockholm on November 24 to now?
Best Regards

Andrea Rossi
January 11, 2018 at 5:09 AM
Yes, we made a strong progress. I think now we have ready the prototype to be industrialized.
Warm Regards,

Frank Acland
January 11, 2018 at 6:49 AM
Dear Andrea,
1. Does the “prototype to be industrialized” include both the E-Cat QX and the controller?
2. Does this mean you have solved the controller overheating problems?

Andrea Rossi
January 11, 2018 at 9:26 AM
Frank Acland:
1- yes
2- yes
These two months have been dense.
Warm regards,

Italo R.
January 11, 2018 at 9:31 AM
Dear Dr. Rossi, you have written:

“…I think now we have ready the prototype to be industrialized…”

It’s really great!

Have you already a robot working to try to build that prototype?

Andrea Rossi
January 11, 2018 at 10:03 AM
Italo R.:
Not yet. It will be not a robot, it will be a series of robots.
Warm regards,

Having a working prototype with a working controller would be very good progress. I would imagine that a lot of work will need to be done now to get to a point where they can build the same thing with Robots. However if ABB is the partner working with Rossi, as he reports, then they will have a lot of experience and expertise to help accomplish this. Here’s a demo of how precise they are getting with their robotics:

  • Dr. Mike

    It is good to see that Rossi is finally talking about a “prototype phase” of his business plan. I’m not sure what he means by “we have ready the prototype to be industrialized”, but it is good to hear the controller over heating problem is fixed. The answers to a couple more questions would be helpful in understanding what has been accomplished in the last 2 months:
    1. Has the final design and specifications for the QX device been established?
    2. How many QX devices have been operated at one time by the new controller? (Not how many can it control.)
    3. What is the input power to the new controller when it is operating the maximum number of devices that you have tried to operate at one time?

    • Dr. Mike

      One more question:
      4. How many QX devices have been manufactured (by hand) that were made to the exact specifications of the three QX devices that were used in the demonstration?

  • CWatters

    We still have no real idea what Rossi is actually going to make. If I had invented a new heating device/element there is no way I’d just set up a factory to make millions of them. I’d want to work with a company that uses a lot of heating elements in their products – perhaps a hair dryer manufacturer – and design one that’s a drop in replacement for their existing element. Then I might want a contract committing them to purchasing a minimum quantity before I committed to building a factory. But I suppose it’s his money at risk so who cares.

    • Dr. Mike

      I agree with you, except I think Rossi needs to pick an initial product with an industrial use so that the certification process is easier. I don’t really see how Rossi can even design the first QX module unless he knows exactly what is required of that module in its specific application. Perhaps when he says that he has “ready the prototype to be industrialized”, he means he has a design completed for a generic QX module?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Yes I think that’s what he means. In Stockholm he already had the QX, but the controller was still too bulky to be commercially feasible. Now they have re-engineered the controller. (I don’t have any inside info, this is just based on JONP.)

  • Dr. Mike

    I don’t see certification for safety as being a major obstacle as certification for industrial use should be a fairly straightforward process unless the certifier finds a major problem. Rossi did get the first generation e-cat device certified for industrial use. As far as efficiency goes, I believe both customers and investors will require an independent test of efficiency.
    In some of my previous comments I have raised the marketing issue which you so well discussed above. Perhaps, Rossi wants to make sure the robotic manufacturing works before he launches a marketing campaign? Another issue which hasn’t had a lot of discussion is just how many QX devices has Rossi built that are identical to those used in the demonstration. Maybe the only way to manufacture enough QX devices to be able to assemble a prototype is build them using robotics?

  • Gerard McEk

    Now the new controller seems to be ready, it must be also known what the overall COP will be like. Now it is easy to check this by measuring the input power at mains side and decvide it by the generated heating power of the reactor cluster. Would it still be in excess of say 10?

    • Vinney

      As an Electrical Engineer, don’t you get that the controller uses the same power to control 100 QX devices ( and that particular ‘bulky’ controller shown in the demo, probably more) in which the energy output would 50 times more (as there were 2 QX modules).
      I won’t even bother with the concept that ‘cooling’ ( the fan power usage) could be thermalised with water cooling and thus ‘pre-heat’ the water.
      I mean, how many times do these points have to be raised.

      • Mylan

        Maybe one controller can run so many QXs without much more input power (an input power we by the way don’t even know at all), maybe not. Nobody has seen it, it’s just Rossi says.

