Rossi and the Robots

For many years now, Andrea Rossi has talked about his goal of building robotized production lines to build E-Cats. His reasoning has been that in order to be competitive he needs to be able to mass produce E-Cats in such large quantities, and so cheaply, that it will discourage competitors from reverse engineering his technology, since it would be too expensive to try to do so.

As we know, there has not yet been any mass production of E-Cats for commercial sale, and it would seem that all E-Cats that have been made for internal testing or demonstration purposes have been custom made by Rossi himself, or with assistance from his associates.

It does sound now, however, that Rossi is at a point where he and his team are focusing on robotic production. Here are a few recent Q&As from the Journal of Nuclear Physics on the subject.

Frank Acland
December 17, 2017 at 3:30 PM
Dear Andrea,

Will the first E-Cat commercial product you plan to present be made by hand, or produced on a robotic mass production line?

Andrea Rossi
December 17, 2017 at 6:20 PM
Frank Acland:
The product will be presented only after we will have initiated the industrial production with the robots.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Frank Acland
December 18, 2017 at 9:06 AM
Dear Andrea,

So if I understand correctly:

1. You are working now to develop the first E-Cat industrial product?
2. You are working now to develop the robotic system to make the first E-Cat industrial product?
3. You will only present the product when both 1 and 2 are accomplished?
4. After success with 1 and 2 and 3, you plan to expand the production capability for massive production of E-Cats?

Andrea Rossi
December 18, 2017 at 3:28 PM
Frank Acland:
1- We are working now to start the industrialization of the E-Cat QX for industrial applications
2- yes
3- yes
4- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Dear Andrea Rossi,

Congratulations on the successful demo in Stockholm. Do you already have a robot that you can program and test manufacturing processes? Once that is perfected it should be easy to replicate and expand to massive manufacturing. Wishing you and your team a Merry Christmas and a successful New Year.

Bernie Morrissey

Andrea Rossi
December 19, 2017 at 4:20 PM
Bernie Morrissey:
Yes, we are working very hard on it.
I badly want to see the massive production start on 2018. Our bsiness plan is very ambitious.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Frank Acland
December 19, 2017 at 6:56 PM
Dear Andrea,

I would agree that from the information you have shared, you have a very ambitious business plan.

1. Do you now have the expertise at your disposal to make a sophisticated robotic production line?
2. Is the goal of mass production in 2018 yours alone, or is it something your whole team is working towards?
3. Is it realistic to expect the presentation of the first product in 2018?

Andrea Rossi
December 20, 2017 at 2:42 AM
Frank Acland:
1- I am working on it with specialsists. I have not expertise on this field, I am learning.
2- The 2018 target is shared with our Team and our Partners.
3- It is our ambitious target.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

As always, it’s not easy to get detailed responses from Rossi, so you have to somewhat specific in questioning to try and get the picture, but from what he is saying here, it sounds like the focus of his team and new partner is now on how to build his products using robotics. He says he is now working with specialists; and in the past he has consulted with ABB regarding robotics, so it makes one wonders if they are still involved since they would certainly be considered robotics specialists. For the time being I doubt that we’ll get much in the way of verification about the things he is discussing here. He admits that getting the robotic production going in 2018 is ambitious, and we won’t know if it has happened until it happens, so again, we are in a state of waiting with the E-Cat.

  • Buck

    Frank, great questions! ! !

    It seems you are riding the wave of Rossi’s positive outlook; Rossi is expressing this positive view I presume to be rising from the Stockholm demonstration, his obtaining of the necessary financing for bringing the E-Cat QuarkX to market, and quite possibly the simple power of the Holiday Season opening the door to the genesis of a New Year.

    ABB has been mentioned repeatedly as a possible partner for Rossi. It is interesting that ABB recently unveiled a new addition to the YuMi line of robots capable of a 500 gram payload, equivalent to about 17.6 ounces . . . certainly a limit far exceeding the weight of a single QuarkX.

    “Building on the success of YuMi®, the world’s first truly collaborative, dual-arm industrial robot, ABB unveils its single-arm collaborative robot, which combines industry-leading capabilities with a much smaller footprint”

    Link>> http://new.abb.com/news/detail/2624/ABB-unveils-newest-member-of-the-YuMi-family

  • Val K

    I am a “want-to-be-a-believer”, but it looks like Rossi is trying to fool either himself or us, or somebody else. Let’s be optimistic and assume that Rossi really has made (manually) a dozen of QX units, which are capable of producing 20W power with the input power of less then 1W.
    But…

    Does he have a controller to run QX? – No, actually he does not. He “is working on it”. The one he has has serious issues.

    Further, for practical use, dozens or even hundreds and thousands, even millions of qx units have to be assembled in arrays. (A regular teapot from Bed Bath and Beyond has a 1500 W heater, so you need to assemble 75 QXs to match it and build a 1.7 L teapot powered by QX). To work in array, QXs have to be made with good precision, so robotic production line is the only solution.

