Rossi’s Industrial E-Cat Strategy

This week’s revelations by Andrea Rossi about Leonardo Corporation’s business plan and technical strategy has been one of the most surprising things I have learned since I started following the progress of Rossi’s E-Cat.

I was not terribly surprised to learn that Rossi was planning to sell heat, rather than plants, because this is something he has talked about on and off over the years. The thing that took me off guard was the fact that in Rossi’s plan the E-Cat plants are to be controlled directly from Leonardo Corp’s headquarters. I just hadn’t even considered that as a possibility.

However, thinking about it, there are plenty of remote control application in the world, and knowing Rossi’s business philosophy, business goals and his desire for protection and control of his IP, this strategy – assuming it can work technologically – fits with his outlook.

There has been a lot of discussion on the implications of this strategy, and I have been thinking about it quite a bit, and some of my thoughts are outlined below.

Benefits for Leonardo:

  • The control secrets are off-site, providing more IP protection and confidence to implement E-Cat technology into the world.
  • Leonardo is able to directly monitor the performance of the E-Cat plants at multiple plants from one location, helpful for data collection and troubleshooting especially in the early days of sales and installations

Risks for Leonardo

  • In addition to providing an unprecedented energy source, the business plan is unusual. Industries may be suspicious about the secrecy and be wary of participating.
  • There will be significant costs required to set up, maintain and protect the telecommunications systems involved.
  • Using the internet to deliver the control signals to the e-cats adds another layer of complexity to the E-Cat’s operations. Internet connectivity may be problematic at times and Leonardo would likely be a target for hackers trying to steal secrets, or trying to disrupt their operations.
  • The more plants that are installed, the more complex the remote control and monitoring becomes. If Leonardo is knocked offline completely, then E-Cat plants in all locations will cease to work, affecting customers financially and operationally, and Leonardo loses revenues until resolved.

Benefits for Customers

  • Cost savings on heat for their industrial processes.
  • Reduction in carbon emissions.
  • No need for upfront investment in an unknown technology.
  • If it doesn’t work, or if does not work well, no loss to the customer. No need for training staff to run the E-Cat operations.

Risks for Customers

  • With E-Cat power supply dependent on internet connectivity, cost savings are dependent upon stable internet communications with Leonardo. If internet connectivity is unreliable, E-Cat benefits will be reduced.
  • There will be a need to continue to provide and maintain a backup energy source.
  • Entering into a 5-year contract could lock in higher costs if E-Cat costs go down as the technology improves over time.

My interest in the E-Cat and LENR in general has always been because of the practical benefits it can potentially provide. I think it is a good sign that Andrea Rossi is now working on an implementation plan, because I think the sooner that LENR can be put to work in the real world, the better.  Whether Rossi’s plan will be successful still remains to be seen. Even he has stated that it may not be the long term strategy:

Prof

Dr Andrea Rossi:
Your strategy to maintain the control system centralized in your HQ is one of the most genial solution you could think about.
Godspeed,

Andrea Rossi

Prof:
It has resolved the reverse engineering issue and allows us to maintain a direct observation of the behavior of all our Ecats. Surely this will be our strategy for the first “pioneers” years. Eventually, we will see.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

 

 

 

 

  • LarryJ

    His plan to sell heat makes sense on all fronts.

    He can charge what the market will bear for his power. The eco factor alone is a strong selling point for industries who are currently looking to upgrade a power source. The resulting very large revenue stream may allow him to self finance without going public allowing him to keep his finances private.

    The 5 year contracts will most likely peg the power price the customer pays to some benchmark to prevent customers from being locked into a bad deal. There will be little in the way of financial outlay for the customer, lowering any barriers to entry.

    Since the potential savings will not be astronomical there will not be a mad rush into his tech allowing him time to increase his production facilities in a orderly fashion as demand increases.

    Since there will not be any absolute proof of COP probably for years unless a serious competitor appears, vested interests like the oil industry, mainstream scientists and financial markets will have time to adjust.

    The military are rumoured to have purchased his Bologna reactor in 2012. Those guys like to be on top of everything and Rossi is known to have military contacts. Can you picture Rossi’s reactor powering a Stirling engine driven sub. The military would not want a huge public hullaballo over a tech they don’t fully ubderstand nor would it be in the national interest to stifle it. A slow unobtrusive entry would suit them and maybe they had some input.

    • Buck

      Confirmation of sorts about your thoughts on Rossi’s pricing strategy . . . I appreciate the meaning of “share the profit” ! ! !

      Customer as “Partner” for growing the total market.

      ====================================================

      Jaroslaw Bem
      May 20, 2018 at 12:06 PM

      Dear Andrea Rossi,

      Question about the price of your heat energy. It will be fixed, or will depend on the country of the customer, and local prices of energy?

      My best regards,

      Jaroslaw Bem
      ____________________________________________

      Andrea Rossi
      May 20, 2018 at 2:04 PM

      Jaroslaw Bem:

      It will be defined case by case depending on the situation to share the profit with the Customer.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

  • f sedei

    Sounds plausible for factories, but not for individual units. We shall see. Do not underestimate Andrea.

    • Buck

      “Do not underestimate Andrea.”

      I believe this is a key piece of the puzzle. Look how Darden/IH completely misread how the record-setting winner of a 24-hour marathon pulled together and simply out-competed Darden; Rossi showed a level of patience enacted over the 4-5 years it took to unravel the licensing agreement with Darden. Rossi has had years to slowly piece together his own picture of how to compete and get his invention into the market.

      He has always said that the E-cat would have to integrate into the existing energy market. If his is pursuing a pricing strategy that enables him to, in his own words, “share the profit”, then he may be signing up 100 very important customers/partners. He likely is very selective in which companies he allows to buy his E-cat heat.

  • etburg

    If I were a customer with a mission critical application dependent on the heat for an industrial process I would be extremely hesitant to sign up with a provider that had obvious, multiple single points of failure. What happens, as cited above, if there is a loss of connection to the internet? Does the plant shut down? Is there failover to a secondary system and, if so, how long does it take to spin up? How much does it cost for that infrastructure and how much does it cost to run? What level of redundancy is there at the central facility? What safeguards will there be in place to safeguard my operational data? What is the latency required on the data connection to the central facility and what reaction time is required by the plant to make control changes? The newest thinking for these types of applications is to put computing power down closer to where it is needed while feeding key data back to the cloud. Is that what’s going on here? Lots of questions.

  • gdaigle

    The firm I worked for last year offered software that was SaaS (Software as a Service) and all authoring (creating, updating, saving, publishing, provisioning) was done through our servers. However, in addition to running the output from our servers the clients also had the option (at a higher price) to run the software as an encrypted package through their own servers. This was a must for clients in the medical or financial industries who could not risk connections beyond their own firewalls. Though the purpose of our software was of a very different sort than Rossi’s, I think this might be a good solution for his control system.

    The advantage of having Rossi run it from his own servers is that he can upgrade the control system and republish it almost instantly without any interruption of service. If you run the software from your own servers, you would have to take the system down for a short period of time to update to any new version. You could do this in coordination with any regularly scheduled maintenance, but it might also reduce efficiencies.

    • gdaigle

      I will note that even when running from our servers (actually they were Amazon servers, so pretty reliable) there were occasional breaks in service The reason for our higher price for running from behind a client’s firewall was that, 1) not everyone needed this feature, and, 2) our inability to monitor the number of streams in concurrent use could detract from our revenue model. However, since Rossi’s revenue stream is tied to use of the E-Cat and not the control software, that should not be a problem. What might be a problem is that once the connection to Rossi’s servers is gone, there is no way to monitor live feedback from the system in case there is an unexpected error in the control software.

  • Max Nozin

    I figured out a way how to read Rossi’s replies without being confused. I’d like to share with other who have same dissonance as I. After every Rossi’s statement insert either ”in my dreams’ or ‘inshallah’. Thus ‘i figued out reverse engineering issue’ will become plain and clear ‘ I figured out reverse engineering issue. In my dreams’. Everything immediatly falls into right place.

