Rossi’s E-Cat Production Plans

As usual, almost all the information we get about the current state of E-Cat process comes from Andrea Rossi via the Journal of Nuclear Physics. Of course it is information that can’t be confirmed from outside sources, but it’s the best information we have for now. As things stand right now, based on information that Rossi has provided, this is a summary of what we have learned.

It appears that the industrialization of the E-Cat QX will consist of the manufacture of independent units comprising of 100 individual E-Cat reactors electronically connected in parallel, all driven by a single control unit, and each unit will be rated at around 4kW. This means that each individual E-Cat reactor is rated at around 40W.

Rossi has said that when he presents the industrial product (he hopes it will be this year) he will be showing one of these ~4kW units in action. Rossi has not stated what the COP of this unit will be, and won’t disclose that until they are publicly presented. A 4kW unit could in the future be used for a small domestic heating device, but safety certification has not yet been obtained to use this product for domestic purposes, and so Rossi is concentrating first on plants for industrial purposes.

Rossi has said that these ~4kW units can be combined to make industrial E-Cat plants of whatever power rating is desired. A 1MW E-Cat plant will therefore require the combination of 250 of these units, each with its own control system. He has said, however the the control systems will be contained in a single box “much smaller that 250 x the box you saw in the Stockholm event at the IVA”. Apparently not only has the overheating problem that Rossi described in Stockholm been solved, but also the control system has been substantially reduced in size.

That is about the extent of what Rossi has reported thus far in terms of production plans. So far he has not stated that one of these units has been created by means of robotics, but that is his goal. Only when robotic production is underway will he make the public presentation.

  • roseland67
    • frank

      Rossi’s launch plans of his world changing product completely contradict all what we know about how to do business successfully.
      Has anyone seen a similar launch of that level? Would Apple or Tesla or Amazon or whoever wants to quicky earn billions with a brilliant ground-breaking device start to market and sell such a product after it has been produced and stocked in numbers by millions? After having a worldwide trained sales force and distribution network in place? A service process and network ready? Who would pre-invest millions or billions in such a launch without being 100% sure, that people and companies around the world will line up in front of stores or can order online? Without knowing what the product does, how it looks and what it costs? Buying the cat in a bag? Where is the 2-page-story in the New York Times or other worldpress media? No one on earth (except a few folks here in this forum and some other places are aware of an “Ecat QX”…This is so hilariuos. Who can convince Rossi to start doing business, communication and marketing seriuosly, if he wants to be successful? This is not the way it works…if it would work then he deserves not only the nobel price in physics and chemistry but also the one in economic sciences…

      • AdrianAshfield

        You have a very short memory.
        Think back at how Apple started.
        How about the Wright Brothers?

        Rossi wants to maintain control of the company and to do that he needs revenue from the first operating factories.
        Once it is shown to work he will have no trouble borrowing money from banks without losing control to vulture capitalists.

      • LarryJ

        This is not a better mousetrap that is being launched. How many paradigm shifting impossible inventions have you seen launched recently. His business plan makes perfect sense, especially when viewed in light of how hostile much of the world reaction to this new technology will be. The launch of this technology will be a black swan event. Nobody will see it coming, except for the few nutbars and dreamers that frequent this blog and a blitzkrieg is the best way to assure its success.

  • Brokeeper

    Frank, you wrote, “only when robotic production is underway will he make the public presentation.” This is true however not until the robotized units have been fully tested:

    January 12, 2018 at 9:57 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    Congratulations on achieving a prototype for robotic assembly line development. After the completion of the assembly line and have manufactured enough QX modules, do you plan to test a full assembled plant in a real-world commercial application before your public announcement?
    Thank you.
    Brokeeper
    ——————————————————-
    Brokeeper:
    Yes.
    Thank you for your attention to our work.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    This will allow a buildup of inventory while a real-world plant is tested, perhaps a couple of months before the public announcement.

  • Val K

    Well, something just does not connect. OK, let’s believe, that Rossi, in less then two months, increased the power outcome of a single QX by 100%, from 20 W to 40 W. OK, let us kind of forget, that in 3 days, from January 15 to January 18, his prototype description changed from “a unit like in Stockholm demo” to “100 individual E-Cat reactors electronically connected in parallel, all driven by a single control unit”. Conceptually, if he has a working QX, it is possible to put in parallel 100 units provided that the controller can handle them. But he says
    he has a 4 kW prototype, which means, he put a 100 units together, in a single module, not just in parallel. Then Rossi is talking about putting together 250 units to work in concert. So, he is going to have three levels of integration: a single QX unit, a module of 100 single units, and a system consisting of 250 modules. I question the number 100, I always get suspicious, when things like capability of a system is described by an exact round number, but so be it. What I do not understand is that Rossi has never mentioned on the development of heat-dissipation/heat-exchange system and integrating it into 100-unit module and in 250-module system as well. He never mentioned about the problems with the temperature uniformity within the module and with the edge effect, as the internal units of the module can overheat. Personally, I think, that the jump from a single QX to the “100-unit module” is enormous and cannot be completed in 6 weeks. Just consider, that, according to Rossi, the plasma temperature within the QX is 2600 degree (Celsius? Kelvin?). Melting point of Nickel is 1,455°C (1728°K, 2651 °F). Since it very unlikely, that Rossi, a European, uses Fahrenheit scale, the temperature inside the QX is higher then melting point of nickel. Obviously, that without efficient dissipation of the excess of heat, the unit will melt.