    Does he have a robotic production line? No! He is “working on it with specialsists”. He has “not expertise on this field”, he is learning.

    Does he knows how to assemble the QX units in an array, so that they all work efficiently and do not melt or break? No, he has never done that because there is no production line!

    Rossi said, that the controller will be able to fire an entire array. This is a very bold statement, because he never tried.

    Has he any idea what will happen to the array if one unit from an array will break? Will it affect the controller? Will it affect the overall performance? – No clue!

    Does he know how to build the heat-exchange into an array? – Of course, not! He is not even close to that. he may have some ideas, but they have to be tested, verified and validated.

    Taken together and considering his limited resources, it will take at least 3 to 5 years to build a working sellable product. That is assuming that QX really works and that robotized production line will be built in 2018.

    So, when Rossi promises to deliver mass production in 2018 he is trying to fool somebody. He is not fooling himself as I am sure he knows well his “target” is unattainable. He does not care much of public as well. So, he is fooling the investors. And, maybe it is his real goal.

    • Paul Smith

      All your questions derive from the scarcity of informations on what Rossi thinks and do.
      We have to wait for about one year. During this time they will program the first robot to set the production line. Then it will be enough for them multiply the robots to reach the production levels. About control box: I am sure that they are completely capable to have the problem settled. Rossi is a great and stubborn man.

      • Frank Acland

        Yes Paul, you are right about the scarcity of information — we don’t have a lot to go on. I would agree they must first program just one robot to do what they need it to do, then duplicate. How long that will take, we don’t know, Rossi has always been single minded in whatever he does, so I am sure he will give it his best shot, even if he might be over-optimistic about the timeline here.

    • Patrick Ellul

      The question is, are his investors fool? Again? Again?

      • LarryJ

        It was IH that fooled Rossi and engineered a 5 year delay so they could sell paper.

    • AdrianAshfield

      Put a sock in it. You have no idea about the actual situation, you are just speculating without sufficient knowledge.
      Why on earth do you think Rossi has built the QX all by himself? He has been responsible for two 1 MW plants before, not to mention his company making bio fuel generators. He knows a lot about small workshops and
      probably owns one of two.
      Why would he want an automated line before the reactor is ready for commercial use? Etc Etc..

      • Vinney

        He only has to produce one operational robotized line in 2018, to fulfil his goal.
        Producing 100MW of thermal generators per week, then add to the line as orders increase.
        No company wants 100’s of MW thermal generation equipment just lying about.
        Especially as its still a first production iteration that may require modifications.
        As he has obtained financing also means he is consulting specialists in the field.
        It does sound as if Rossi is industrializing on his own at this stage, meaning without a large scale industrial partner.
        If his first few GW industrial heat go into secure sites, his ‘industrial secrets’ should be maintained.
        He may even go to IPO without a large scale industrial partner, but he probably won’t reach a $1 trillion valuation at listing, but probably a year after listing.
        I also predict at that stage he will be the wealthiest person on the planet.

    • Dr. Mike

      You are very perceptive about the issues that are yet unanswered with Rossi bringing up a robotic production. Your 3-5 years time period to reach a saleable product is the same as mine. A more realistic goal for 2018 would be to establish a production “pilot” line for only the QX devices (modules hand made until an initial design is established). I believe Rossi will be fortunate if by the end of 2018 he can establish what will be necessary to make the robotically manufactured QX devices reliable.

  • Dr. Mike

    There are some interesting statements in Rossi’s answers, including “I badly want to see the massive production start on 2018. Our bsiness (sic) plan is very ambitious.” I actually doubt that it would be possible for Rossi to put together a business plan that could show massive production in 2018, even with the assumption that absolutely nothing goes wrong in the development process. Wanting to see something happen is quite meaningless unless there is at least a well thought out plan in place to make it happen. Has anyone seen a Rossi business plan for a product development? While Rossi admits he does not have expertise in robotics, what expertise does he have in getting a reliable product to the market?
    While I thought Rossi had been carefully studying the manufacturing reliability of the QX devices with his effort to achieve “5 sigma”, it now appears that his “5 sigma” reliability was only related to the ability to turn the QX devices on and off. Before starting robotic manufacturing, one might have expected Rossi to have obtained extensive knowledge of QX device failure mechanisms and manufacturing tolerances from the devices that were made by hand. There is no evidence that he has the required data to be able to list the necessary specifications for the robotic equipment to built the QX devices. Perhaps he will get lucky and buy the right equipment for producing the QX devices, or perhaps the initial equipment purchased will be flexible enough to eventually be able to produce reliable QX devices? The same issue exists for the robotic equipment needed to make modules (and assemblies of modules). How can you order robotic equipment to produce a product when not even the design is known?