    • causal observer

      I’m thinking the local microprocessor should be able to run the plant independently while checking in every few seconds to make sure the network is still up (see comment above).

      • Max Nozin

        In the dreams

    • Vinney

      Rossi has to also think about protecting his control room assets, in case its computers are planted with spyware or a virus, he has a backup server that comes online.
      A system of three servers has been shown to be a good defense against intrusion, malware and viruses, where the operational server is periodically compared against the two backup servers separately, triggering an alarm if something is different, meaning some source code has been planted.
      The location of the control room/rooms are also very valuable IP assets, worthy of high grade security personnel and procedures.
      I still think the remote control is a good idea, especially if he gets several really big customers like Andeavor/Marathon.
      Secure control facilities would then be sited at the refineries.
      Another big market with little downside is the mains gas distribution business, apparently gas has to be periodically heated to make it move along the network. The amount of gas moving around must need a lot of heat, and E-cat heat is safer than gas generated heat. For large customers like these he may come in at an ‘undiscolsed’ special market rate.

      • Max Nozin

        Don’t worry. In Rossi’s world there is no ddos attacks and viruses. Would be first time ever recorded when computer virus infected common plumbing parts Rossi known to use for his creations.
        The speed with which Rossi moved from plumbing to IoT things can only be matched by high school science project where kids let their fantasies go wild.

  • Buck

    Interesting perspective on what maintaining ownership and control of the Ecat provides.

    ================================================

    Jag bara undrar?
    May 20, 2018 at 2:34 AM

    Keeping control of the “cat” and its control system is in my way of seeing the only possible way. Not to keep any secrets because it is not difficult for an actor with great resources to imitate them. I am convinced that it is essentially about reducing the risks of someone’s deliberately causing accidents with the new technology, which must then be investigated and investigated while the months go and the operator himself has the opportunity to develop his own products.

    _________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    May 20, 2018 at 8:12 AM

    Jag Bara Undrar?

    Thank you for your opinion.

    I agree in the point of the security, but I assure you that the IP will be very well defended.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • causal observer

      Interesting point about sabotage as a competitive tactic.
      Who knocked e-catworld offline just before the Stockholm event?

  • Ophelia Rump

    With remote access comes vulnerability to E-Warfare.

    Such considerations are best addressed from the lowest level of communications protocols upward.
    Dottore Rossi must get serious professionals to harden his communications architecture beyond the current standard before the product hits market.
    A remote off switch hijacked, equals global denial of an essential service, if not properly compartmentalized.

    • causal observer

      U.S. power infrastructure is already hideously vulnerable. The good Dottore will no doubt have the advantage of state-of-the-art, mil-grade lessons learned.

      Just add money until the risk is sufficiently reduced to satisfy a sufficiently large percentage of the market.

      • Rene

        It’s more about “adding money lowers profits”. Much of the power industry control infrastructure was created in the nice days pre-cyberwarefare. The stuff has been fixed, though the upgrading costs seem prohibitive to the decision makers who are either unaware of or lack the understanding to judge the severity of the problem. There are presently many security experts who fully understand the nature of the problems and the solution space. The good dottore is not a security exert though he can hire them.

        Nonetheless, running his ecat completely remotely with no smarts in situ is reckless.

        • Vinney

          Rossi has to also think about protecting his control room assets, in case its computers are planted with spyware or a virus, he has a backup server that comes online.
          A system of three servers has been shown to be a good defense against intrusion, malware and viruses, where the operational server is periodically compared against the two backup servers separately, triggering an alarm if something is different, meaning some source code has been planted.
          The location of the control room/rooms are also very valuable IP assets, worthy of high grade security personnel and procedures.
          I still think the remote control is a good idea, for initial market entry and trial, especially if he gets several really big customers like Andeavor/Marathon.
          Secure control facilities would then be sited at the refineries.
          Another big market with little downside is the mains gas distribution business, apparently gas has to be periodically heated to make it move along the network. The amount of gas moving around must need a lot of heat, and E-cat heat is safer than gas generated heat. The Health and Safety officers will be rejoicing the E-cat at large storage and distribution hubs. For large customers like these he may come in at an ‘undiscolsed’ special market rate.

  • causal observer

    Frank, re you comment on Leonardo risks:
    I don’t see that the plants would deactivate immediately on network failure. If Sven’s model is correct, the local controller will have a microprocessor with firmware that delivers the initial spark and sustaining wave. If the internet goes down, the microchip can continue operating. I suspect the arrangement would be that the microprocessor would poll the internet periodically (every 2 seconds? “Mommy, are you there?”) And only if the connection were broken for an extended period would the local controller then shut down the reactor. (1 minute? 5 minutes? Some fraction of the time it would take for the plant to have a catastrophic failure?)

    And the local plant would be rigged with multiple redundant network connections for security cameras, physical breach detection, etc., all of which could trigger wiping of the microprocessor firmware.

    • Rene

      Yes, you are repeating what I wrote a while back. On that we agree, but again this is not the issue. It is that the controller (Whether hardware based or software based) is there locally, so it is subject to physical inspection. But, there are controller platforms that have robust tamper resistance, so not a difficult thing to do.

      It is that Rossi tried to lead us to believe there is nothing important at the plant – I do not believe that misdirection. It is that Rossi says all the controlling, down to the real-time part is off site. That misdirection is not believable either.

      • causal observer

        Rossi is a big believer in “accurate is different than precise.”

        • Rene

          🙂 A better generalization is Rossi is a big believer in marketing.

          • HS61AF91

            both complementary.

          • Rene

            Not at all. The purpose of the marketing person is to make you believe in and invest in a lie called a promise, a lie that developers will undo in time by working hard to make good on the promise. Many a startup has failed because the promise (the lie) did not get undone in time. Though success is measure in single digits, the rewards are great enough that marketers think they can get away with it.

            Usually the roles of marketer and developer are separate and distinct. It is quite unnerving to, in this case, have the same person do both roles.

          • HS61AF91

            People like Gary Johnson (governor and mount Everest climber) and Andrea Rossi (inventor and marathon runner) seem to not fit into the usual mold, and that’s surely a good thing, because where else comes progress? Business is a bitch, when all one looks for is profit, like the kind of marketer you describe; driven by fear of loss, along with greed for profit.

        • roseland67

          casual,
          Rossi is a bigger believer in ambiguous

      • Albert D. Kallal

        I don’t think Rossi has suggest anything more then that they will maintain, monitor and control the heater remote.

        This in no way suggests that the client will not have the appropriate interface to such a system to run at they require – no more then say you moving the thermostat to ask your furnace for more heat.

        I am not reading anything more into that statement then the large number of systems that already exist and work that way in various industrial settings.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • nietsnie

    Many have already pointed out the apparent obvious flaw in the plan – a reliable Internet connection. But, in addition to the potential of a denial of service attack on Rossi’s server leaving *all* of the worlds installed e-cats relying upon their backups, I don’t like the idea of rudderless nuclear reactors on general principle. Still, I suppose that if the e-cat loses its ping that it could automatically shut down.

    But, beyond rudderless, there is the real very potential of hackers cracking the signal and taking over control of one. Far worse than lack of use from all the worlds e-cats is the irresponsible remote control of a single e-cat. From the stories we have read, there is the real possibility of disastrous results from LENR reactions pushed too far (melted glass, hole in cement floor, etc). Is the potential for pushing a reactor into that eventuality built into the remote signal? Four different companies have contacted me within the past year to let me know that they had lost my personal data to a hacker in spite of their best efforts. Is it a good idea to leave it up to the first hacker to pwn one to decide what to do next?

    There should, instead, at least be a dedicated T1. Yes, it would add nominally to the cost, and it wouldn’t completely eliminate the possibility of a hack – but it would make it *much* harder.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      HVAC monitoring of systems been done for years. Your typing on a computer connected to the internet. I not aware of ONE business that does not use on-line banking. I mean, really? This is a flaw in Ross’s plan?

      Right now DEKA (inventor of the Segway) Monitors and
      controls the HVAC systems for the Sydney Opera house in Australia from a location in the USA.