      • Dr. Mike

        It is more likely the the controller input power is a constant value plus an additional amount that is some function of the number of devices being driven (perhaps a linear function). Rossi now claims to have the over-heating problem fixed on the controller, so there should not be an issue with him revealing what the input power is to the controller for some number of QX devices being driven.

      • Gerard McEk

        That’s rubbish Vinney. If it were the case that the dissisiation in the demonstration controller would stay the same for 100 QX’s as for the three demonstrated, then AR would have shown that and allowing for input measurement at the mains side. That would have been a convincing demo if the COP would have been > 1. I am sure the the deemoed controller couldn’t drive 100 QX’s. It had already difficulties with three, it seems.
        But let’s be optimistic. Now the controller is under control, it is more likely that production will take-off and a commercial proof of performance comes nearer.

  • Dr. Mike

    Very consistent with my own thoughts.

    • Vinney

      Are you familiar with the concept of ‘mass produced’.
      Mass produced means you are getting a much cheaper product because it is produced massively, meaning that you can get two or even three times the produce compared to ‘engineered’ or ‘bespoke’.
      I will conjure a simply example, should an industrial customer Require 2.5k Lt per hour of water at 800 degrees C , and plant capacity is 1000 Lt per hour to maximum 1200 degrees C, the customer would be wiser (with his money) to buy three mass produced plant at 1MW each.
      At the Stockholm demo, Rossi introduced you to the concept of efficiency, the QX were running at 30% efficiency (not to be mistaken for duty cycle which I will explain shortly).
      If a customer needs just 400 degree water at 1000 Lt per hour, he would still buy the 1 MW plant and run at 30% efficiency.
      An intelligent question you could ask Rossi is, at 30% efficiency, would the fuel last three times as long, because as a purchasing decision it would by amortized over three times the length of a full-duty-cycle period .
      Finally, regarding duty-cycle, should the customer require 1200 degree heat (2.5k Lt per hour) for sites for 12 hrs, 6 hrs and 3hrs per day, his ‘mass-produced’ plant cost (fuel) would be amortized over 2, 4 and 8 years respectively.
      What I am trying to point out is that a mas-produced 1 MW plant can meet a lot of needs economically, without much factory modification.

      • Dr. Mike

        My guess is that will take a different module design to produce steam as compared to a module that is designed to produce hot water. If a customer wants hot air, there would have to be a separate module designed for this. Also, many customers using steam, may very well want super-heated steam. This would probably take a special module design to handle the high pressures associated with super-heated steam. I agree with you that efficiency and duty-cycle are factors in determining the overall cost of the product, however, you lost me when you talk about water at 400C, 800C or 1200C. A system would have to be at an incredibly high pressure for water to exist at a temperature of 1200C.

        • Vinney

          I was going on some figures of last plant, and agree 1200 degrees C is probably to high for this introductory version (to much pressure on pipes, pumps and fittings).
          Also a good question to ask Rossi, what will be the minimum performance parameters the 1MW plant are going to achieve. Probably the maximum (limiting) parameters are confidential.
          The minimum should be relatively easy to engineer, but the figures (like the last 1MW prototype) should sufficiently impress us, and furthermore give us something to think about.

          • Vinney

            Thinking about it, he may just be making a heating element with a wide range of industrial uses from heating air to fluids, and the customers adapt it into boilers or cylinders. It has a wide range of operational parameters, ie; temperature and pressure and differing fluids.
            The control box is cabled to the heating element and situated near all other controls.
            The heating element (rated at 1 MW) is bolted onto the cylinder and is easily replaceable in minutes of downtime.

          • Dr. Mike

            Assuming Rossi designs his initial product only after an extensive marketing effort determines what initial product would fit the need of a number of customers, he shouldn’t have any problems selling his initial product. (This also assumes his has proven the reliability of that initial product.) However, to develop a “massive” market, he will have to custom design modules to meet customer specific applications. In my opinion Rossi should develop initial prototypes to address at least a few “heat markets”, such as hot air, hot water, and steam (at some reasonably high pressure). (See my 10/29/2017 post for more details.)

          • Vinney

            Yes! As I said above, he will be delivering heating elements with a range of operational parameters that can heat air, gases (non- reactant of course) and fluids (non-reactant ) that customers can easily bolt onto their boilers and in-line cylindrical chambers.
            The heating element (rated at 1MW) is bolted in and the controllers are cabled beside their other control equipment.
            Swapout of the elements (fuel) will take minutes of downtime.
            Modifications can easily be made to existing equipment to accept the Ecat QX heating element.
            This industrial market would be $trillions in value and by far the best way to introduce the Ecat to industry.