    • Anon2012_2014

      Cart before horse. How about voltage and current across reactor so we can measure power input to the reactor. Without the basic evidence of the device making significantly more power out than power in (i.e. energy out than energy in), I am not interested in future manufacturing plans, financial plans, etc… I have been an observer for 6 years now and I still wait to observe hard evidence from Dr. Eng. Rossi.

      • Frank Acland

        I personally think the robots might be the fastest route to hard evidence about the E-Cat. We’re likely not going to get more demos or third party testing from Rossi himself to answer our questions.

        • Dr. Mike

          I agree. My guess is that Rossi has made only a few devices (50 or less?) that are identical the ones used in the demonstration. (You might want to ask him this question.) The only way he is going to will be able to build enough devices to see how many can be run by his re-designed controller is to automate the manufacturing process. However, without establishing specs and tolerances for the robotic equipment by analyzing hundreds of hand made devices, the chances for early success in robotic manufacturing are greatly diminished. (Also, have enough QX devices been built and tested to determine what specs are required on the starting materials to consistently build reliable parts?)

        • Frederic Maillard

          Hello Frank,

          Maybe you might also add this question to Dr. Mike’s below for Andrea Rossi :

          How many QX did you manage to assemble so far in a working prototype bundle :
          a) less than 10
          b) 10 to 100
          c) 100 to 1000
          d) more than 1000

      • Dr. Mike

        My comment was just directed toward what was said in Frank’s post. In my many comments over the last several weeks I’ve stated that Rossi needs to prove to his investors that he can achieve a system COP of at least 10. The investors should also want to see a system COP, rather than a direct power measurement across the device, because it is too easy to hide power going to the device (higher frequencies than power equipment can measure, for example). As part of a business development plan, I also would like to see an early milestone of demonstrating more power out than more power in (within a few months).
        I am interested in the manufacturing plans because I’ve seen the problems that can go wrong in bringing up a manufacturing plant. With Rossi’s lack of expertise in this area I believe that at the end of 2018 we will be told that “the business plan was too ambitious” and “there were too many unforeseen problems”- a product will be ready in 2019.

        • Anon2012_2014

          I give Rossi a 10% chance of producing a working and proven device that is publicly proven by competent scientist and engineers before he dies. If he had it, he would have done it at the IH trial. Instead he settled showing nothing. If the device works, while I can measure input to the power supply, what I really want to see is how much excess power the reactor is doing. That proves LENR or whatever Rossi calls it today. For demos, a big lithium ion battery in a power supply can easily trick us. I want to see the power input at the reactor terminals.

          • LarryJ

            Rossi never actually had a chance to prove anything at the trial because immediately after the jury selection and opening arguments the IH legal team saw that he was serious about proving his case. They knew they would have to discredit Penon the ERV and that would have been a very uphill battle. They knew they were finished before they started, wisely threw in the towel and relinquished all their ill gotten gains. The actual trial not counting jury selection ran 1/2 day and you say if he had proof he would have shown it at the trial but instead settled for showing nothing. What a joke. You like to make up history as you go along.

            As for having a 10% chance of proving to a scientist that his device works your supposition is moot since customers will be happily using and paying for it long before the majority of those dinosaurs get their act together. This tech is going to require retraining and refunding for a very large number of them so naturally there is great resistance.

          • Anon2012_2014

            LarryJ,

            First, let’s keep it civil and leave the ad hominem “what a jokes” and other to the man assertions out of the discourse.

            I believe it was Rossi who moved to settle before the first testimony, which he did for zero money. I believe that is because Rossi’s legal team knew that they had no case and faced paying for IH’s legal bills. Otherwise they would have pressed the case for the remainder of the $89 mm.

            Do you have some public evidence that supports your assertion that “immediately after jury selection and opening arguments IH legal team saw that he was serious about proving his case” for your history?

            I still go with my 10% chance from the information that I have in the public domain. What’s your probability assessment?

          • LarryJ

            An ad hominem is when you attack the person and not the argument. You argued that if Rossi had proof his device worked he would have shown it at a trial which lasted less than one day and I argued that that your argument was a joke. By accusing me of ad hominem you attacked me and not my argument and thus made an ad hominem where I did not so consider your own advice and keep it civil. By the way, I hold by my statement. Your argument was a joke.

            There is no evidence of what went through either legal teams minds prior to coming to a settlement however as they say, the proof is in the pudding. IH relinquished everything they gained in the contract with Rossi plus the 1MW reactor which they built and owned. Rossi would have been a fool to try for more as IH would surely have appealed or declared bankruptcy or who knows what. It would have dragged on for years and a law of diminishing returns would soon have come into play. Rossi got exactly what he wanted, quick and clean. Full control of his IP, the cancellation of licenses that could ultimately be worth billions or trillions and he got IH out of his life. IH lost the crown jewel in their LENR portfolio. That doesn’t sound to me like IH was playing from a strong hand but hey, everyone’s entitled to their opinion.