      There are all kinds of companies that offer management of HVAC systems for larger institutions like
      a hospital complex, or a university.

      In place of some “maintains” guy running around all day, they monitor the whole large complex remote. If
      they see the “pressure” rising in some ventilation system, then they know that the
      air filters need replacing, and will dispatch maintains people to deal with
      this issue.

      In place of having “one” person run around, they can “centralize” the monitoring into one rooms, but WHY pay for that silly job? The monitoring center can service 100’s of customers. The result is better service at a MUCH lower cost. Why
      have some person running around checking the large number of buildings at some
      large complex all day long? And why pay such a person to sit in some office all
      day looking at monitor screens on site?
      You can hire a company that offers such
      services. So such monitoring is not limited to “fire” or “alarms” but also
      offer monitoring of typical “building” systems like HVAC etc.

      Such control of heating, furnace systems etc. has been done for years remote. And it gone over the
      internet for years – just like every business I know uses the internet for their banking.

      The idea that Rossi monitoring his heaters for over the internet is some big deal of an issue
      is quite funny – this type of monitoring or doing banking over the internet
      been around for years.

      Nothing to see here – move along to “quote” that famous star wars line!

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • nietsnie

        Let’s be clear here. We’re not talking about remote *monitoring* air conditioning . We’re talking about remote *controlling* a nuclear reactor.

        In a 1960’s simple air conditioning system there is a sensor (thermostat) and a control (mercury switch). Adding a remote, Internet mediated, monitoring system can vouchsafe against the failure of an automated control. If the bi-metal strip cracks and breaks then the control system no longer exists. In that case the air conditioner is either stuck on, or stuck off, resulting in the building being too warm or too cool. A monitor system can notice this and alert an overseer who can dispatch a service person to fix it.

        Notice that the control system is local to the building and if the Internet connection is unavailable, the worst thing that can happen (in the unlikely event that the control fails *during* that outing) is that the air temperature of the building isn’t comfortable for its occupants.

        Whereas, Rossi plans to, metaphorically, locate the mercury switch, *not the monitor – the control*, somewhere else. And if someone crashes into a utility poll and takes down the local Internet for a few hours, the worst thing that could happen is that a nuclear reactor, within which the equivalent energy of a gallon or more of gasoline on fire at any given moment, is either stuck on or stuck off. Complicating this some more, when an e-cats control system is stuck on – it reportedly melts down, explodes, and emits radiation.

        But, I suggested that, as uncomfortable as that makes me feel, a local control system (possibly with a backup…) could monitor the connection with Rossi’s control station and automatically shut the reactor down if, for some reason, the Internet fails. My *primary* concern is that moving control of the reactor off-site, connected by the Internet, leaves open the potential of a hacker taking control of the reactor.

        And yes – a hacker gaining control is a very real potential with remote HVAC control system as well, if such things exist. However, again, the worst that can happen in that eventuality is that the buildings occupants sweat through their dress shirts. At the present moment, I don’t think anyone knows for sure what the *worst* thing that could happen from a million watt LENR e-cat exploding is. Maybe it’s just a melt down and explosion of the thousand little reactors resulting in their total loss. Or, maybe it’s also a burst of unexpected neutron and gamma radiation plus a fire.

        But – why risk it when a dedicated line obviates that risk to nearly zero?

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Sorry, but I see this as MUCH different

          You mean to think that some noddle soup factory with huge boilers being powered by Rossi’s heater can’t be shut down if they need to drain the tanks for the day?

          You mean to think that if for the morning they don’t need heat, but in the afternoon they do,
          that the control panels and systems that “demand” heat are not going to be on
          the factory floor?

          Really?

          I mean, Really really really?

          Let’s not be silly here.

          And the box is not a nuclear reactor in any traditional sense.

          The idea that control systems that demand heat, or allow the factory to shut down heat
          production, or demand heat production will not occur on site is beyond laughable. There is no such setup that would be remotely practical (to use a pun here!!).

          Cleary the running, the maintains, the internal systems, the pumps and any other “system” that is internal that has some issue will of course be monitored and controlled remote. So of
          course things like status of the LENR “charge” etc. will be managed remote.

          There are TONS of companies that lease or rent a photocopier – they can’t even open the unit
          (even to add toner). But that does not suggest the copier will start spitting
          out copies of paper when someone does not demand printing of documents.

          In all serious, what on earth are you thinking here?

          As I pointed out, DEKA controls all HVAC systems for the Sydney Opera house in Australia from the USA. That is a 200,000 sq foot complex. And you even seen the steam boilers for large complexes? if a steam boiler blows up, you have a huge problem – far worse then some Rossi heater at 1 million watts. To heat 200,000 sq ft. you need about 10,000,000 btu’s. That is 2,930,710 million watts.
          You would need 3 Rossi reactors to heat the Sydney Opera house. The gas heaters, the risk of explosion is FAR MORE then a Rossi reactor for the systems that heat such a large complex.
          And if internet goes down during a concert at the Opera house, you think that everyone goes home because DEKA can’t control and monitor the heating systems from the USA?
          I suppose a fair question is how long Rossi will allow the Reactor to run without a internet connection, but at the end of the day, the concept of remote control and monitoring of that reactor will have LITTLE effect on the daily use in a factory setting.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • nietsnie

            I can’t tell whether you are deliberately ignoring my point or not. I tend to be verbose, so let me try to be more succinct.

            Internet *control* of an e-cat opens the opportunity for hackers to *control* it also. This is my main point. A hacker-controlled e-cat may be made to explode just by over-stimulation.

            Although an e-cat is not a conventional nuclear reactor, tests by the MFMP and others indicate that they can emit neutron and gamma radiation – most especially just before they blow up.

            When I have examined raw data from MFMP tests what is most striking is how often the power is turned on and off in order to control it. It’s constantly being modified – not by the minute or hour, but by the second.

            Without a functioning control system an e-cat that was stuck in ‘on’ would shortly explode.

            Well… that said, I don’t want to leave the impression that I’m an expert, because I’m not. I don’t have any experience experimenting with it myself. But, I have spent a lot of hours watching others do it online.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Really? How much of a risk?

            You do realize that the VAST majority of bank card machines at near EVERY small retailer uses the internet, right? In other words a HUGE portion of bank card transactions use the plane jane internet. How come then all those machines are not hacked? You do realize that the vast majority of 3rd party bank machines ALSO use the internet, right?

            And in fact a lot of bank machines placed inside of restaurants and bars use Wi-fi, right? (they use the business local Wi-Fi connection that everyone else also can use!!!).

            And even significant portion of non 3rd party bank machines now also use the internet.

            And just about everyone uses the internet for banking from home.

            As homer Simpson would say:

            Duh!!!

            So if all these systems use the internet, then how come no big security hole?

            How come we don’t hear of banking machines being hacked on a daily basis?

            The idea that such a system is any more or less vulnerable then the banking system is beyond laughable.

            >>I can’t tell whether you are deliberately ignoring my point or not

            Oh, yes, I am most certainly ignoring what you are saying.

            The fact that I took computing science at University of Alberta, been in the software industry for 25 years is really moot here. I would be hard pressed and shocked that people don’t realize that a VERY large portion of times when they use their credit card, or bank card, that connection is over the wild internet.

            You don’t need to be a network and security expert, but you do have to at least once in your lifetime walked into a mall, a store or whatever and observed how their equipment is setup, and how it works.

            Sorry, but there are all kinds of systems that connect over the internet, and have done so for a very long time – they are RARE hacked. Obvious such secure setups will have limits on their IP address are allowed to connect, and what IP address such systems will only connect to.

            I can place a computer with a wide open port at my IP address. However if the software is setup to only allow a given IP address connection, then you can try all day long to connect – you not getting anywhere.

            Such systems will have multiple layers of security – starting with a VPN (Virtual private network), a layer or two of SSL (secure sockets laywer). And that only the start.

            There is a GAZILLION systems that connect bank machines, or security camerais, and juast about ANYTHING that can work over the internet on a daily basis this way.