          • Dr. Mike

            If Rossi decides to sell heating elements for manufacturers to “bolt onto” their existing equipment, they would want to extensive reliability data before considering to adapt their equipment to a new technology. Once Rossi’s technology is proven reliable, most manufacturers will want a custom design of a module that fits their application.

          • Vinney

            That is why he spent soo much time developing the EcatQX, whilst he was experiencing the handicaps of the low temperature Ecat.
            You will find the mass-produced introductory 1MW heating element is extremely versatile and safe under a wide variety of load conditions.
            Even water heated by this plant will be potable, and air heated breathable.
            The reason is the QX have a low breakage (fracture and shatter) and even when a small number do, the amount of nickel and other elements in supply of air or water would not be harmful.
            Initially only the one module will be offered to fit into the largest number of boilers, air heaters and to add in-line to industrial processes.
            It will be cheaper for companies to add a 1MW Ecat QX than only the required 100KW, 200KW or 500Kw, in diesel, gas or solar generated respectively.
            Especially considering maintenance cost as well, I mean a 100KW requirement will only need recharging after 10 years.
            I mean the time period sounds soon long that an intelligent question to ask Rossi is, ‘Does the fuel expire, does it have a length of time, even on a low duty cycle where the fuel is no longer effective and need replacement’.
            I mean, if the hydrogen is stored in a hydride, it must slowly leak out.

          • Dr. Mike

            Although considerable work has been done on the QX device (although not enough have been made yet to evaluate reliability), work is just beginning on the development of a module to make use of the heat generated by the QX devices. Even if Rossi had a large marketing staff and a large product development staff, which he doesn’t, he would not be able to develop an initial product that would be able to do all the things that you claim. My recommendation is that if you have some ideas that would make an initial product more universal, you share those ideas with Rossi so that they can be incorporated into the initial design. My guess is that if you are a mechanical engineer with a specialty in heat transfer modelling, you could provide some real assistance to Rossi’s initial product development.

          • causal observer

            Comment moved.

          • Vinney

            According to you, its miraculous that he even built the Doral 1MW plant.
            It may have needed 16 hours a day of his casual attention, but it did run autonomously for 8 hours per day.
            Hang on, he has also built two other 1MW low temperature plants.
            The main faults with them were the fittings needed attention because of leakages, due to temperatures and pressure.
            Supplying a compact heating element only, removes the necessity of dealing with plumbing and many other plant issues.

        • Omega Z

          Rossi only needs to build a few units in collaboration with others. Beyond that, Rossi will only need to manufacture QX reactors in small assemblies somewhat like nuclear fuel rods are done. Boiler and heat exchange manufactures will provide all the rest. Rossi will merely deliver E-cats.

          • Dr. Mike

            Your proposed business plan seems more logical than than what Rossi has stated on his blog.

  • Omega Z

    Rossi has already received safety Certification from (SGS) on the basic technology for industrial use. Likely an additional Certification will be required for a completed assembly. However, these don’t take long to obtain. Especially when the basic technology has already been previously certified. Many authorities also require an inspection upon installation in the customers facilities.

    Certification such as (UL) for general consumers will be much harder to obtain. Likely requiring several years industrial use to generate a work/safety history as they have to be stand alone without trained technicians present. As to a (Tech Data sheet) for the product, that can’t be created before a finalized product is ready for production.

  • The IMP

    More important question before starting industrial production should better be: is the device safe and efficient and has passed all testing and verification to be able to sell it? Selling such a device means it must be approved, which can take months or years, depending on the complexity and the nature of energy generation

    • greggoble

      For the home or individual public use… yes. For commercial (industrial) use little licensing is required, approval isn’t required at all, other than by the parties involved. Warm regards is, of course, needed.

  • artefact

    A new summary video of the Stockholm event hosted on the youtube channel:

    • Alan DeAngelis

      I just have to say, for someone like me who’s seen the marbled institutions disparage LENR/cold fusion for almost three decades, this is wonderful.
      Can’t find the words to convey the feeling but this works.

  • Buck

    Updated Link to ABB Robotics – Fanta Can Challenge – Superior Motion Control:

  • Omega Z

    Yes, Rossi’s SGS Certificate was published here at ECW.

    I’m aware of only 1- 1MW plant that was actually delivered and that was to the NRL for evaluation.(This was claimed by a Rossi competitor who saw it in an NRL lab along side his own device) immediately after Rossi had a breakthrough and created the Hot cat. This likely sidelined any further interest in the Low temp systems as most would consider it obsolete.