            There are serious problems with proving his device to a competent scientist. We might be able to agree on who is a scientist if we set some sort of standard like a degree in physics but the word competent launches us into the world of ungrounded assessments. Dr Penon the ERV was agreed to by both sides as the ERV for the contract and was highly credible but would everyone agree he was competent? There will always be naysayers and doubters. Rossi’s device will be proven by the customers and not by scientists.

    • AdrianAshfield

      Your usual pessimistic view of the situation.
      The QX is so small it only needs a small manufacturing line that a company like ABB could provide off the shelf.
      This line can then be duplicated as needed by sales. I think it possible he could have such a line in a year with some luck.

      I suspect the manufacture of the controller and modules of QXs for commercial use will be more difficult and that, combined with testing, will take longer.

      • Dr. Mike

        I don’t think that anyone can deliver an “off the shelf” machine to robotically build QX devices. At a best case some company may already have some or most robotic pieces that can eventually be put together to form a machine that is capable of building reliable QX devices and then only have to develop a few new pieces to complete the task. The goal should be to make sure that “luck” is not a factor in putting together the automated manufacturing equipment and processes.
        I see the controller design being quite straight forward for an EE talented in such designs. However, I’m not sure that the development of the QX device is far enough along to specify exactly what the controller must do. Therefore, I expect that there will be several iterations of the controller design. I agree that the automation of the module assembly will take a long time since equipment can not be purchased to automate manufacturing until a module is designed and be proven to work as desired.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    It’s
    just a simple matter of reprograming this robot to make E-Cat QXs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuVQWech6N0

  • Buck

    Another exchange highlights “machine learning” in the robot age.

    ““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
    Italo R.
    December 20, 2017 at 5:40 PM

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    the robots are able to perform interventions even on very small parts such as, for example, in electronic integrated circuits. I think that
    initially there will be a clear design of what and how to make the object. So the first robot will be programmed to build the first prototype and then test the result. And with subsequent tests to eliminate errors and defects, you will reach the optimal result. And finally, this robot will be multiplied to start large-scale production.

    Is it roughly right?

    It’s amazing what you are doing!

    Kind regards,

    Italo R.

    _____________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    December 20, 2017 at 6:28 PM

    Italo R.:

    You are correct about the robotization.

    About what I am doing: it’s my job and I thank you for the continue and helpful attention you dedicate to it.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • Atsom

      Dr Rossi,
      Would the costruction of the e-cat itself ( due to the small size & precision neede) be automated like the manufacturing of semiconductors, I.e on a substrate and build layer by layer with deposits?

      • Buck

        I prefer Thomas Kaminski’s post above. From prior postings, it is apparent that he is a science/engineer, seemingly with an emphasis on electrical engineering. Here is his post. If it inspires you, you should reply to him.

        “““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““

        In my opinion, the key to volume manufacturing of the QX is to design a machine and a process that makes electrodes and “loads” the fuel with hydrogen, or whatever, in an efficient manner and assembles the basic QX element. I think the more general “automation” term applies more than “robotic”, although what we think of as existing “robotic” systems can assemble the QX units into a larger assembly. Since we do not have a good idea of how to make the basic QX, it is difficult to predict if the process is easy to automate. Based on what was demonstrated, the kind of assembly operations are probably similar to those used to assemble quartz lamp assemblies.

        Here are some steps:

        1). machine electrodes — probably many vendors of equipment. Swiss Machine Screw type of machine.
        2). “load” fuel — custom process with high-temperature and pressure using hydogen?
        3). Fabricate tube — likely purchased from quarts tube (or other material?) manufacturer.
        4). Assemble 1,2,3 — Standard robot or custom machine.
        5). Seal assembly — ?? melt or cure adhesive??
        6). Assemble Assemblies into a larger unit — standard robot.
        7). Assemble larger units into a device — standard robots.

        Since we do not know what process Rossi uses to load the fuel, it is hard to guess what equipment might be used. However, it is likely that equipment used to diffuse materials into semiconductors could be used.

        Any thoughts?

  • causal observer

    Perhaps the term “robotic assembly” is being stretched a bit. The image of mechanical arms whirling about is probably out of place. “Automated assembly” is probably more appropriate, with some “robots” (i.e. robotic arms) being used certain stages.

    I’m not by any means an expert on automated assembly, however, it seems like another system design problem, with multiple parallel and converging threads: reactor (nickel rods, special sauce, boron-silicate or whatever tube, end connectors, wiring: best we can tell it’s basically an arc lamp); reactor rack; reactor rack housing; controller (probably a set of circuit boards with programmable logic chips, in a housing); controller to reactor wiring bus; manifold of tubes for circulating the fluid among the reactors; fluid control (it is a fluid heater); external fluid connectors.

    Further process decomposition yields everything except a number of “black boxes” and unspecified dimensions. Existing automated assembly equipment probably exists for almost all the components (with flexibility about the final dimensions, so exact dimensions are not required until after installation). Then finally the robots, that hand the components from one piece of automated assembly to another, including the into the shipping box loader.