            I think teller machines and handheld Wi-Fi bank card machines that retailers use would be far more of a target for hackers.

            I going to bite my tong here, and not be too condenscnding here. I see this issue of communation over the internet as a near MOOT point in terms of such systems being “high risk” in terms of being hacked.

            How the “basic” everyday setup for VPN’s etc. for such systems is long established, and the instances of hacking are VERY rare – especially since such systems tend to have their IP address not only fixed, but restrictions exist in which IP address are allowed to connect. You can’t connect to such system unless the agreed upon IP address match up. And that IP address restriction is just grade 2 security – you have to pass another 12 levels of security all the way up to university level type of security.

            Hate to burst your bubble, but bank teller machines, credit card machines, security camera systems and even simple setups that allow corporate clients to travel on the road but connect to sensitive corporate data systems is something that NEAR EVERY company I know does on a daily basis. And ALL of these systems connect over a standard internet connection.

            Does this help you explain my position on this matter?

            Fell free to ask or have me expand on all of the issues I touched here.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • nietsnie

            I’m only now realizing that you are a troll. And here I’ve been encouraging you. My bad. Go ahead and have the last word – you earned it.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, I am all open to the case that such systems such as when you use a bank machine, or pay with a bank card at a restaurant, or other “high value” targets for hackers is as big
            as a risk as you state?

            I simple don’t see this risk as high, and as noted it is common practice to “shuffle” such “high value” systems and use such “high value” systems over the internet – it not
            some “un-heard” of thing but a “common” occurrence.

            If you can make a case that this “common” occurrence of such systems being used over the internet is far worse of a security hole and flaw then I am making, then I will be most
            happy to entertain your views on this matter.

            The “real world” use of such technologies over the internet does not pan out the risk factors you are making claim to.

            Hey, at the end of the day, we have different views on this issue, and if someone makes a better case then mine, or brings up some reasons as to why this risk is too high, then
            I am all ears.

            I find it rather “funny” that because we have different viewpoints on some issue, that is considered trolling – that is not an intellectual response nor an argument on your part.

            Because someone disagrees with me, I am to now call that person out as a troll? That is a weak response and argument.

            We obvious have different views on this issue – I made my case.

            I am open to any and all reasons as to why such a setup is too high risk.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Rene

    SCADA based power, water and sewage system have already been compromised, and this is a situation undergoing a ton of cleanup. Ten years ago Phlashing came into existence: https://boingboing.net/2008/05/20/phlashing-attack-per.html

    DDOS has been with us for decades to the present. There is not much at issue for remote monitoring (reading data), there are some issues with respect to remote controlling and maintaining sufficient security to thwart or minimize intrusions or disruptions.

    The reality is that local control is mandated in safety critical systems. A safety critical system has to continue operating in lieu of remote ops. Orderly shutdown, while an acceptable possibility to intrusion detection or disruption, may not always be an acceptable solution to a plant. A Rossi heat plant might skate in below safety critical classification, but if anyone can shutdown his plant via DDOS, that is going to sour acceptance of his plants. It becomes necessary that his plant continue to operate with no remote control contact – it is doable.

    What that leads to is simply that his fancy code is in the plant. Furthermore there are techniques to resist physical tampering to get at the code. Known art. You can buy this stuff today.

    • roseland67

      Rene,

      For the most part you are correct.

      Did multiple DOE/DOD Jobs where they would allow remote monitoring, but if the measuring hardware had any I/O capability, the physical connection from my server to the outside world would manually connected when the data needed to be shared or seen by the consulting community.

      • Rene

        I did a lot of EAL4/6 work at a large company in Redmond, including security analysis. I’ve seen many a failure misunderstanding the extent of the attack surface.

  • cashmemorz

    First some facts, and then you can decide what will happen. The first “so-called” quantum computer came out in 2007. The first was sold in
    2015. Their patent describes a normal, or non Quantum Bit app or a way of processing data that uses that data, at all times, in the form of two
    state bits as is done on conventional two bit state computers. According to their patent, the app uses the formulas of wave mechanics and the uncertainty principle to simulate the activity that a quantum computer would do if it was using q-bits. This means their computer is a simulator of what a quantum computer would do. Also, the Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics (which by the way, has over a hundered peer reviewed papers and a similar number of corroborated predictions made by the theory)has reinterpretted the physics used according to the Standard Model as having a major basic error in how physics has been done since the 1920’s. How this specifically impinges on the SQUID type transistors in
    the D-Wave machne, is that the SQUID transitors used, cannot have multi states of values at one time but operates at all times and under all conditions resulting in just two state bits. If the SQUID transistors were operating under the thesis of multi-states, the D-Wave machine could not
    use those states since their app works as as descibed by their patent, could not access or use the Q-bits or their information since the app is running according to two state bits. Also on this point, D-Wave has produced an app that is supposed to run on quantum computers and regular two bit computers. How the app does that is by being applicable to a simulating quantum computer and a regular computer. In other words, the app runs on two kinds of regular computers. One that is simulating quantum states while actually running on a regular computer and the other way it runs is by not simulating but using normal processes applicable to a two bit computer. Both proceses are always using the two state bits of the conventional way of processing data. The way this app acts, further confirms the D-Wave machine is a simulator and not a real quantum computer. The SQUIDS used, are more like window dressing to make customers accept their machine to be quantum based. Since the way quantum wave mechanics is accepted as being an accurated model of how particles behave at the atomic and subatomic level, then the way the D-Wave machine is claimed to work results in everyone thinking their machine is a real or near real quantum computer. What the sum total take away from all these facts is, that there is no such thing as a quantum computer currently and as far as physics is concerned, when looked at from the perspective of the
    GUT-CP interpretation, there currently cannot be even the kind of physics that supports concurrent multi states of quantum particle. This also means there cannot be such a thing as a quntum computer, ever. If there was such a thing, then there would have been, since 2007 or at least since 2015, claims by D-Wave of very large increases of computer poweradvantage by way of having solved problems that could not be solved using regular computers or even super comuters. So far, all tests done by third parties, on so-called quantum computers, have resulted in speeds of computing that are at best, just as fast as conventional computers, or more like slower. The slower action can be easily attributed to the added action of simulating another system while also doing the core processing required to solve an intended goal or app process.

    Here are references to the theory of GUT-CP and the parts of the theory applicable to the q-bits and SQUID transistors

    Tunneling Diode effect:

    “The electron as a real extended particle, each of size equal to its de Broglie wavelength has its potential energy gained as the particle
    traverses the barrier that is cleared; even though its initial kinetic energy was less than the barrier height. Energy conservation is obeyed
    at all times. Tunneling arises from physical laws.”

    Similar classical explanations for the following devices claimed to be based on quantum mechanics:

    Band gap in Transistor of the Conductor-type in semiconductor bond of band:Page 1282
    https://brilliantlightpower.com/book-download-and-streaming/

    SQUID(Superconducting Quantum Interference Device) Page 1730-1737:
    https://brilliantlightpower.com/book-download-and-streaming/

    There are seversl items and projects besides the quantum computer that are supposedly based on quantum wave mechanics but so far only seem to work as lab versions but cannot get past that into real world and wroking applications. At the same time there are already three working items that are based on the predictions of GUT-CP and three more in development

    Item 1: Free Electron Laser: Electron ray gun (H. Haus, MIT
    1986)USA military

    Item 2: The “Millsian”® molecular modeler app (2012): Free
    for download and trial use on any personal computer, is two orders of
    power greater than anything similar based on QWM in speed, ease of
    use, accuracy, size of molecules being modeled, over 5000 users since
    2012;

    Three users:

    one user:

    Philip Payne

    Principal Scientist Princeton University

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/philip-payne-a97559b/

    Another user:

    Wangshen Xie

    Quant Trader at Tower Research Capital

    Tower Research Capital

    University of Minnesota

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/wangshen-xie-85196218/

    A third user:
    John Paulus

    GPU Programmer/
    Experience
    Lead
    Graphics Software Engineer

    Company
    Name Millsian
    Dates
    Employed Jan 2006 – Jan 2008

    Employment Duration 2 yrs 1 mo
    Patents
    Personalized Model with Regular Integration of Data Systems and
    Methods for See-Through Views of Patients