  • Anon2012_2014

    OK Rossi — build the Quark-X by hand in Italy or Florida in a small 1000 square foot factory and sell them for $10,000 each. That bill of materials on the November demo table can’t cost in quantity 100 more than $2,000, and I would assume the assembly time is under 40 hours per unit. In Italy you should be able to get skilled labor for EUR 50/hour, leaving you with a tidy EUR 6K gross profit margin. Build 100, earn $600K. Get a discount with volume on quantity 500 and get your assembly time down to 20 hours per unit with practice and outsourcing non-secretive assemblies.

    Once you have shown your new investors real revenue and testimonials from satisfied customers, you will get the next $10 or $20 mm you need for partial robotization of your assembly line and you can scale up from there.

    Waiting for robots is no excuse. In fact it exposes you to risk as you are getting older and cannot wait forever to begin monetizing.

    • Frank Acland

      Right or wrong, it’s no secret what his business plan is. He has said for years that he wants to produce his E-Cats in such quantities and so cheaply that it would not make financial sense for competitors to try reverse engineer and duplicate them. I think this is why he is so focused on the robotics.

  • causal observer

    When I read phrases such as “Rossi should design” or “Rossi should build” I get a no-compute.

    Other than R&D on the QX, I don’t see how Rossi could possibly have the time or skill set to do anything except review, discuss and approve plans that his partner or partners produce.

    I previously suggested this model:
    > the “core” of the “heating product” is a specially molded or 3D printed semi-ceramic rack of QXs with an integrated fluid manifold and electronic control bus
    > the rack is mounted inside housing with electronics (the controller) and plumbing hookups
    > the rack is swapped out for “refueling”; the controller is also upgradable via software or hardware swap.

    I now suggest that the “core” of the entire enterprise is a small arc-lamp like device, the QX itself, which can be manufactured in a variety of “mini-housings” that can be “plugged in” in large numbers to a wide variety of such racks, and such racks into a wide variety of housings. The racks and housings will be customized to the production of working fluids at whatever temperature or pressure is desired, creating an entire product family.

    How can that be done?

    Before any money is spent on any physical components except R&D test equipment, each member of that family of products will be designed down to the micrometer (or less) using CAD/CASE software, which will also be used to design and/or configure the automated manufacturing and assembly equipment needed to produce each product in the family. Cost calculations will be automatically generated by the software.

    The partner’s finance and marketing departments will calculate which products to design first and how many of each product to build. The partner’s executives along with Rossi will give the direction “do it”.

    Then the partner will order, assemble and configure the physical components and put them into production with stunning speed; “just in time / no waste” everything.

    To my understanding that’s what contemporary advanced manufacturing is about. And ABB is world-class at it.

    And that’s the only possible way that Rossi can get a conclusive jump on the market. Because as soon as someone else cracks the “secret sauce” of the QX and finds a way around Rossi’s patents, the above production process is exactly what they will follow.

    Why would Rossi’s partners put their money into anything that was less than fully competitive?

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    January 12, 2018 at 8:03 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    Which is harder, to make a E-Cat QX prototype, or to make robots reproduce the prototype?

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    January 13, 2018 at 11:45 AM
    Frank Acland:
    To make an Ecat QX. The robots are already there, it’s just matter to adjust the specific software, but there are strong analogies with applications in the electronic and pharmaceutical fields.
    Warm Regards,

    Dr. Mike
    January 12, 2018 at 8:07 PM
    Congratulations on achieving an improved controller design so quickly. I have a few questions about the new controller and the QX devices:
    1. What is the most QX devices that you have actually operated at one time with the new controller?
    2. What is the input power to the new controller when it was driving that number of QX devices from (1)?
    3. Has the final design and specifications for the QX device been established?
    4. How many QX devices have been manufactured (by hand) that were made to the exact specifications of the three QX devices that were used in the demonstration?

    Thank you for your time in answering these questions.
    Dr. Mike

    Andrea Rossi
    January 13, 2018 at 11:41 AM
    Dr Mike:
    1- 100
    2- the same as when driving one module; its consume is recovered with COP 0.9 as heat, so that it does not affect the COP of the Ecat QX and the heat it produces can also be employed for uses different from the energy produced by the Ecat QX. By the way, the COP of the Ecat QX ( ratio between the energy at the output of the QX and the energy at the input of the QX ) is substantially higher.
    3- in the evolution of a technology nothing is final. I can answer that as it is now the Ecat QX, I think we are ready to pass to the industrialization phase. As a matter of fact, we will make a strong pressing on the industrialization phase now.
    4- several hundreds, but the term “exact” is quite optimistic: better couple it with “almost” to make it closer to reality, not only because I make many errors, but also because I am prone to make trials also when I have to replicate. This is also the reason for which we made substantial progress in these last 60 days.
    Thank you for your attention to our work,
    Warm Regards,