    Manufacturing engineering design isolates the unknowns and creates specifications for everything else. The unknowns are systematically eliminated through R&D. In parallel with that the “knowns” are matched against existing equipment manufacturers, RFPs are lent, bids are received, purchasing plans made.

    Meanwhile all the regulatory and other paperwork is being drafted, reviewed, argued over, revised and finalized.

    After the manufacturing engineers, product managers and financial managers all agree, a short run of the equipment is ordered, and the assembly line tested, adjusted until it delivers acceptable results. Pilot testing is conducted until pilot customer report happy results.

    Larger orders are placed, staff enlarged, mass production ensues.

    Parallel activities, no mystery, few “robots”. Unless the dimensions of the QX change radically during late stages of the design there’s not reason why this design approach would not work. Of course there would be many iterations, and certainly the QX has to work reliably, however, that’s the bet of the manufacturing partner, as they pay for all the parallel activities.

    There’s a lot of automated manufacturing in the world, lots of expertise, and lots of eager equipment sales people.

    Just add money.

  • sam
  • LarryJ

    This statement was made shortly after Rossi partnered with IH. It was agreed then that Rossi would be in charge of the science and IH would be in charge of the business. Rossi at the time was very enthusiastic about the partnership and believed IH would help him industrialize the tech. He truly believed what he said. IH then dragged the process out for as long as they could so they could sell investments. They were money men, not industrialists and apparently never had any intention of massively developing the tech. Rossi’s hands were tied as IH owned his tech and that situation remained unchanged until this past July when IH were finally forced to relinquish their control of Rossi’s IP. Now that has happened we are starting to see things happening again.

    • Toussaint françois

      Exactly! at least 4 years were wasted

    • Anon2012_2014

      Rossi apparently never proved out anything to IH. So who dragged out what?

      • LarryJ

        Rossi left the courtroom with the licenses for North America, South America, Central America, Russia, China, his IP, the $11 million down payment and the 1 MW test reactor built and owned by IH. Tom Darden was happy to leave with the lint in his pockets so read it any way you like.

  • blanco69

    Well said. Even the most avid Rossi fan cannot argue with this. We have all been here before. I, for one, am well past the ‘Believe it when I see it stage.’

  • Jimr

    Don’t be sorry about your English. I read many of these entries and am amazed at how well we all comminicate between countries, on this site. I am from the U.S. and I can speak no other language , even my english is not that good.

  • Frank Acland

    Frank Acland
    December 21, 2017 at 10:22 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    The E-Cat QX is very small (you said sometimes problematic for a human to make them without mistakes), and the control system is very complex. Do the robots you are working with have the functionality and precision necessary to make the both the QX and the controller?

    Andrea Rossi
    December 21, 2017 at 11:40 AM
    Frank Acland:
    Yes, they do have the functionality ad precision necessary to perform the task.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • sam

      Good question Frank.I have been wondering
      about that.

  • John Williamson

    Anyone who thinks that what Rossi demonstrated recently suggests he is in a position to mass produce practical devices is suffering from some sort of Stockholm syndrome. For one thing, if the COP is what he claims, he should be able to use the output to drive the input and make the device self-sustaining — produce output energy with zero input. If he could do that, he surely would, because *that* would be hard to dispute, assuming it ran long enough to demonstrate an energy density well above chemical, and it would immediately make him rich and famous beyond his wildest dreams. But he can’t, and this comedy of errors will probably continue for another decade if BLP is any indication… Whether the likes of Lewan and Acland will ever extricate themselves remains to be seen.

    • Steve D

      Yes you are right, a looped self sustain device is the proof we need to see, even if it’s a just a proof of concept arrangement but for whatever reason is not suitable for a commercial application. One small correction however. Hot fusion is decades away, always has been, always will be. Cold fusion is twelve months away, always has been always will be. Depends whether you are willing to wait for eternity or forever!

    • LarryJ

      An important point to remember is that the Stockholm demo was not intended to prove the QX beyond dispute nor was it intended to convince you. It was intended to tweak the interest of serious investors who can help Rossi move it into industrialization, which apparently it has succeeded in doing. Whether or not he can sit it on a table and have it run completely self sustainable at this point in time is completely irrelevant. What is far more relevant is its continuing exponential growth in power and reduction in size as is clearly demonstrated by Moore’s law which applies to any information based technology which the ecat is. Compare todays QX with the ecat that was demonstrated in 2011. Anyone who thinks this is not going to happen soon, whether by Rossi or someone else are stuck in a linear time frame and they have not been paying attention to what has been happening in the world around them in general.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Better new technologies replace old ones all the time.
    Oil interests will not be able to suppress this.

    The QX technology is very different from the earlier E-Cats so loss of earlier IP doesn’t matter.