    VIDEO-BASEDINTERACTIVE VIEWING ALONG A PATH IN MEDICAL IMAGING

    High Quality Embedded Graphics For Remote Visualization

    Coherent Memory Access in Monte Carlo Volume Rendering

    Multiresolution Lightfield Rendering Using Image Pyramids

    2 Publications

    Histostitcher™:

    An informatics software platform for reconstructing whole-mount
    prostate histology using the extensible imaging platform framework

    Virtual Environments for Soldier Training via Editable
    Demonstrations (VESTED)

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-paulus-a3a6735b/?lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_search_srp_top%3BtUSTg8TeRSW7lJbT8ljU4A%3D%3D&licu=urn%3Ali%3Acontrol%3Ad_flagship3_search_srp_top-search_srp_result&lici=vMnxRSfESc2IFijtXSlLmw%3D%3D

    Item 3: “Suncell”® Net Power Producing device(2018): Produces energy at an overall cost of 0.1 cent to 0.01 cent per kilowatt-hour which energy is produced from hydrogen electron dropping below ground state Hydrino=(H1/4)=Dark Matter; offered for lease in 2017 to be deployed in 2018 to high power producing or using entities such as utilities, ships, locomotives, large buildings;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC5MM7sSQR4

    3 more items in development:

    Item 4: Hydrino-Hydride based virtually indestructible materials
    2012?-2020): plastics made from hydrino or dark matter based hydride
    crystals; military vehicle structures and cladding;

    Item 5: Anti-gravity device, in development by Senior Lecturer
    Huub Bakker and Randell Mills at Massey University, New Zealand Minute 29-38
    http://webcast.massey.ac.nz/Mediasite/Play/8ef7e03e26fc458b8eb7f351738f26811d

    Items 6: External Mass Reaction flying saucer(~2040? ) incorporating the anti-gravity device and the hydrino-hydride plastics, in development by Randell Mills of Brilliant Light and Power

    patent for the device:

    PatentWO1995032021A1 – Apparatus and method for providing an
    antigravitational force

  • Rene

    Someday.

    I took this photo of the IBM Q. It was on display at the Maker Faire (not operational outside of its cryogenic environment).

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/06a279ac888681fa4baef37c2cb22555c819e5260940b0769073f0de1acdcd2a.jpg

  • causal observer

    I’m thinking the microprocessor in the controller can run independently for a short period of time.

  • Buck

    A relevant article to one of this thread’s topics. It paints a picture of the challenges.

    “Banks Adopt Military-Style Tactics to Fight Cybercrime”

    Link>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/banks-adopt-military-style-tactics-to-fight-cybercrime/ar-AAxyBdr?li=BBnbfcN

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Dr. Mike

    I agree with just about all of Frank’s assessment of the risks and benefits to Leonardo and its customers with Rossi’s proposed “Industrial E-Cat Strategy”, with perhaps the exception that more investment might be required by the customer than Frank anticipates. Also, another risk to Leonardo is that their planned strategy only to sell heat from 1MW systems and to require a backup system may severely limit their potential customer base, greatly slowing the impact that LENR technology will have providing the world with a new energy source.
    Although a customer that buys heat would not have to come up with the initial cost of the 1MW reactor, there are a number of costs that would be incurred just to try out the new heat source:
    1. A customer that is currently getting his heat from burning natural gas may not have the electrical capacity available to run the 1MW reactor.
    2. If the existing heat system must be retained, there may not be space for the new reactor without extensive modifications to the plant.
    3. A new heat delivery system will have to be designed and built to provide the option of using heat from the new reactor or using the old heating system.
    4. A new feedback system will have to be designed and built to direct the new 1MW reactor as to how much heat is needed at any point of time.

    Any or all of the above costs could represent a reason why a customer might be hesitant to
    evaluate a new source of heat even if there is a considerable potential for a lower cost of heat. Other factors that
    might limit a potential customer’s decision to evaluate a Rossi reactor include:
    1. If the Rossi reactor fails, it might take too long to bring up the backup heat system before a large dollar amount of product is destroyed.
    2. Cost savings on heat may not be that significant when factoring in the electrical energy cost to run the 1MW reactor and the cost to maintain and verify the operation of a back-up system.
    3. The reliability of QX devices, modules and controllers built on a robotic production line is unknown.

    There are a number of other issues with Rossi’s marketing strategy that are going to limit or slow the introduction of LENR technology, including:
    1. New plants utilizing Rossi’s technology will not be built until the technology is proven reliable enough that no back up system is required.
    2. Each installation of a reactor will require a unique design of a feedback system from the plant that tells the reactor how much heat needs to be delivered. There may be a few customers that can continuously use the maximum output of the 1MW reactor, but it is more likely that many customers will need a variable heat output.
    3. Customers are going to demand that they are allowed to measure the amount of heat being delivered by the reactor by their own means of metrology. Will customers be allowed to measure the heat output of the 1MW reactor using their own sensors and measurement equipment?
    4. Will both Leonardo and its customer be required to provide insurance to cover one party’s equipment possibly damaging the other party’s equipment?
    5. LENR technology has the potential to create new markets for low cost energy use, however, Rossi’s approach limits the initial use of his LENR technology to niches in existing markets.

    Since there doesn’t appear to be sufficient time in Rossi’s current schedule to have a commercial 1MW system available by the end of the year to complete a comprehensive evaluation of the reliability of QX devices, controllers, and modules that have been built on the robotic production line, it might be a good idea to not deliver that many systems to customers during 2019. It will certainly be interesting to see if the public demonstration of the 1MW system using QX devices at the end of 2018 will really show the claimed capability and specifications for the reactor.

    • Gerard McEk

      I agree with your analysis Dr. Mike. Let us hope that AR’s strategy does not lead to more waiting to reveal the potentials of LENR.
      It’s all about the cost of the energy delivered: the more obstacles AR puts in the way, the lower the cost must be.

      • PappyYokum

        I think the other important aspect regarding the potentials of LENR is energy density. If large amounts of energy can be drawn from a small package, the current power limitations of applications from spacecraft to submarines can be overcome.
        Rossi’s fear of losing IP reminds me of the reluctance of the military to use certain intelligence for fear of revealing its source; If it not going to be practically applied, what use is it?

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Most of those issues exist if Rossi were to outright sell the equipment. And without a proven track
      record, I am betting few would sign on a dotted line.

      So things like equipment downtime? Well that applies to any equipment a company owns,
      rents/leases etc. Very little changes in this regards. I mean, if you leasing a
      photo copier, or a big diesel generator, then if it goes down, you VERY often
      at the mercy of the suppler of that equipment. This “classic” issue of leasing
      vs owning equipment is something near ALL business has had to deal with since
      the dawn of business.

      >Each installation of a reactor will require a unique design.

      Sure, but every building is different, yet they are rather able to purchase heating or air conditioning equipment
      to suit their needs. So every house, every business is different, but they do
      rather fine in regards to purchasing a water heater, a furnace, or air condition
      systems. I mean if they are processing chickens, and their hot water system
      goes down, they will have long ago decided if they have some back up, or wait
      for repairs. What do they do now or what did they do in the past? If one heater
      goes down, and the cost is so high to the business, then they will have some
      kind of backup system in place. I fail to see how this will be any different for
      customers of Rossi’s systems.

      > 3. Customers are going to demand that they are
      allowed to measure the amount of heat being delivered by the reactor

      Of course they are. I don’t think anything here suggests that this issue is anymore then DEKA monitoring
      the HVAC systems in the USA for the Sidney opera house in Australia (and they
      do that now). I see nothing here more or less then any other system that a
      company will use/purchase.

      > 1. New plants utilizing Rossi’s technology will
      not be built until the technology is proven reliable enough that no back up
      system is required.