    • Dr. Mike

      There are several things very encouraging about these answers to Frank’s and my questions. First it is good to see that the robotics will use technology from the electronics and pharmaceutical fields, where manufacturing small components and handling very small quantifies of chemicals are required. Adapting from existing technology is much easier than developing something entirely new. Secondly, it is encouraging that the new controller has been already evaluated for driving 100 QX devices, that changes to the current QX design are not being anticipated, and that several hundreds of the QX devices have been built by hand to the specifications of the QX devices in the demonstration. Having driven 100 QX devices with the new controller should have provided an initial look at potential problems that might occur when trying to drive 100 parallel QX devices. (I probably should have asked how many parallel QX devices have been driven by the controller at full power.) Having made several hundreds of QX devices to a now fixed specification, there is a good chance that Rossi has done some preliminary investigation into failure modes and failure mechanisms. Whatever work has been done on the hand made devices should help the effort to achieve reliability on devices produced robotically.
      It is obvious that my question #2 was not answered. From a system standpoint improvements in the QX device COP are not really that important to the number that the customers will want to know, that is, the system COP (total useful power output from the product divided by the electrical power used by the product). A 1MW system would need 500 controllers if each controller operates 100 20W QX devices. Would it make economic sense to add 1000 water connections to the 500 controllers and pump water through those 500 controllers just to capture some of the heat dissipated from those controllers? (This even assumes the input water temperature would be well below the operating temperature of the controller.) Can excess heat from the controller really be employed “for uses different from the energy produced by the Ecat QX”? My guess is that maybe 1-5% of customers would have some use for the low temperature excess heat produced by the controller.
      There still appears to be some issue with the power consumption of the controller. Rossi says that the QX device COP has now improved from the 506 calculated by Hurley at the demonstration.. However, even with the demonstration COP of 506, an array of 100 QX devices outputting 2,000W would only require 2000W / 506 = 3.95W. A controller operating at only 10% electrical efficiency would only consume about 40W. It sure seems that Rossi would have revealed the input power to the new controller if it were only consuming 40W.

  • Buck

    Andrea Provides more clarification on the nature of the QX prototype


    Tom Conover
    January 13, 2018 at 4:27 PM

    Dear Andrea,

    To good to be true, perhaps? Many readers of JONP may have the impression that you have completed a working prototype that “has been assigned to the production team.” I am not so sure yet, and while you know I am all in with you and your team, I have not seen a clear statement from you that you have signed off on the prototype you described to David in the JONP blog on January 11, 2018.

    A) Have you already passed this prototype to your industrial team with the intent of building at least 100 – 1000 units using robotic manufacturing?


    B) Will you soon be hoping to pass this design to your team with the intent of building at least 100 – 1000 units using the robotic

    I am hoping that you will reply “A” as the answer, but we have waited along time, and it is not stated clearly in the blog what you meant to
    say, “A” or “B”.

    Regardless of your reply, I am happy to hear that you have made progress, and that at least within a few months you may have the
    prototype ready.

    Thank you for keeping the line of communications wide open with us on JONP.

    Warm regards,



    Andrea Rossi
    January 13, 2018 at 7:07 PM

    Tom Conover:

    A) no

    B) yes, but for bigger numbers within this year

    To keep the line of communication wide open with you is a privilege for me.

    Warm regards,


  • Omega Z

    Over 2 million UL apps a year. And if you don’t know exactly who’s name an app was applied in, you will never know about a product. Should also note that the UL is primarily a clearing house. Nearly ALL testing is farmed out to sub-contractors.

    Another interesting fact. UL only tests the portion of a product that the applicant asks them to test. Not the entire product. In Rossi’s case, that could be only the reactor and tested for safety only as to recommended use. Like a light fixture if you drop it in water, doesn’t make it unsafe as it isn’t intended to be dropped in water.

    • TVulgaris

      The UL DOES test entire products, otherwise the sticker/tag wouldn’t mean much, would it?- which distinction a lot of people wouldn’t understand, true, but since companies actually have to meet legislated standards, not many manufacturers would put a product out with only components rather than complete products tested (they may know they don’t have that much to fear from the regulators, but their liability exposure becomes astronomical, and mislabeling apt to lose them any protection the governments ordinarily preferentially extend to major “contributors”).