    By the way, what are the dimensions of the “prototype and controller? Are they (QX units) integrated, or they are separate? Are the QX integrated into a heat-exchanger of some sort? What are dimensions of the complete 100-unit module with the heat-exchange system? If the “prototype is ready”, what carrier does he uses in the heat-exchange system? Water? Liquid sodium? I doubt, if these issues were ever discussed.

    I see inconsistencies in Rossi’s messages here and there, some miraculous developments, which happen in 3 days, and lack of information on some very important issues. These could be deliberate attempts to deceive competitors, but they also decrease Rossi’s credibility. The more messages from Rossi I read, the less enthusiastic I become.

    • AdrianAshfield

      Rossi earlier stated that the QX maxed out at ~80 W but would probably run at 60 W. He stated he was running at 30% for the demo to be safe.

      So you start with a false premise and use that as an excuse to write a negative page.

      You could save a lot of space by simply writing you don’t believe him. (Although that would be redundant as we know that already.)

      • Val K

        Rossi is not a god so it not a question of belief.

        With the lack of evidence (I cannot take the Stockholm presentation for evidence), the only source of information is Rossi himself. The information he provides is contradictory, and 40W (or even 80W) instead of 20 W concerns me the least (although, I recall his statements, what 20 W is the nominal power output, while 30W is the max).

        So, let us say, that with the new and improved controller he can reach the power output of 40W instead of 20W. My question is whether this increased power will affect the operational time of the device. Since his previous statement was that QX can work 1 year with the power output of 20W, does it mean, that at 40W power its operational time will be reduced to 6 months? Just a common sense thought: to increase power output you have to increase the temperature within device, which may compromise the structural integrity, time to failure and, of course, the fuel consumption. Has Rossi commented on this? But, as I said before, this is just a minor concern, because I decided to admit he has a QX unit that works as he said. If we do not admit it, all this discussion is meaningless. So, other questions from my previous post are more important.

        • Jas

          He may not be a god but he may become a Saint one day.
          The Saint of Overunity.

      • Buck

        Adrian,

        Sam did a cut-paste above. Is this you?
        ============================================

        Comments from LENR Forum.

        Adrian Ashfield
        Intermediate
        Yesterday, 7:40 pm
        +1
        I have some direct evidence that Rossi is committed to building a factory now but am not at liberty to state it.

        The information that I got about Rossi building a factory came as a result of discussions with a government politician.

    • Anon2012_2014

      @Val K — no doubt Dr. Rossi is inconsistent in his blog. One reason is that often he is simply responding to other questions from the audience that are more than suggestive. However, this is currently the only information that comes out of his development lab’s “black box”, so we are stuck trying to imagine what is really happening. It is clear that Dr. Rossi’s progress is very slow when we compare to his 2012-2013 pronouncements. To me this is disappointing. I believe that we cannot draw any conclusions about his devices other than to say “we really don’t know for certain” and then assign our own estimates to the probability that he has a working device with COP of X, power output of Y, and can deliver it to the market at time T. I will leave it up to the other readers to assign their own probabilities.

      • Val K

        Anon2012-2014,

        You are absolutely right. We have no other source of information but Rossi himself. The information from him is fragmentary, incomplete and sometimes contradictory. We are trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle, from which 80% of pieces are missing, and half of the pieces we have do not belong to this puzzle.

  • artefact

    From MFMP:

    Mining diamonds with LION

    “Overview of the LION reactor structure, fuel, treatment and experimental
    protocol, it’s extraordinary results in relation to other work in the
    field and what is planned for the early part of 2018 to verify and build
    on the data gathered so far.”

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

  • Gia’

    save money

  • Tadej

    It looks like hotcakes to me. What’s the price for 6 units?

  • Ophelia Rump

    Dottore Rossi has run these devices with up to 1000 times output power to input power.

    I believe it has also been stated that the COP of the commercial product will be 100, or 1/10th of what he maxed out at in testing.

    I do not find it surprising that an improved control system designed by control system experts increased the survivability of the electronics to 2/10ths of the maximum tested on a prototype design. If he has not changed the reactor size then you can use this to call him a liar if the COP is not 200. This seems to me a mathematically inescapable result of doubling the output via an improved control system only.

    Watch and find out. It is one thing to doubt. It is another to look for quantifiable inconsistencies.

    • Bruce__H

      “It is one thing to doubt. It is another to look for quantifiable inconsistencies. I have been watching for years through all his yacking and have not found one I would hang a hat on. He has been obscure, perhaps deceptive, inconsistent but never have his values proven a deception, and he has thrown a lot of values out”

      You say that you have been “watching for years” for quantifiable inconsistencies in Rossi’s claims and have not found one. This seems important to you. But I have just pointed out to you a major inconsistency. And now what? … apparently nothing.