      I suspect this is EXACTLY why they will want to lease the equipment and not purchase such equipment. And
      that is exactly why established business will be the first customers. I mean,
      if I going to choose a new brand of photo copier, then it something goes wrong,
      I want the box replaced and a new one pugged in ASAP. Many a company’s thus don’t
      purchase their photo copiers anymore – they lease them and in fact they pay a
      monthly cost based on the number of pages they print. And if it is a new brand,
      then this supports Rossi’s case even more.

      > Will both Leonardo and its customer be required
      to provide insurance to cover one party’s equipment possibly damaging the other
      party’s equipment?

      Not really much different then say a water heater, an air conditioning unit, a photo copier catching
      fire, or a heater supplied by Rossi? Whatever they done in the past will no doubt
      apply to this common business case and issue. Again, noting really new here. As
      noted, such installs will be “UL” certified by the local electrical contractor(s) who install the heater system.

      Now with a “new” technology sometimes “new” insurance issues can and will crop up. Some home owners are now
      getting “dinged” with increased house insurance rates due to solar panels being
      placed on the roof. So this is a basic “nuts and bolts” issue that the market
      will figure out.

      The insurance companies do see a “reason” to increase insurance rates for houses with solar panels,
      since they believe that solar panels hinder the ability of fire fighters to put
      out fires on such houses, and hinder their ability to move around on the roof. So I not really sure if any new issue here is
      that big of a deal, say compared to solar panels or a Rossi heater. Or say a
      company looking to adopt propane in place of electric – what about a gas leak
      now?

      I think most business can figure these basic issues out – they have to make such decisions
      all the time.

      > Rossi’s
      approach limits the initial use of his LENR technology to niches in existing
      markets.

      I would think this is how NEAR EVERY new technology is introduced here.

      After all, it was likely close to near 100% that companies leased computer equipment as opposed to purchasing.
      It was really only as the computer market matured that many jumped from a monthly
      lease to outright purchase.

      I mean, what occur when the larger photo copier you are leasing has a melt down? Well, they dispatch
      a repair crew, or they send out a whole new unit if the problem is serious. Same
      goes for a large chicken farm – what do they do when air conditioning systems
      fail?

      So what if Rossi has to have a few spare “units” placed in some parts of a country that they
      ship out to customers at a moment’s notice.

      I mean look at how some of the early computer companies were able to sell computers around the
      world. (They did this with a dealer network).

      I mean, Lennox is able to offer HVAC equipment and service its hot water heaters, their furnace equipment
      etc. in near EVERY major city. They do this by signing up dealers in those
      marketplaces. (Usually some local company offering HVAC and electrical services
      are prime candidates). Same goes for heavy equipment, or even a town that sells
      farm equipment.

      I fail to see why this business model will not work for Rossi?

      Now to be fair, sure leasing will limit your market, but the first customers are “low hanging
      fruit” or what we call high value customers.
      I mean, it took the “very” small business some significant time to start buying computers. However,
      before that occurred, we saw a “ton” of small desktop publishing shops etc.
      spring up to service such business on many a city corner in the business
      section.

      Eventually most of these types of desktop printing and publishing like computer services places
      died out. However this ONLY occurred after the industry became very mature, and
      had VERY high adoption rates. However “kinko’s” and a number of vendors exist
      with a successful business model based on having printers or binding equipment
      that many small business don’t have on site. So they still run down to such
      service based companies for larger copy runs, or having brochures bound etc.

      Prior to the desktop computer revolution, the VAST majority of companies would lease
      computer equipment, or even pay a monthly fee to “time share” on such computer
      systems.

      As costs come down, then those additional markets will open up, and expand, but how computers, laser
      printers (desktop publishing) and a number of industries start out is by leasing,
      because that’s the best business model when you start out – especially for
      expensive equipment and a technology that not yet proven in the marketplace.

      Having said all the above? Well the above is the natural progression of most technologies because such
      business has to go after “high value” customers first.

      As costs come down, then like every other product or service in just about any industry you see the
      “same” natural progression. If the units do become lower cost, and more mass
      market, then I have no doubt that more and more customers will choose purchase
      over a leasing model. However, such companies like Sperry/Univac, Digital, and
      IBM did not let go of their leasing models until competition heated up and they
      were forced to change their offerings.

      Rossi will not flip from leasing to a purchase model until such time the market says he has to.

      And I really do mean “most” industries progress this way.

      Even your fridge entered the market that way!

      Have you ever explored some “older” hotels in small rural towns? Ever seen a “shared” “fridge”
      system in their basements? These so called “time share” fridge systems look
      kind of like a men’s locker room. (Except the lockers were the size of a small
      fridge). There was “rows” of them side by side – each had their own padlock.

      Each fridge box had common tubes running from one box to the next (and then finally winding up in
      ONE good quality compressor and refrigeration unit

      So you would see say 50 such boxes in the basement – they were all “daisy chained” to the ONE compressor
      unit. Customers would “purchase” the use of the fridge “box” on a monthly
      basis! So they could freeze (or refrigerate) meat from their pigs, or cows
      etc., and thus during hot summer months, they did not have to purchase ice, and
      the ability to keep things frozen was thus now available.

      And few had freezers and fridges. Heck, a lot of farms did not yet have electricity yet! (But the
      town did – often a good number of years before the surrounding farms were wired
      up). So you saw a business model spring up in which a larger business like a
      Hotel etc. who needed a fridge for their restaurant, ALSO sell that fridge
      system to local residents.

      Now of course as more farms finally got electric, and the cost of purchasing a refrigerator
      dropped, then such time share “fridge” sharing systems in the basement of a
      hotel in small rural towns is a thing of the past.

      I am simply pointing out that when talking about the natural progression of computers, or
      even silly household item like a fridge, we really see much the same natural progression in
      NEAR ALL new industries.

      Really, nothing really new here than that of how the season changes from winter to spring, and
      then summer.

      I could ramble on with many more examples of new systems and technologies being adopted – they really
      near ALL progress quite much the same way. It seems surprising that a simple “fridge”
      progressed VERY much the same way that the computer industry did – they are
      VERY different products, but the laws of nature, laws of business etc. means
      that many a new technology really entered the market by the “same” progression.

      I mean, it took the aviation industry some serious time for air travel to become really practical.

      Same goes for computers. Same goes for cars! I don’t see anything much different occurring
      for LENR in this regards.

      The only real issue that would change this issue is unexpected competition or some low cost of
      energy that is a better choice than LENR. There does not exist a “low” cost
      LENR heating element “yet”, and you right now have to string a good many of them
      together to reach a “viable” commercial product. (Just like those hotels stringing
      a bunch of “fridge” boxes together all working off a single motor and
      compressor.
      And until we learned how to string lots of “memory” together in a low cost way, then computers were
      too expensive for a single users.

      LENR is at the baby steps right now, so a “lot” of your issues are fair, but are ones that apply to
      a “mature” industry as compared to the birth of a new industry. You leaving out the “big” detail
      that this is not yet a mature industry.

      LENR can’t really progress any different than you fridge, or how computers came into the market.
      This is simply how such things progress in a given marketplace. There is no
      magic or difference as to how adopting of a silly fridge, a silly home computer,
      commercial aviation or LENR will progress.

      I mean, in some places solar panels really, but really make sense. However it don’t mean every
      home owner will have solar panels on their roof in the next 5 years. And the
      reason is simple: the natural progression of any technology tends to move
      forward the SAME WAY as it did in the past.

      So until adding solar panels becomes less of a hassle then purchasing electric from a “shared”
      system, then not everyone will buy or use solar panels. And for some, they may
      never reach a point in which solar panels are their best choice.

      The smartphone is perhaps an exception, but even then, I really see much the same kind of progression.
      When cell phones were $4000 a pop, then only high end business folks used these
      things (and some were leasing them!!!). And same with computers, or only a “hotel”
      being able to afford a refrigerator system!

      Until such time LENR becomes very cheap, and can be purchased as a very affordable unit, then
      such technology will progress like anything else – including your fridge that
      you use every day.

      This is the first “cray” computer of the energy industry – it going to be limited to special “higher end”
      customers for the first wave.