    The focus is is on Rossi because he appears to be the closest to a a commercial product. Countries like China have sufficient energy problems that even the US government would fail to prevent this technology from spreading if it works as claimed. Proof that it works would be easy for an investor doing due diligence. so with a mew investor is seems likely that it does.

    That Rossi keeps as much of the IP secret that he can is perfectly logical. You are speculating again without sufficient knowledge. We probably won’t have proof until a commercial reactor surfaces in a year or two.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Parkhomov’s device was inspired by Rossi’s device. Consequently, I think that if Parkhomov’s device works, it’s likely that Rossi’s device worked also. Otherwise it would be an odd coincidence.

  • Gerard McEk

    E-catWorld.com is clearly a site that focusses on the E-cat, but does not neglect its compatitors either. The progress of e.g. Parkhomov was published also when he published his very interesting proof that the HotCat really works. The others you mention I do not remember their names, but if they publish interesting progress in the field of LENR, the I am sure that Frank is willing to publish it on ECW. I have seen interesting results of under water plasma testing of Russian scientists, but have never seen that they are working on a commercial version of their developments.

    • Frank Acland

      Of course.

    • Gennadiy

      Commercialization is the ultimate goal of any development.
      It is clear that everyone wants to be the first and become rich …. 🙂
      And here everything is enough. The scientific and technological revolution based on LENR will completely transform the world.
      But the LENR problem is much more than effects in nickel-hydrogen systems.
      Effects in nickel-hydrogen systems are just a special case of LENR.
      Russian researchers have the same problems. Resistance of oil, gas and thermonuclear lobby. As a consequence, lack of support from the state and the Academy of Sciences. In the United States, this resistance, it seems, has already been broken. In Russia, not yet.
      And this is the lack of resources and finances for research. However, the research of enthusiasts does not stop. There are small private investments.
      But the problem of LENR must be solved. It is necessary to unite efforts.
      Small groups of enthusiasts will not decide anything.

      • Vinney

        The Russian and Ukrainian scientists in academia are more advanced than the Americans or Europeans in LENR.
        The reason being that it takes very little resources but a lot of brains and effort to progress in LENR.
        The material costs of MFMP and Rossi’s experimental reactors are tiny.
        The test equipment (doesn’t need to be the latest) can be gotten of eBay very cheaply.
        This is why I applaud Rossi, he is showing up all the deficiencies in establishment science, and their near total disregard of his invention, is not going to work well with the media when he comes to market next year.
        There are going to be hundreds of scientific establishments that are going to get ridicoled, notable scientists are going to have their ethics questioned.
        And if Rossi doesn’t get his Nobel soon afterwards, that prize will be put under the media microscope, including all the people behind it.

        • Gennadiy

          Rossi is an inventor, not a scientist. For scientists, the first place is the thirst for knowledge. Rossi is driven by commercial interest.
          In Russia and Ukraine LENR is mainly engaged in the older generation, who grew up, studied and worked in the USSR. This is a good school. In theory, they may be ahead of everyone today. Resources for experimental work are very limited. I think that if there were resources, they could overtake Rossi.

          On this site I saw a lot of smart and intelligent people from different countries.
          They boldly think. But for some reason they dare not go over the red flags of the notions of classical nuclear physics.
          Everyone complains about the lack of LENR theory.

          I can safely say that it is impossible to explain LENR from the point of view of today’s scientific paradigm.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    In my opinion, the key to volume manufacturing of the QX is to design a machine and a process that makes electrodes and “loads” the fuel with hydrogen, or whatever, in an efficient manner and assembles the basic QX element. I think the more general “automation” term applies more than “robotic”, although what we think of as existing “robotic” systems can assemble the QX units into a larger assembly. Since we do not have a good idea of how to make the basic QX, it is difficult to predict if the process is easy to automate. Based on what was demonstrated, the kind of assembly operations are probably similar to those used to assemble quartz lamp assemblies.

    Here are some steps:

    1). machine electrodes — probably many vendors of equipment. Swiss Machine Screw type of machine.
    2). “load” fuel — custom process with high-temperature and pressure using hydogen?
    3). Fabricate tube — likely purchased from quarts tube (or other material?) manufacturer.
    4). Assemble 1,2,3 — Standard robot or custom machine.
    5). Seal assembly — ?? melt or cure adhesive??
    6). Assemble Assemblies into a larger unit — standard robot.
    7). Assemble larger units into a device — standard robots.

    Since we do not know what process Rossi uses to load the fuel, it is hard to guess what equipment might be used. However, it is likely that equipment used to diffuse materials into semiconductors could be used.

    Any thoughts?