      You have attempted to brush me off without actually answering or engaging the details. But if this is your attitude then why ask for “quantifiable inconsistencies” in the first place? If you just ignore these quantifiable inconsistencies when people point them out to you then I quite understand why you say you have never found one, but on the other hand doesn’t it also mean that your whole pose as someone who honestly looks for evidence is just pretense?

      People with your sort of behaviour are common in the world of LENR. I think it holds back the field.

  • Alain Samoun

    Warm up

  • Gerard McEk

    One would expect that the efficiency of the controller also has increased. I wonder Andrea still wants to include the controller in the water heating circuit to improve the overall efficiency. If the losses in the controller are still high, you would expect so.

  • Jaja6984

    What do you (honestly) believe is the probability of a commercially available product before 2020?

  • Svein Arild Utne

    30% before 2020

    50% by 2020

  • nietsnie

    Maybe he should use the QX to power his own factory.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Just for fun, it takes 117 MW to run a GE90 jet engine. http://juha.net/blogpost/07-2013/how-much-horsepower-does-jet-engine-have/

    • Rene

      Over 29,000 4K QX modules or 2,900,000 little fragile reactor tubes? Per engine. Well, that is going to be an interesting placement challenge.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah, we need an alternative to the brute force approach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEi8oUqh7W8

        • Rene

          I’ve seen EmDrive thrust numbers (quite low presently), but not anything concrete on the Nassikas thruster save for a couple of videos. Both need electric power to drive them. The Nassikas needs supercooling.

          But, yes, hopefully these devices will yield efficiencies greater than heating air.

      • Vinney

        The Ecat QX is not ready for mass haulage jet turbines, but it is ready for the next generation ‘autonomous’ airships.
        Something similar to the following:
        https://www.hybridairvehicles.com
        Also, for lightweight aircraft as this experimental electric vehicle;
        https://lilium.com
        There is always a power to weight optimum where it is adoptable.
        Also, there are a plethora of modern composites that are not used by current aerospace because of the expectation of excessive speed, thus forces and stresses.
        These materials not only make the craft lighter, but also cheaper to build.

        • Gerard McEk

          Reading your comment I realized that the QX can also be used to keep en hot air balloon in the air for quite a while. The QX temperature is high enough to do so.

        • Rene

          if the e-cat is real and reliable *AND* if it can generate electricity efficiently, then some batteries could be swapped out for the weight of the e-cat power unit(s) in the Lilium. But look at the Lilium schedule: 2019 first passenger carry test , a series of proving effort for commercial use in 2025. To make that 2025 schedule the e-cat as a fully tested approved module would have to be ready this year. Not going to happen. Period.

      • Omega Z

        Apples and Oranges.
        You require all that energy to carry fuel which can make up over 50% of the aircraft’s weight. 200K to 300K pounds. The aircraft itself is also built much heavier to carry the weight of the fuel.

        Purposely built LENR aircraft will weigh much less and require far less power. It will require years of engineering, but likely such an aircraft will only require a couple of 10MW LENR jet turbines or possibly twin engines on each side similar to what B-52’s have with an output of 5-6MW each.

        This is only an issue if one wanted a drop in replacement. Likely never happen. Future E-cats evolution will also come into play. Note, B-29 that weighed about 150K pounds had 4 prop engines of 2200hp each or 1.6MW each= 6.4MW total.

        • Rene

          Thank you, that’s exactly what I wanted to see, someone else pointing out that a drop-in replacement is practically infeasible. And yet, Rossi carries on as if it can happen. To that end he is naïve. He also does not understand safety critical systems. Avionics, engines, and airframes are all safety critical components requiring years of profiling, failure pattern determination before anything gets used.

          Now about the weight, sure, remove the fuel, that now drops 29,000 modules to maybe 15,000 modules per engine. That is still a massive placement problem.

          And a redesign of an entire aircraft is over 10 years effort. Let’s not kid ourselves about the time frame that nothing about the e-cat used as a replacement power source or drive is under 10 years if a full redesign is required.

          • Omega Z

            ->”To that end he is naïve.”

            Not at all. Targeting the heat market illustrates that he is not. He is aware that there will be a learning curve thus It is the logical place to start. A 1 cubic meter, 1MW reactor with fluid input/fluid out put is easily adapted for this type of heat use.

            Rossi has to be personally involved with a few of these early on, as there will be issues to resolve. Once beyond that point, this can be handed off to manufactures who build product for this market along with any knowledge obtained from these early units.

            Everything beyond this beginning point will be others designing and manufacturing.(Planes, trains automobiles) Rossi/Leonardo will only be involved as consultants as to the what the QX capabilities are and what different configurations are achievable.

            I agree, this will all take much longer then most think. Angela Merkel has said the green transition wont complete until around 2100. I don’t think LENR will be any different. It’s a simple matter of economics if you understand what I mean.

            The present QX is about 40 watts. Nothing indicates it can’t become 200 watts in a few years. Possibly even 400 watts farther in the future. Your 15,00 quickly becomes 1500. However this does not negate the fact that a newly designed aircraft will still require at least 10 years.

  • Tadej

    Have a nice bath ~.~.~.~.~/

  • Gerard McEk

    A while ago Andrea asked for a suitable heat to electricity converter. Here it is:
    https://www.space.com/39413-small-nuclear-reactor-kilopower-mars-colony.html
    Just replace the dangerous nuclear part by the QX, and voila! Maybe Andrea should talk to NASA.