      So I can 100% say that yes, this approach will have some “hurdles” to jump over, but so did Henry
      Ford when he revolutionized the auto industry. The Model “T” did not just pop
      into existence from Ford – he had a number of previous cars he designed and produced
      prior to the model T.

      Like home computers, or the model “T”, these are special well known tipping points in the
      industry, but if you look at the progression of Apple, or Ford etc., there not
      much surprise as to how LENR will progress prior to that “big” tipping point.

      Arguably the first “home” computer (the Altar 8800) was a big deal, but it was not really the tipping
      point in the computer industry. I think 1977 with the “triple home” run of
      Apple II, TRS80, and the Commodore PET computer was one of the first “real” big
      tipping points in the computer industry. So that year was much like the model T
      event for the car industry. Many “more” revolutions in the computer industry followed.

      If Rossi can deliver on what he claims then while the “start” might seem slow or silly – it will
      eventually go “boom” in the industry in a big way. We not landing on the moon
      here, but only getting the rockets to actually launch off of some pad!

      Once that first delivery occurs, then each day might not seem like much progress, but the days
      add up, and eventually you will see a revolution occur that will at least be as
      big, if not larger than the computer revolution.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Axil Axil

    Why so much focus on the IT / Control-Software part of the e-cat?

    In that dark corner is were the failure of the E-Cat lies.

  • malkom700

    The decisive factor may be the appearance of a working device in the industry. Another decisive factor in the government’s role may be to prevent the IP war between inventors at all costs. This was the case during the World War when the government used aircraft that manufacturers had in dispute over inventive rights.

  • Bruce Williams

    Frank, this is a very good summary, thanks.

  • Axil Axil

    Does the same patent cover both the e-cat, QX, and the SK reactor designs? If not, will getting a patent for the SK slow up any production plans?

  • Albert D. Kallal

    There are actually companies that offer “energy” monitoring services to save money. DEKA (the famous Segway inventor) has a company – they actually control and monitory the Sydney opera house HVAC systems in Australia from their headquarters in the USA. So for HVAC companies, this has become quite common to remote monitor and control such systems. Not at all a new concept.

    Such companies go around to larger institutions such as a university, or large complex – they remote monitor and manage all of the energy requirements and thus a full time person does not run around checking the temperatures and energy used by every building on site. It is cheaper and less cost to send all that information to “one” company will a bank of full time employees who then in place of monitoring “one” company, can monitor several hundred. The result is they can offer such monitoring at a lower cost, and do a better job.

    With the internet, then such monitoring services is not limited to things like fire or security alarms, but many now offer total energy management. And they will dispatch local service people when they see the “pressure” on the fan systems pushing more pressure down some ventilation system – it means the air filters in that part of the ventilation system needs to be changed. So they will dispatch local services to take care of this – this thus eliminates the institution having to worry about that kind of stuff on a daily basis.

    And lots of companies in effect lese their equipment based on performance. So a company will say lease their water pumping equipment on volume of water pumped – the customer does not own the equipment at all, nor do they care if you lease them 10 pumps, or one large one – they pay monthly for the “capacity” you deliver, not the equipment.

    So again, not a new concept. This amounts to a form of leasing equipment. A lot of companies prefer leasing of equipment since then the liability and up front purchase cost does not exist on the accounting books and they don’t show a “asset” purchase as a liability. It often is an advantage since not only do books look much better (no capital asset depreciation required), and the monthly lease cost is a 100% write off against income.

    So no real surprises here at all. At the end of the day, we still at a wait and see game as to when Rossi can deliver something that is competitive against other forms of energy – that is the big event I think everyone been waiting for, and I not at all sure how close Rossi is to such a event occurring.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • TVulgaris

      The ONLY reason any company or institution would even experiment, let alone dedicate some major process line, with what is (let’s face facts, there’s not been a single QX-based reactor installed in anything other than a demo environment) a completely new heater would be overwhelming cost savings. Given this leasing model, we are now looking 20 years out before this will make any difference to small businesses, small farmers, ordinary citizens…in other words, the real world that suffers, burns, and dies while the big players become bigger and richer.
      I guess the system is performing perfectly as designed.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        What system you talking about?

        I think it will depend on how fast Rossi can ramp up production.

        I really don’t see the progression here as being different than any other technology – that’s how
        things progress.

        I see little or no reason why Rossi would not increase products and offerings as fast as possible.

        Looking at “near any” other industry, I just don’t see any difference here in terms of what will
        occur with LENR.

        As I pointed out, companies leased $4000 cell phones. Who can’t remember “Gekko” from the Wall Street
        movie (1987). That “famous” Motorola “brick” phone was $4000, and in today’s
        dollar adjusted, that is $9800! so that phone was close to $10,000!!! Was that greed by the cell phone maker? (no, that’s what they cost at first!!!)

        I mean, are you now going to cry that all those teenagers could not have a phone back then? I mean,
        think of the millions of people that had their car break down – all without a
        phone? So they can’t call for help and get an ambulance and they die? And you
        going to blame the capitalist system?

        Well, how come that socialist system did not invent and make the cell phone then? Hum?

        The idea that the fridge industry somehow “held back” the adopting of fridges is beyond laughable
        here.

        If people in some grass hut need electric, then they can go with some solar panels. There is no
        country in the world that does not have EXCESS food if they adopt things like tractors,
        fuel and modern production systems. This is “simple” knowledge that ANY country
        can adopt right now.

        We have tractors, and fuel and that can grow more food for any country will to adopt such technologies.
        There is no patent on the free enterprise system and any country right now is
        free to take such systems for “free”, and start feeding their people. And EVERY
        country that adopted these ideas now have excess food!

        Rossi or Apple does not own this “idea” of the free market system.

        Attempting to blame capitalism or greed or the “system” here is beyond laughable.

        You have to tell everyone here then how this LENR should progress then? We all waiting for how this
        should work then?

        what exactly is your fix and suggesting here then?

        I mean, countries just pledged what, about 100 billion at the Paris climate summit. It would seem
        your socialist flock have a 100 billion, and are NOT SPENDING ONE nickel on
        LENR.

        So if you attempting to blame the system, you better point the blame on those who have
        billions and billions of dollars, and yet those VERY same governments are not
        spending one nickel on LENR.

        I find it beyond silly that you floating the idea that capitalism or greed or the “current” system is to blame for slow adopting of the fridge, or in this case LENR.

        Rossi is not taking billions, nor has billions to save the climate but where are your socialist foe
        with all these billions, and why are THEY doing absolute zero for LENR?

        What is not only disgusting about the billions pledged for the Paris climate summit, is THEY are
        the ones taking that money under the guise of saving the planet, and yet we don’t
        see one article, one book, or even ONE paper from these socialist scam artists
        in regards to LENR.
        Remember, if they were taking that money to grow food, or
        provide housing or some other great society idea, then ok. However THEY are
        taking that money based on carbon emissions and are saying we must reduce the carbon
        use. That is the HUGE hypocrisy here.

        So you going to blame Rossi who is working 15 hours a day, does not have much money, and yet
        those attempting to save the planet have BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars and
        yet have not lifted ONE finger to help LENR?

        And you going to point the finger at Rossi? Really???? Or that the system is to blame here?

        Like all socialists, man oh man are they good at taking the wheat field, and eating the bread – but when
        it comes to planting the wheat, and baking the bread? They are nowhere to be seen.

        MUCH WORSE is these socialists are taking money under the guise of saving the planet and
        telling people to use less carbon based fuels, and yet they done ZERO for LENR.

        You pointing the finger at the wrong system, the wrong people here.

        Anyway, this is how things progress, but if you have a better idea, then you have to share it with everyone here.

        I believe once they start delivering these “heaters”, then really everything starts to change.

        We come a long way from people “renting” their fridge, or when the “personal computer” revolution
        started.

        Once the selling of these heaters occurs, and that part is “done”, then of course additional
        products will start to be produced by Rossi.