      You won’t see an oven for sale without a sticker, even when the power cable already has one…

      • Omega Z

        I’ve read several UL test arrangements. Was surprised myself as to all the limitations and the applicants control over them. UL tests only what the applicant asks them to test and the applicant also sets the parameters for that test. Not the UL.

        Granted, Rossi’s technology has no precedent so UL or their subcontractors could refuse to do testing without it having operational use in industry to provide certain data. However, this would only apply for the UL lable for the general consumer. Industrial certification is far easier as trained personnel would be present during all operations.

        The system works on the honor system…… NAH, Actually, it only works because we live in a vary litigious society and UL testing limits product liability.

  • DocSiders

    Is it certain that ABB is seriously involved (I.e. serious skin in the game)?

    If so, there is a near zero probability that ABB’s engineers have been hoodwinked somehow by AR.

    ABB’s serious involvement that lasts more than ~2 months is almost as good (for verification of the QX) as a Closed Loop demo.

    ABB is respected well enough that anyone with knowledge of ABB’s serious involvement will know what’s afoot. So, keep an eye on ABB stock. Unless there are no internal leaks ABB stock should move northward within 90 days…although ABB may be involved via another corporate construct (or mainly as consultants/contractors).

    • Andreas Moraitis

      „Is it certain that ABB is seriously involved (I.e. serious skin in the game)?“

      No, it isn’t. Maybe they are just providing the usual customer advisory service.

  • causal observer

    Stepping back, there is a spectrum of business scenarios by which Rossi might hope to achieve his goals of early, large, prohibitively-dominant market entrance. To narrow it down, let’s assume ABB is the only partner.

    At one end of that spectrum, Rossi obtains funds from ABB, as he did from IH, and as the president of Leonardo personally manages all aspects of the operation in relatively close detail. Call that scenario 1.

    At the other of the spectrum, Rossi shares most if not all of his IP with ABB, and while he stays close to all the major decisions, he focuses on QX performance optimization while ABB does all the rest of it, including engineering, design, product marketing and manufacturing: Call that scenario 2.

    Now consider possible hybrids, in which the engineering, design, product marketing and manufacturing are divided between Leonardo and ABB, in such a way that makes the best use of both organization’s comparative strengths. Call all those scenario 3.

    Then for a fourth possibility, suppose Leonardo did all the engineering, design and product marketing, and ABB simply did the mass manufacturing. Call that scenario 4.

    Of course there are many other scenarios, however, the above four form a set of categories. Let’s consider those categories.

    With respect to scenario 1, that was exactly the IH deal. Why would ABB enter into such an agreement, knowing the results of the first attempt? And given Rossi’s personal limitations of time, technical skills and managerial experience, how could he realistically hope to could achieve his goal of getting to market in any manner in 2018?

    With respect to scenario 3, in what areas does Leonardo have strengths that outweigh those of ABB? I do not see any, except for Rossi’s and his small team’s particular knowledge of the QX. ABB is world class in everything Rossi needs: electronics and energy engineering, energy systems manufacturing and marketing, automated manufacturing: everything except knowledge of the QX. Why would the division of responsibilities not follow that division of capabilities?

    With respect to scenario 4, how could Leonardo design a product (and product family) of the needed complexity without having detailed knowledge of how it would be manufactured? What is an example of even fully outsources manufacturing not being intimately coordinated between designer and manufacturer? What is the optimization of having two separate teams for engineering and manufacturing?

    And further with respect to 1, 3, and 4, how fast and how well can Rossi engage and integrate a team of a dozen or more (perhaps many more) engineers, project managers and product managers, along with the required business overhead?

    I can’t see how scenarios 1, 3 or 4, or any variation on them, could be remotely successful in terms of Rossi’s goals of an early large market entrance.

    I would find it very hard to believe that after all of his experiences and with his great desire, Rossi would not see the same issues with those scenarios.

    That leaves scenario 2, in which Rossi focuses on QX optimization and ABB does everything else.

    • Buck

      I agree with the preference of scenario 2.

      Further, I suggest that given the outcome of the IH/Leonardo lawsuit as well as the accumulated experience of Rossi’s lawyers, Rossi will be clear on the contractual terms which don’t give undue benefits to ABB without Rossi having some recourse for protection. As well, ABB will be clear on how Rossi sniffed out IH’s hidden agenda, and then out-competed them legally, coming out whole as far as the IP is concerned. Therefore, ABB recognizing the opportunity for possibly 100’s of $Billions in profits from a revolutionary energy system that could be lost due to excess greed/avarice and bad acts against Rossi, will agree to Rossi’s tight contractual limits and obligations, behaving accordingly.