  • LarryJ

    Moving to electric vehicles and other such technological innovations are evolution not paradigm shifts. This is a shift from expensive energy to cheap energy which will affect every aspect of every economy worldwide. Imagine the hostility of hot fusion researchers when their billions in research grants gets redirected to this new field of research and that is just one small example that doesn’t even touch on the energy field.

    A large part of the blame for the delay in Rossi’s delivery of a product can be attributed to Industrial Heat’s desire to corner the market in lenr and sell investments. For the better part of the last 5 years Rossi had no control of his IP. His hands were tied. Despite the delay, R&D has continued unabated and the product we will see later this year or early next, when compared with the demo in late 2011 will be a shining example of the power of Moore’s law.

  • Omega Z

    Rossi was running the (3) QX reactors in the demo at 1/3rd power to reduce the likelihood the reactors would burn out or fail during the demo. Thus going from 20 W to 40 W is still only 2/3rds of possible output power. He has also stated repeatedly even before the demo that 100 (QX’s 40 W each=4KW)could be handled by a single controller. These 100 controllers will all fit within the controller box shown at the demo.

    As to the controller managing 100 Qx’s, Google “Memory Refresh” and check out the DRAM memory chip refresh rates. Refreshing is done repeatedly in milliseconds. 1 Gigabyte involves over 1 billion bytes(8 bits each) that have to be constantly refreshed. I point this out to give people an idea of how much improvement can be achieved in the future with additional R&D of the controller. Room for improvement is huge…

  • sam

    Stephen
    January 21, 2018 at 6:32 AM
    Dear Andrea.

    Could a 1MW plant be configured in such a way to supply say 100kW over 10 years or 50 kW over 20 years for example?

    I’m curious if it could be used in remote locations with a suitable external power supply over long durations.

    If it is also quite small and light this would potentially be quite useful in some applications.

    Best Regards

    Stephen

    Andrea Rossi
    January 21, 2018 at 6:52 AM
    Stephen:
    Yes, theoretically it is possible. In reality, it has to be done to be verified. We can say whatever we want, but at the end what will be real will be what will have been made and sold and it will be sold only if it will be economically convenient and environmentally sustainable. I am optimist, based on what I am seeing, but what count are facts, not words.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Seriously, that old dreck is your anchor? If you wish to point to that then it is you who risks losing credibility.

  • Anon2012_2014

    These pronouncements of future plans leave me disappointed. Until Dr. Rossi starts shipping to the market OR gives 2 or 3 demo units to truly independent third party labs for testing who will publish their results, I will remain disappointed in the lack of working ECAT. I wish Dr. Rossi good luck in implementation, but I sincerely hope that a live unit will become publicly available in the reasonable future.

    • Ophelia Rump

      He should offer them to universities for free, to be used as lab equipment. That would be beyond credibility. It would establish primacy, people tend to stick with the familiar, developing engineering lab brand loyalties would pay dividends for his organization, as well as driving rapid emergence.

      • Anon2012_2014

        I agree with you Ms. Rump, but you can’t make a leopard change its spots. He has never given these to anyone to test without his interference, so until he does so, we will remain jointly disappointed.

        • Ophelia Rump

          If he manages to get product to market then the E-Cat will be out of the bag.

          There has to be a sense of already having won the race before anyone might get there hands upon a research model of Dottore Rossi’s work. This is not a choice of Dottore Rossi, this is how the world functions.

          I would not judge him in advance or reality.

  • Anon2012_2014

    There are PLENTY of applications for low temperature electric heat (just under 100C) that natural gas or heating oil cannot address — residential, commercial, and industrial.

    A COP of 6 as indicated back in 2012 would have been economically viable. It would make grid based electric far more inexpensive than running fossil fuel in your home even if the grid electric is supplied by natural gas. A COP of 100 would make PV solar + battery hugely more cost effective as compare to any other heating system.

    Higher temperature heat above 400C — the higher the better, can be used for all kinds of efficient steam electric generation plants. Even for low temperature steam at 100C, it can be pre-heated in the ECAT section and then superheated by the natural gas, thus greatly improving the overall energy MWH output to natural gas input ratio.

    Heat with COP >=6 sells and would be revolutionary.

  • sam

    Dear Andrea,

    In terms of your goals for industrialization of the E-Cat, would you say at this point you are:

    a) Ahead of schedule
    b) On schedule
    c) Behind schedule

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    January 21, 2018 at 4:23 PM
    Frank Acland:
    On schedule
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • sam

    Comments from LENR Forum.

    Adrian Ashfield
    Intermediate
    Yesterday, 7:40 pm
    +1
    I have some direct evidence that Rossi is committed to building a factory now but am not at liberty to state it.

    The information that I got about Rossi building a factory came as a result of discussions with a government politician.

    • Urban Fredell

      If you give us the name of the politician?

    • LION

      Hi sam,
      this is wonderful news for everyone, it will help drive the field forward. Wishing him all the very best. This is going to be a fantastic year for LENR.

      • Bernoulli

        I said that last year.