    • Atsom

      Thomas,
      If the e-cat can be manufactured in a similar way to semiconductors, then the steps will be as follows
      1.electrodes will be similar to high power FETS leads, pre manufactured.
      2.& 3 A preliminary substrate disk of aprox 5″ diam, on which the fuel and tube shape can be build in several layers, in a controlled atmospher (this may be precicly controlled for pressure, temperature & gas content over several stages & time)
      4.Assembly, in clean rooms using high presision machines and wire bonding techniques.
      5. Ceramic (or the like) moulding case insede an inert or noble gas environment. With QC for validation, maybe with x-ray imaging.
      6 & 7 as in your post.

      All the above techniques are well proven and have been in the semiconductors manufacturing for dacades. If Rossi has either what you or myself posted in his development, all equipment is ‘ off the shelf’ only the secreat e-cat metals, construction recipe and control circuit is the real innovation

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Atsom,

        I do not have detailed knowledge of the semiconductor industry, other than articles I have read about the automation used. One difference between what semiconductor devices do and Rossi’s QX is the need for an integral heat exchanger. One of the most significant problems for computer architects is to pack things close together (for minimum propagation delay between logic elements) yet still get the heat out. Since Rossi’s technology produces heat, the heat exchange structure might limit the way things can be packed together. Also, I suspect that the QX primarily conducts heat away from the basic process by radiation, so you have to have some means of radiating the energy away from the device and converting the radiation into a thermal heat sink, also limiting the density.

        As for method of manufacture, perhaps there is a totally different approach. The IEEE Madison Section had an invited speaker who talked about magnetic nanowires and I was quite impressed by the way they formed the precise structures. They used a plating technique that reminded me of the co-deposition technique that a Naval Research organization did to make Palladium/Deuterium LENR devices. A detailed video is here:

        http://www.ieeemagnetics.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=238:bethanie-stadler&catid=78:2015-distinguished-lecturers-&Itemid=165

        I reviewed the talk in a Newsletter here (See the Section News about mid-way) :http://ieee-msn.truenym.net/newsletters/IEEE-2017-02/

        As I recall, the structure on which they formed the nanowires was alumina — a high temperature material.

        As for bonding machines, I suspect that the electrodes in the QX must also conduct heat away or they will melt. Thin, bonded wires are probably not able to do that. It is really an interesting question as to where the energy evolves in the QX and how it is thermalized.

    • Dr. Mike

      I don’t see how any equipment used to “diffuse materials into semiconductors” would be of any use for automating the loading of fuel in manufacturing QX devices (based on my 30+ years of building semiconductor devices). Actually, I don’t believe anything is known about the fuel or the fueling the QX device. Is the fuel contained within a 0.8mm diameter by 6mm long chamber that Rossi claims to be the internal volume of the QX device? This volume would hold at most a couple milligrams of LiAlH4 powder, but we don’t know if LiAlH4 is the fuel for the QX devices. My guess is that it would take a very customized machine to build the QX devices. It seems reasonable to expect that it might take several design iterations of such a customized machine before achieving a successful manufacturing process (your steps 1-5). Note that you would also want the customized machine to test the QX devices before passing the devices on to module assembly.

    • Rene

      Making lots of little fragile tubes is not the way to go. What needs to be done is to build a metal substrate where many QX zones are scooped out of the metal substrate. You can then have hundreds of reaction zones on a block. The next process issue is melting a uniform layer of glass that acts as an insulator and diffusion stop. slam in processed electrodes into two blocks, put the two substrate blocks together with ceramic spacers and you have a nice 100-200+ reaction zones that can be fast assembled, have longevity, is immune to shatters. Assuming the QX reaction works, of course.

      • Dr. Mike

        This seems to be a good concept to produce many QX devices at one time. However, it might be difficult finding materials that can withstand the claimed 2600K operating temperature. I think that initial production will have to be an automated process of the current hand-made devices.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        I like the idea of using multiple emitters, but am concerned about how the thermal transfer occurs. Perhaps a milled assembly where the emitters are conical, the tip is the electrode, and the sides of the cones are coated with a material that absorbs the IR radiation from the plasma. If it is made out of a thermally conductive material, like copper, then the heat exchangers can be attached to the back side. It might even be possible to make an assembly with an integral heat pipe. It might even be possible to use a stamped assembly to for the conical regions.

        • Rene

          That’s it indeed. Whether stamped or CNC scooped, what matters is making something reliable and sturdy in real world environments. Hundreds to thousands of individual tubes with thousands of wires is not even close to reliable. Tube QX was an investor demo proto. If it works (not determinable at present), it needs a lot to get to production ready.

  • Ophelia Rump

    How is that control system going?
    Is it just a matter of wanting higher COP via better control?
    Is the unit unable to deliver stable output without burning out at anything above say COP 10? Meaning is there a control system capable of a commercially viable output now?

    Is the control system a technical blocking issue or a contractually required enhancement?