    • Vinney

      ABB needs Rossi more than Rossi needs ABB,
      Here is a list of robotics firms (2014);

      There are numerous Japanese firms, notably Yaskawa has a selection of 150 robotic arm configurations.
      The Japanese are also very good at electronics and miniaturisation.
      The Japanese would love to be on the ground floor of a LENR revolution as their country is energy poor.
      Any (Japanese) contract winning firm would get that much government assistance (direct and indirect) that they would supply automation to Rossi at 25% of ABB.
      I bet Rossi has taken this into account and the recently improved power power supply design is from engagement with another specialist electronics firm (non ABB).

      • causal observer

        I appreciate that those are possibilities, however, I doubt that Rossi has time or mental bandwidth for initiating another major relationship, managing than one major relationship, or coordinating two or more significant relationships. ABB has too much reputation to lose and too much profit to gain to be underhanded, and as noted elsewhere, Rossi’s lawyers at this point have demonstrated their ability to protect Rossi’s interests. (It is important to contrast IH/Cherokee with ABB). My sense is that at this point there is too much pie to be split to worry about marginal differences in how it is sliced.

        Rossi may look like he’s after the biggest possible bucks, however, I think it more likely that he’s interested in making the biggest possible and most irreversible impact (“make a dent in the universe”). Since the two goals overlap, and the attraction of money being what it is, the sense of focus can sometimes get blurred. Plus he can’t peddle idealism or his desire for historical immortality. So business economics gets the front position.

        • Vinney

          I am just trying to point out that what Rossi has is unique and its potential market is in the $trillions. ABB cannot find another LENR player that is closer than 5 years to commercialisation. On the other hand Rossi has numerous options with direct links to government backing (hence government support and accreditation will be implicitly expedited).
          I am not sure ABB have realized just how big this is. If Rossi demonstrates a 100 module Ecat QX submodule and controller (40KW of power as recently mentioned) with a COP north of 100.
          The Japanese government will secretly give him citizenship, his own ‘Free Trade Zone’ (let alone factory) provided he uses ‘free’ local automation firms with the first three years production earmarked for Japan (and he can name his price).
          ABB had better start negotiating subsidies and government assistance in the US and Europe, or they will be ‘steam rolled’.

  • Dr. Mike

    I don’t think Rossi had much to do with the design of the new controller other than specify what it must do. Don’t you think he would have hired an expert to improve the controller? If the controller still requires an input on the order of 100W or more, it is most likely delivering more output power to the array of QX devices than is being calculated in the demonstration. Maybe parallel connected QX devices require an additional series resistance to keep the current flow balanced in the parallel devices (similar to adding an emitter resistor to balance current in parallel connected transistors)? If the controller only has to deliver 4W or less to the QX array, one would assume that the design of the controller still needs more work to improve its electrical efficiency.

  • sam

    January 14, 2018 at 11:11 PM
    Dear Dr Rossi

    You recently announced that you now have a prototype ready for industrialization. Is this prototype the 1 MW reactor you plan to sell or is it a completed sub module that will be part of the assembly required for a 1 MW reactor.

    Thank You

    Andrea Rossi
    January 15, 2018 at 7:33 AM
    It is a complete module like the one of the Stockholm presentation.
    Warm Regards,

    • Dr. Mike

      It seems possible that a prototype module can be made by the end of 2018 and maybe even some of the engineering issues with the prototype can be resolved by then. However, it doesn’t make much sense to begin massive production until the reliability of the modules is evaluated and verified. Does anyone remember if Rossi’s answer to this question back in December was that the initial product would be a 1MW reactor?

      • Frank Acland

        Andrea Rossi
        January 16, 2018 at 11:47 AM
        Frank Acland:
        We will show the operation of the product. We have to decide the rating, but it will be probably at least a 100 modules Ecat.
        Warm Regards,

        • Dr. Mike

          Rossi tends to use “module” where I would use “QX devices”. Do you think he means one module with 100 QX devices and 1 controller? I would actually think that a real “module” would consist of maybe 10 controllers with 1000 QX devices so that a basic “module” would produce on the order of 20KW. It does seem obvious that Rossi first needs to build something that holds 100 QX devices so that the controller operation and reliability can be evaluated.

          • Frank Acland

            He just replied to another question with this:

            Andrea Rossi
            January 16, 2018 at 3:28 PM
            Frank Acland:
            If it will be a 100 modules, the rating will be 4 kW, but we did not decide yet.It will depend on many factors.
            Warm Regards,

            So 1 “module” = 1 QX, and apparently now are rated at 40 W

          • Buck


            this suggests that somehow, someway, Rossi and engineers have been able to implement greater control over the QX reactor and control module with software and/or hardware.