    • AdrianAshfield

      Rossi is viewed as a fraud by a large segment of the lenr-forum so news backing up what he says is not popular. Commenting on the trolls who replied got me banned from the forum. Somewhat redundant as I said I was leaving the thread anyway. I’m guessing that statement was removed.

  • Omega Z

    ->”what can people do with a device that only give you heat?”

    Same as they do with heat today.
    Integrated with a turbine/generator gives you electricity.
    An internal combustion engine, Gas turbines, Jet engines are all heat engine. Like most of modern society, you have become disconnected with the basics.

  • sam

    Daryl
    January 22, 2018 at 4:07 PM
    Mr Rossi,
    when you will launch the Ecat after completing the industrialization process, will you involve also the main media?

    Andrea Rossi
    January 22, 2018 at 7:30 PM
    Daryl:
    Our company will, yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • LilyLover

    In the future, they’ll teach –
    Look, Rossi built the factory and delivered a product in six months, so working that hard we should build a factory and deliver a product in one week. Well, at least let’s target for one year.

    & thus the the History changes.

  • Buck

    Frank Acland
    January 23, 2018 at 5:38 PM

    Dear Andrea,
    Have you started programming the robots yet?
    Best regards,

    Frank Acland
    _______________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    January 23, 2018 at 7:30 PM

    Frank Acland:
    We have already chosen the Robots of ABB, but not yet programmed them.
    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • LarryJ

    “The simple reason is that the Ecat/quark/ whatever, does not work as suggested”

    You state this with such confidence that it almost appears you know something the rest of us don’t. You tend to be long on opinion and short on facts.

  • LarryJ

    I think there is very little to support your opinion but here are a few facts to consider.

    In addition to the 2011 demo there was the Lugano test conducted by independent physicists in 2014 and that test showed transmutation of elements in the spent fuel in addition to anomalous heat. Transmutations are a clear marker of nuclear reactions.

    Another test was conducted by independent researchers in Ferarra Italy between 2012 and 2013. These researchers also concluded that unexplained anomalous heat was produced

    And of course we have the most recent 1 year test of the 1MW prototype industrial reactor which showed an average COP of 80 over the course of the 1 year test according to the physicist hired by and agreed to by both parties to adjudicate the test. The ERV declared the test an unqualified success. The money men cried foul, refused to honour their contract, were sued by Rossi for breach of contract and were forced to relinquish all their rights to the Ecat.

    None of these tests were completely independent because Rossi has to protect his IP but they were all conducted by credible independent researchers.

    Please reference the following link

    http://e-catworld.com/may-2013-3rd-party-test/

  • Buck

    The following exchange between Frank and Rossi begs for some additional questions:
    1. What is the developmental quality of Rossi’s prototype?
    2. To what degree have engineering specialists, specialists that translate rough prototypes into actual production specifications for materials and production sequencing, been involved?
    3. Is this the “confidential” missing step between prototype and programming the ABB robots?
    4. Or, have non-engineers become involved, “market specialists” who are looking at the existing design and evaluating a match-up with specific industrial applications; effectively assessing whether the existing design must be adjusted to reflect known customer biases and needs?
    5. Or, is there an internal test of the now-enhanced QX design reflecting the recent two months of engineering work since Stockholm?

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

    Frank Acland
    January 24, 2018 at 12:10 PM

    Dear Andrea,
    You have said that you have a made a prototype, and you have already chosen the ABB Robots. What kinds of work do you need to do before you start programming the robots?

    Thank you if you can answer,

    Frank Acland
    ___________________________________________

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    January 24, 2018 at 1:28 PM

    Frank Acland:

    This is confidential.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Frank Acland
    January 25, 2018 at 9:50 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    Is the prototype you built currently being tested?

    Andrea Rossi
    January 25, 2018 at 10:37 AM
    Frank Acland:
    Yes,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Buck

      Rossi provides some clarification of the testing of the prototype, implying that any testing will be of a type that does not onerously impede the actual market presentation and introduction of the 1MW industrial plant. Suggesting that Rossi and partner see “speed to market” as an important if not critical element of their business plans.

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

      Buck
      January 25, 2018 at 1:33 PM

      Dear Andrea,
      I can imagine you are very encouraged with the enhanced design of the QX reactor + controller arising after your successful Stockholm demonstration. That and the decision to rate and run the QX at 40W for the singlet, for the unit configuration of 100 QX’s, and for the 1MW plant configuration.

      Do you and your partner see it as prudent to “stress test” all this redesign work for the different configurations so as to confirm expected operational limits? All this before you go through the expense of programming the robots? Who knows what you and your engineering team might observe during this stress test . . . certainly refinements to software and hardware may spring from this experience.
      __________________________________________________

      Andrea Rossi
      January 25, 2018 at 2:58 PM

      Buck:
      Thank you for your suggestion, but at this point we have to deliver first, eventually we will stress test the evolution.
      Thank you for your kind attention to our work,
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

  • Buck

    I believe Rossi sees this nascent industry as extraordinarily competitive . . . a perception he has shared consistently over the years.

  • Buck

    Rossi shared an important piece of information about known demand for 1MW plants. Certainly, it would be nice to know the quantity.