  • Vinney

    The energy markets cannot ignore Rossi’s invention, because they have to meet ‘pollution ‘ reduction (CO2) standards.
    Soon as one provider uses Rossi’s technology, they will have ‘overwhelming’ advantage over their competitors.
    The ‘floodgate’ of orders is inevitable.
    The ‘only’ hindrance I foresee is legislation.
    This is why he is manufacturing in Sweden and the US.
    Potential legislation in litigious societies is why I identified a unique ‘pilot’ market in Brazil, to medium sized industries to get the ball rolling.
    They have been waiting a long time for an advantage over the Europeans and Americans, and their ‘authorities’ will ‘fastrack’ this technology.

    • Gennadiy

      You are not right. Markets do not owe anything to anyone. The market is always a struggle for survival and for the participants all means are good. In the atmosphere there is no threat of CO2. This is speculation. Remember how DuPont Corporation, which invented a new coolant for refrigerators, in order to destroy competitors, deployed a PR company against freon, which allegedly makes ozone holes. Thirty years later, all this surfaced.
      When the corporations wanted to transfer production to China, where the worker received $ 100, they launched a PR company about the harmfulness of the metallurgical industry. There were lots of green parties paid for by corporations. As a result, jobs swam from the US to China under the approval of paid press .. And Detroit from the car capital turned into a ruin.
      All global markets are managed by corporations in a manual mode.
      Without their consent, E cat technology will never enter the market.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I wonder if he is using something like inkjet printing to get the procession he needs (a commercially available solution of lithium aluminum hydride in tetrahydrofuran)

    • Alan DeAngelis

      ..the precision he…

  • Obvious

    In my opinion, people focus on Rossi because his stuff mostly looks like a bunch of junk that anyone could put together, and he perpetually claims that he is ready for mass production. Putting the two together, it seems that duplicating the effect should be easy for anyone with basic skills, and the world of free energy leading to abundance in food, materials, and free time to enjoy life is just about to dawn. Many people prefer those scenarios to the more likely one where they will have to work for the rest of their lives and energy will become ever more costly in terms of cost in money, pollution, and land while human labour becomes increasingly devalued by automation and the sheer abundance of humans that will undercut the going rate for human labour so that they can get any work at all.

    • LarryJ

      Technology has long been proven to improve the world standard of living. It is also well known that technology improves at an exponential pace which is difficult for us to imagine since our brains our wired to think in a linear fashion. But if technology improves the standard of living and if technology itself improves exponentially as proved by Moore’s law then it follows that our standard of living will also improve exponentially. Many people have trouble with the concept simply because they think it is too good to be true but too good to be true is not really a valid argument. When I went to university which doesn’t seem so long ago to me, I had to use a slide rule as pocket calculators had not been invented. A smartphone would have been too good to be true but there it is in my pocket.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Pardon me, I mean presbyopia. Oh wait, I mean precision.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS

      Just a rehash of some old thoughts of how to make a more homogeneous mixture of nickel and LAH. Maybe the grinding of the powders can be avoided if a commercially available 1 M solutions of lithium aluminum hydride in tetrahydride is mixed with the nickel powder (and the
      tetrahydrofuran is removed with an industrial rotoevaporator). http://disq.us/p/vqjacj And then maybe put into something similar to a pill making machine.

      • Dr. Mike

        Whatever Rossi is using for his fuel, it seems that it will have to be measured quite carefully to insure all QX devices have about the same lifetime and also the same output if operated from a single controller in parallel. It certainly might be useful to determine if a starting with a solution of LiAlH4 could improve the control of the amount put into each device, assuming that the QX device is using LiAlH4 as a fuel.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Just thinking out loud.
          If I were asked to dream up a way to make a QX wafer what would I do?

          Maybe do a nickel vapor deposition onto some sort of masked ceramic followed an aerosol spray of LAH in tetrahydrofuran. http://www.jfe-mineral.co.jp/e_mineral/seihin/img/seihin16_img02.gif

          • Dr. Mike

            Something like what you are suggesting seems possible. I think the hard things would be adding electrodes that support high voltages and temperatures and sealing the ceramic with another high temperature material to form individual QX devices. Devices would have to be spaced far enough apart to cut into individual devices, or if the entire wafer was to be a module, the devices would have to be spaced far enough apart to remove the heat generated. My guess is that fabrication of QX devices using a wafer type of mass production is several decades away.

  • Martin Berger

    Scanning all entries from Rossilivecat beginning March 2010, searching for “robot”: 329 hits, first mention by AR in relation to production January 2012. Over the years we heard that for every iteration of the E-Cat the production will be robotized, robots are already ordered, robots are being programmed, factory buildings for robotized lines are being visited, almost bought or built…Rossi seems to be obsessed with the idea of mass production by robots. However neither there are robots nor products. I would be very surprised if that changes in 2018 or any other year.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Are you sure it was a real bodyguard? I recall that it was just Fulvio Fabiani who some anonymous commenter, half-jokingly, said was a bodyguard.

  • sam
  • Obvious

    Actually it was the bar and brothel operators (often one person was both) that became most rich in almost all gold rushes.