            This is a remarkable jump after the Stockholm demonstration. Of course, the 40W rating is still up in the air. Presuming ABB engineering involvement, it leads me to wonder how effective they will be in the “miniaturization process” of the 100-unit-QX-module. I can only think “very effective”.

          • Dr. Mike

            Thanks for getting a clarification on this. My guess is a higher output power might mean that that an improvement has been made in transferring heat out of the QX device (unless the device size was increased). I wonder if this means the life of the device will drop to 3 months to 6 months from the 6-12 months previously quoted?

      • Val K

        Yes, I do remember.
        If Stockholm demo was real, then Rossi has just a proof on concept. He just showed three individual modules and a questionable controller, both needed a lot of refinement and tune-up. When (if) individual modules are refined and perfected, the next step will be the perfection of arrays of modules, which will be followed by the development, verification, validation of the complete unit (consisting of ~100 modules, one controller, module housing, heat-exchange system, all kind of sensors, feedbacks and safeguards etc. Studies must be conducted to investigate how failure of a single module (and, also, two tree modules) may effect the system performance and behavior.

        And, if he is shooting for 1 MW plant, he needs 500 controllers working simultaneously, each controlling 100 modules. Obviously, he will need a supercontroller and a whole lot of research of how this integral system works.

        By the way, I wonder if Rossy has ever indicated, whether QX modules will be integrated in the array, or they can be reloaded into array like bullets in the revolver. It is obvious, that each approach puts different requirements and constrains on the module design.

        And questions just keep multiplying.

        My understanding is that there is no way that all these and many other unforeseen issues can be solved in just a year resulting in a salable product. My most optimistic estimate is 1 year to have a module, 1 year to develop a 100-module array, 1 year to develop a 1 MW plant. It will be a miracle if by the end of 2020 he will have a single 1 MW plant delivered to customer and put in operation.

        • Dr. Mike

          I believe your estimated time frame is for getting a 1MW product delivered to customers is fairly close to mine. I think “unforeseen issues” as a potentially big problem, however, I think there are a lot of potential problems that can be predicted and therefore need to be worked on sooner, rather than later.

        • TVulgaris

          IF Rossi’s more recent numbers can be trusted, an array of 100 modules (single reactors) is 4 kW output- if this CAN’T be packaged in a unit the size and general shape of a residential hot water heater element (220V x 20 amp is a very typical rating, about 8 inches long and a little more than 1 inch diameter), there’s something I’m missing completely- especially as the most obvious (and easiest to implement) basic application, hot water, is a huge existing market, and intelligent (and simple) product design to be drop-in replacement for common configurations could be exactly the “killer app” marketing strategy for global, very rapid market penetration and development.
          And if I had the product of the millenium and faced the kind of physical threat Rossi’s experienced over the past 25 years, I would make a public demo using gear that worked just enough to demonstrate proof-of-concept, having already set up sweetheart deals with a few (more than 2, less than 7) partners to have done the basic manufacturing prototyping- and come up with a product or two like drop-in replacement heater elements that would be ready to distribute in less than a year when every sensible engineer would conclude from the public demo several years would be required for anything to be released.

  • Dr. Mike

    After the failed partnership with IH, it would seen to be a good bet that Rossi’s new partner has demanded real proof that the QX works as claimed. If Rossi has shown the new partner the potential for a reasonable system COP, It shouldn’t have been too hard of a decision to come up with funding at least through the 100 QX device module phase. Perhaps marketing is holding up until this phase is fully successful?

  • Vinney

    Off-topic, but an example of whole ‘life-cycle’ analysis of a product, in this case it is the ubiquitous household microwave oven.
    What is plainly obvious to me is they are designed for obsolescence in matter of years.
    Whilst cooktops and oven last minimum 10-15 years, and regularly reach higher.
    Microwaves are discarded on nature strips on a daily basis, some looking good condition.

    • Omega Z

      Microwaves last a substantial period of time. However, even a minor repair can easily cost more then replacing them. Most people wont even consider having them repaired do to the basic service fees charged by technicians. You can buy a new microwave for $50 or so. It may be something as simple as a 30 cent fuse or a $2 varistor. It is seldom something expensive.

      And we can’t demise the fact that there are people who find it easier to buy a new one rather then clean it up occasionally. Use it for a year or so and replace. Seriously, my current microwave was destined for the dump when only a year old because the previous owner of my acquaintance didn’t want to clean it. 5 year latter works like a champ.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.