    The only number I can recall is that he asserted that he had over a $Billion in consumer orders. Maybe due to his cryptic style of sharing, it might include some industrial orders. None the less, I feel comfortable holding an estimate of more than 10 and less than 500 existing orders for the 1MW plant. I also feel comfortable about projecting that with the first signs of operational success, ie dramatic economic impact on old vs new production costs for the business, the number of orders will easily swell . . . maybe to the estimate of $billions per month for many years to come.

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

    Bart
    January 25, 2018 at 5:20 AM

    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Do you already have an orders portfolio for the 1 MW plants when you will begin to stock them in your factory?
    Thank you if you can answer,
    Bart
    _____________________________________________

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    January 25, 2018 at 10:38 AM

    Bart:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Buck

    It all suggests that we assess this QX “black box” with optimism. I certainly agree with your imaginings that between Rossi and ABB there would be an eager, educated, and ample rollodex.

    Presuming ABB’s deep involvement with this march to industrial production, I really appreciate the “common sense” assessment that having ABB’s engineers aiding the miniaturization and fabrication and presumably the described testing for a few months and then going into production is equivalent to just about any form of academic fully controlled third party test. These engineers are too sophisticated, too educated, too skilled, too professional to be gulled when their career is on the line.

    • Vinney

      It could also mean the assessments of consultants he has recently contracted, when observing the performance of the Ecat QX, see it is soo far ahead of other industrial heat energy sources, in terms of cost, fuel duration, ‘green credentials’ and simplicity (in terms of fewer moving parts, or number of failable components) that it is worth going to market ASAP, as shortly after launch, the product will highly customisable, as the 4Kw modules (with controllers) will be sold to OEM’s.
      Their intention is to go to IPO after a number of companies have started to customize the Ecat QX, so investors and the public can see the trajectory of his corporation, and the IPO valuation will go up a hundredfold.

      • Buck

        I agree.

  • Buck

    I’m not inclined to see it this way . . . primarily because I believe Rossi has what he says he has with the QX. With this in mind, it is possible to arrive at a rough estimate of the economic value of the QX to customers who choose to transition to LENR generated heat . . . it is enormous. This alone makes it easy to accept his statement that he has the financing for industrialization.

    Of course time will tell about the actual details.

  • Gerard McEk

    A portfolio of 200+ 1MW plants (pre orders) is comfortabele.
    It will be real orders very quickly when the production starts and cost and performance as well as guaranteed output/input is established:

    Frank Acland
    January 25, 2018 at 4:52 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    The 1MW plant orders in your portfolio, can you say if the number so far is
    a) 1-10
    b) 11-50
    c) 51-200
    d) 201+
    Thanks if you are able to answer,
    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    January 25, 2018 at 9:59 PM
    Frank Acland:
    Pre orders d.
    Confirmed orders will be made when we will be ble to guarantee a delivery term.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Gerard McEk

      An addition:
      A 20 kW home gas boiler costs in the order of 2500 €. If AR could sell these 1 MW units for a similar price, then one would cost 125 k€. Obviously it can be more expensive, because of the low fuel cost, so say 250 k€. 200+ units would mean 50 M€ portfolio to start with, not bad!

      • Omega Z

        Industrial products always cost more as they require a different standard of engineering. Much like a commercial gas range cost substantially more then a gas range for home consumers. In addition, 1st adopters also pay a higher price. Lots of up front cost to be recovered.

  • Buck

    Arguably, the following exchange is a lesson on how not to ask a question of Rossi

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

    Buck
    January 25, 2018 at 3:46 PM

    Dear Andrea,
    thank you for the openness of your reply to my “stress test” question. I appreciate the guiding force of “speed to market”.

    To me, this suggests that the post-Stockholm enhanced QX might be “over-engineered” as I, a non-engineer, understand it . . . where the materials and specifications include a margin of comfort of say 25%, or 50%, or 100% to ensure speedy extraction of 40W heat and inordinate durability of materials over a specified time frame, such as 2 years for the singlet module, or 10-15 years for the super-structure of heat transfer materials of the 100QX 4kW unit and/or miniaturized controller module.

    Am I suggesting too much about the decision to delay “stress testing”?

    As always, my best to you and the team.

    Buck
    ____________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    January 25, 2018 at 10:00 PM

    Buck:
    Suggestions are always welcome.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Vinney

      A remarkable progress rate, the 1MW plant has been designed, and is awaiting the efforts of an ‘Industrial designer’ to enclose it in an appealing standard package.
      The prototype has also been made (JONP), which is very likely the 4Kw module and controller, but may also mean the 1MW heating element with a 250 element controller.
      And its not even the end of January.
      I think the ‘skeptics’ at LENR forum are going to be eating Rossi’s dust.

      • Buck

        I agree, it is remarkable progress.

        But then, it is understandable as Rossi has pursued this goal for a long time, a goal that has resulted in a (IMHO) very small 40W reactor module that has “light switch” on/off control and stability of performance to a 5Sigma level. Now, the ‘industrial designers’ take it from there . . . looking to design the efficient effective durable superstructure and control module for extracting each module’s 40W of heat. At this point, this doesn’t need to be super sophisticated, as it might be with an additional 20 years of refinement. It just needs to hit the market with a COP with a similar order of magnitude as that of the Stockholm demonstration and last the 1 year before each 4kW unit is swapped out for refueling.