        I mean this process has to occur in baby steps, but that first delivery of a working machine to a commercial
        customer is still a HUGE BOOM event in the LENR revolution. Now I suppose if those with billions trying to save the planet would jump on LENR, then that could really jump start the LENR industry, but those with all the billions for saving the planet are no where to be seen with what is perhaps the most promising technology to save the planet.

        However, if you have a better path, and better means to introduce this technology, then do
        please share your ideas here. You might start with the global warming folks
        taking billions and billions of dollar, and yet not doing ONE thing for LENR.

        I am all ears.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Buck

    I will never understand most of the exchanges between Rossi and Toussaint François, especially when Francois links to the YouTube which is blank.

    In any case, Rossi indicates that next week will be the key tests of the SK reactors, now suggesting that if they go well, the development of the SK reactors may come forward in time.
    ============================================

    TOUSSAINT francois
    August 14, 2017 at 5:38 AM

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    This link about your work at 2h:35

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nhsUzZd0uE

    Warm regards

    Toussaint françois
    ____________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    May 21, 2018 at 7:50 PM

    Toussaint Francois:

    Extremely important tests will be made next week: from the results will depend if we focus immediately on it or if we delay to the future its
    development.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • Toussaint françois

      Yes , it is a bug with his page, an old link that keeps poping up every time

    • causal observer

      Not liking the word “focus”

      • Buck

        I see the strategy of selling the heat as a game changer on how one evaluates the impact of SK development on the E-cat rollout. From what we know, Rossi now takes on all the risk of the LENR plant. Further, if my understanding about the relative COP for the QX and SK, the SK enables Rossi to provide greater MWh per square/cubic foot but also to retain even greater savings for his own back account.

        Finally, please note the following exchange, a confirmation that the QX is still the primary source of heat for the pending installations.

        ===================================================

        Thomas
        May 22, 2018 at 3:31 AM

        Dear Andrea,

        Your commercial strategy will surely be improved if the SK will succeed. But what will happen if it will not?

        ___________________________________________________

        Andrea Rossi
        May 22, 2018 at 8:02 AM

        Thomas:

        We will proceed with the Ecat QX, that has reached a solid reliability.

        Warm Regards,

        A.R.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Frank,
    That sounds about right to me, After all it is the current business model of how electricity is sold.
    The big advantage is that it minimizes the risk for the customer and so should speed up the initial use.
    After it becomes accepted who knows what will happen. I hope Dr. Rossi will farm out the development of applications like a QX turbine.

  • Buck

    Here is another very significant market for heat/steam

    “A City Shaped by Steam”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAB1gesb8cQ&t=0s&index=13&list=WL

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Looks like all that ash (in 1883) cooled the planet down.
    Then it started to come back to normal.
    http://www.siouxfallsscientists.com/image/77698122.jpg

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • sam

    Nadira
    May 23, 2018 at 2:39 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    At this point we are close to half year: do you still think it is possible you will start the industrial production of the Ecat within the end of 2018?
    Godspeed,
    Nadira

    Andrea Rossi
    May 23, 2018 at 7:21 AM
    Nadira:
    Yes.I still hope. This weekend we will also know if the SK will enter in production too, pending a terribly important test.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Gerard McEk

    To me it looks like a relic from the past, but maybe steam can efficiently (without huge losses) distributed in a compact area like Manhattan.

  • sam

    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    P.S.
    Your comment is the N. 42 000 of this blog

    Frank
    Do you know how many comments have
    been posted on Ecat World?

  • LarryJ

    Because this tech has the potential to be so disruptive on so many fronts a slower less intrusive introduction may be the best approach. By just selling heat at competitive prices, Leonardo are less likely to be swamped by an avalanche of orders and can deal with the inevitable teething problems in a less frantic environment. Since there will be no absolute proof the ecat is nuclear or over unity there will be no rallying point for powerful interests to stop it. They are convinced it’s a fraud. That’s a good thing. It keeps them out of the way.

    In the meantime it can hardly escape the publics notice that someone will be selling competitively priced heat with zero byproducts and an annual fueling requirement. Even with a COP of 3 that’s worth looking at. If Leonardo stays in business selling power for less than everyone else, then even the hard core naysayers will start to sweat. Once Rossi has consolidated his position I think he will start to sell reactors, especially once real competitors eventually start to appear.

    All the while safety statistics will be collected on all the reactors and the statistics will allow the home insurance industry to accurately judge the risk of unattended units in the home and this will allow them to certify safe for home use such as UL, CSA and others. The home insurance industry must bear the risk of these devices so it is not unreasonable for them to first understand the risk. According to Rossi it will probably take a couple of years after commercial introduction for home certification to happen.
    Many of us like to view cataclysmic events on the big screen but living through one might be less interesting. The introduction of Cold Fusion/LENR has the potential to be a seismic event of great magnitude. Rossi has always claimed that the ecat will integrate with all power sources. Maybe this is what he had in mind. A less disruptive introduction that does not immediately upset any apple carts but still gets the job done while giving people time to adjust to a new reality.

    • Nelson Vogel

      Like Phil above, I am too very disappointed with this black box selling strategy, supplying just heat for black customers in somewhere secret location, that will never be shown. Smells that will take decades to we see an E-Cat home unit, or maybe only when men colonize Mars. Big Oil triumphs again, and we will keep burning fossil fuel for decades, until all the wells dries. I was waiting for years the E-Cat launch in the market, instead of having solar photo-voltaic power supply at home, Very sad end of the cat !

      • LarryJ

        A far too pessimistic view. Some of Rossi’s customers will want to publicize the new fire and the competitors of those who adopt a cheaper power source will be forced to adopt it as well.

        Having some users in the market will also lend it enough credibility that mainstream research dollars will start flowing it’s way (a huge concern of the mainstream science community) and with more research will come independent discoveries.

        Saying it will take decades is meaningless hyperbole. The ecat’s star is just rising, not setting. Leonardo’s current strategy addresses current conditions. As conditions change so will their strategy.

  • sam

    Gerard McEk
    May 27, 2018 at 12:36 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    Congratulations with the near to successful tests of the Ecat SK.
    1. As far as I know you have mentioned two versions of the SK in the past: the 10 kW and the 100 kW version. Which one was tested?
    2. Have you already decided to to take this SK unit in production too?
    3. When the SK will be taken into production, will then also your initial output level target rise from 100 MW to 1 GW?
    Thanks and kind regards, Gerard

    Andrea Rossi
    May 27, 2018 at 5:51 PM
    Gerard McEk:
    1- 100 kW
    2- yes
    3- modules can be combined theoretically without limits
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Anonymous
    May 27, 2018 at 5:31 PM
    Dear Andrea:
    Strong congratulations for the successful test of the Ecat SK. Can you tell us the power you got?

    Andrea Rossi
    May 27, 2018 at 5:45 PM
    Anonymous:
    100 kW and it is 4 times as big as the 1 kW Ecat QX ( not counting the heat exchanger ), that has the same dimensions of the Ecat QX shown in Stockholm on Nov 24.
    I think we made a very good work in these months. Very brutal, but fruitful.
    I am still trembling. It was emotional. Now we have to work on it, but I think they will arrive together in the market.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Buck

    Clark
    May 27, 2018 at 8:51 PM

    Dear Andrea Rossi:

    Can you describe some particular phase that made you tremble during the Ecat SK test?

    ________________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    May 27, 2018 at 10:14 PM

    Clark:

    we had to protect ourselves behind a grade 14 glass because looking at the light radiated by the SK could damage seriously the eyes. Few seconds after the turn on of the reactor the heat radiated from the Ecat SK broke the 14 protection glass. We had supplementary 14 protection masks. Nonetheless, I saw from that minuscule reactor exit a tremendously dazzling white light all around the laboratory and I will never forget this impression. The SK was born. I think we will make it useful. Many errors emerged, but now we work to correct them, the most difficult part has been resolved.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • LarryJ

    Rossi has learned a lot since his demo in 2011. The pool is full of sharks and there are many who do not want this to happen ever. Many of his early comments reflect a level of naievity and hard experience has matured him. His actions now are more cautious and intended to ensure that the change we all want to see actually happens.

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