      • Bruce__H

        I am a Rossi skeptic. But like all skeptics here, if at some point Rossi brings forward a device that works when he is nowhere near it then I will be absolutely delighted.

        I don’t think it will happen though. I have been turned utterly against Rossi by his conman-like behaviour. For instance the obviously fraudulent company he created to fool IH, the incident caught on video by Stephen Krivit where Rossi is making claims that solid physical evidence says are nonsense, or the heat exchanger that Rossi claimed was essential to the operation of test system at Doral but which arrived late in the game, which no one has ever seen, and which is physically inadequate to do the job he says it did (he used the wrong constant from a textbook in his calculations).

        I say with confidence that 1 year from now there will be no working QX system in public operation. I won’t be eating Rossi’s dust even though I sort of wish I were. The same for 2 years from now or 5 years from now. But Rossi believers will still be Rossi believers.

  • Buck

    Wow, talking about progress.

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

    Andy
    January 26, 2018 at 8:42 AM

    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Did you already design the 1 MW QX?
    ________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    January 26, 2018 at 12:24 PM

    Andy:
    Yes, apart the external design that has to be done by a stylist.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • gdaigle

      External design is often accomplished through engaging an industrial designer, but calling an industrial designer a “stylist” is a common misperception. The external design is more than just putting rounded edges on it and selecting an agreeable color. To quote Steve Jobs, “In most people’s vocabularies, design means veneer. It’s interior decorating. It’s the fabric of the curtains of the sofa. But to me, nothing could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a human-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of the product or service.” That includes form, function, desirability, manufacturability, affordability, cultural reference, and so on. How do humans interface with it? Understand its functionality? Install it safely? Monitor its usage? Integrate its functionality with its next larger context (home, factory, farm)? Dispose of or recycle it when its life cycle is done?

      That being said, limiting the input of the industrial designer to only the exterior is short sighted and harkens to design before the 1930s. Do you think that the iPhone’s designers were only concerned about its exterior? Absolutely not. They were part of the engineering team from the very beginning and throughout the process. If you think that this applies only to consumer items and not industrial components such as engine parts, think again. Cumins Engine has since the 50’s engaged industrial designers to completely rethink their engines throughout and work with engineers to select materials and forms that make their engines more efficient, reliable and easier to maintain and repair.

      Styling? Hardly.

      • Buck

        I think your point is made. It is beyond my experience, but I can easily imagine the importance of “market specialists” who are looking at the existing design and evaluating a match-up with specific industrial applications; effectively assessing whether the existing design must be adjusted to reflect known customer biases and needs.

  • LarryJ

    Nothing will be settled until the customer weighs in.

    • frank

      That maybe true, but why do you think this time the situation will be different? Rossi had claimed many satisifed customers of his 1MW plant in the past years…anybody has an idea where they are? What happened to them? And what happened to these sold 1MW plants? Nothing will change until Rossi delivers (to his 200+ customers who have placed pre-orders, without knowing how the device looks and what maybe potential boundary conditions / limitations like shielding, particles, radiation, runaway reactors, warranty conditions, etc..)
      I would ask for a tech data sheet, dimensions, working instructions etc., before I would place an order for such a device. Wouldn’t that be logically to ask for such information, since nobody has a clue on this brandnew energy device?

      • LarryJ

        All that’s required is a guarantee of performance that ensures a non working product does not cost the customer money either for purchase or installation unless the customer is willing to assume that risk. It is a groundbreaking industrial product so the initial customers in his portfolio may be flexible in terms.

        I have been following closely since 2012 and don’t ever recall Rossi claiming many satisfied customers of his 1MW plant in the past. It’s possible I missed it. A reference would be interesting.

  • LarryJ

    Would you prefer he said nothing?

  • Buck

    This JONP exchange suggests Rossi is maintaining if not firming up his optimism that deliveries of 1MW plants will occur before year end.

    IMO, this suggests everything around him is going well, including the testing!
    ==============================================

    Labor
    January 27, 2018 at 4:09 AM

    Dr Rossi
    Are you still on schedule to start to deliver the Ecat QX 1 MW within this year?

    ______________________________________________________

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    January 27, 2018 at 7:17 PM

    Labor:
    I think so.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • sam

    John
    January 27, 2018 at 3:01 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    Is it true that your US Patent has been granted also by the European Patent office and from the Canada Patent Office? The success with all these three patent offices would make your patent very solid, because they are the most selective patent offices of the world and it is very difficult to be approved by all of them…it is a veritable “Triple Crown”!
    Cheers
    John

    Andrea Rossi
    January 27, 2018 at 7:22 PM
    John:
    Yes, it is absolutely true. Many other Countries have granted the patent: the area where our patent has been approved covers the 90% of the world’s GOP. The investments in this sector of our IP have been intense, as well as the work to arrive to this result, but at the end we got it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Labor
    January 27, 2018 at 4:09 AM
    Dr Rossi
    Are you still on schedule to start to deliver the Ecat QX 1 MW within this year?

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    January 27, 2018 at 7:17 PM
    Labor:
    I think so.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Bruce Williams

    I strongly agree with your proposal & I would contribute to the costs.

  • Buck

    Rossi expresses clear feelings about his production goal for 2018. I capitalize for emphasis.
    Now, will all the remaining pieces fall into place?

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

    Craig
    January 27, 2018 at 10:11 PM

    Dear Andrea,
    What about the jet engine R&D?
    All the best,
    Craig
    ___________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    January 28, 2018 at 10:03 AM

    Craig:
    It is on course, even if now my focus is in the launch of the fluid heater basic version. I wand AT ANY COST TO PRESENT THE PRODUCT WITHIN THIS YEAR.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • LarryJ

    Hard to find what doesn’t exist. The only 1MW reactor I am aware that Rossi ever sold was a 1MW reactor that he was rumoured to have sold to the US military after the 2011 demo. I think you imagined the rest.

  • sam

    Bill Hayes
    January 28, 2018 at 5:56 PM
    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    You recently used the term: “Fluid Heater Basic Version” in a response to a question. I was wondering if the fluid heater is your prototype industrial product (basic version) and that it consists of the integration of 100 QX devices mounted on a heat-exchanger platform and electrical wiring connections to the QX devices, plus a cable that connects to an external electronics controller?

    a. Is this an accurate description of a Fluid Heater Basic Version?

    b. What will you call individual QX units: QX Reactor, QX Module, QX Unit, or QX device?

    c. What will you call the integrated array of 100 QX reactors mounted on a heat-exchanger and associated wiring: Fluid Heater, Fluid Heater Module, or Fluid Heater Assembly?

    d. Are you planning to call these system components by different names in the future?

    Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions, if you can at this time.

    Bill Hayes

    Andrea Rossi
    January 28, 2018 at 6:21 PM
    Bill Hayes:
    a- the description will be given at the presentation of the product
    b,c,d- the name will be for all Ecat followed by the number in Watts of the power
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Bruce Williams

    As I understand it, the fuel is a mixture of specially prepared Nickel & LiAlH4 . This fuel is placed in a crucible which in turn is placed in the reactor. What’s wrong with making the reactor bigger and placing multiple (say,4) crucibles inside it ? Doing this would simplify things a lot.

    • Buck

      Rossi’s experience and R&D efforts pointed to the strong benefits of the current small QX reactor module.

      If memory serves me well, this tack was taken in response to an engineering consultant having strong understanding of of the problems for durability of materials and heat dissipation requirements when the temperature is about 1600-1800C, the temperature at the center of an active QX module.

    • Gia’

      the parameter vulume/surface, irradiating surface increases by factor 2 on the reactor radius, the volume at factor 3, the generated power increases with factor 3 as well, the balance between generated and dissipated energy is what garantee the reactor stability and life

  • Buck

    I appreciate the view presented by your “Ergo”. IMO, it is important to recognize that there could be another company fulfilling ABB’s presumed position; the logic points to a high probability, not a certainty.

    Keep in mind, I’m also biased towards ABB. But, it could just as well be GE, a company in search for a path out of its troubles, as they have very similar capabilities. The major distinction, is that GE is known for its jet engines . . . a topic Rossi has raised time and again.

  • Bruce Williams

    Yes, I agree with you. From what I have read here , the smaller one can pre-process the “Fuel” the better the result. In fact I think that the problem with the original F&P experiments was the problem of “reproducibility”, because no-one was using the “same” fuel that they had………& it was not microminiaturised enough…………how sad.

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    January 29, 2018 at 11:39 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    Why is it so important to you to start the mass production and have the product presentation in 2018?

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    January 29, 2018 at 6:14 PM
    Frank Acland:
    Speaking seriously: I want to present the new industrialized E-Cat as soon as possible. There is not a particular reason about 2018, problem is that I am impatient to start.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Marcellus Cheram
    January 30, 2018 at 8:20 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    In this period where are you working?
    Cheers
    Marcellus

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    January 30, 2018 at 10:24 AM
    Marcellus Cheram:
    I am in Miami, focused in the industrialization of the Ecat QX.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Buck

    Rossi continues to share significant details, which IMO suggests that progress is following some internal predicted pattern; he still seems to be hearing a positive balance of good-to-bad news.

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

    Svein Henrik
    January 31, 2018 at 11:24 AM

    Dear Andera.

    A. Will the robots be able to complete the E-Cat module consisting of 100 QX reactors, the controls and the heat exchanger of the basic fluid heater version?
    B. May the robots also be able to connect the 4 kW modules to bigger assemblies?
    C. How many minutes of manual effort require å 40 kW unit of the basic version?
    D. How many of these will the production capacity you now are installing handle each hour?
    E. What will be the approx. weight and volume of a 4 kW module?
    F. Witch pressure on the fluid side will the modules withstand?

    All best, regards Svein Henrik.
    ___________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    January 31, 2018 at 3:22 PM

    Svein Henrik:
    A- yes
    B- no
    C- depends on the production system
    D- I do not understand the question, please rephrase
    E- premature
    F- depends on the function

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • LarryJ

    You have no real idea as to how simple or complex the task at hand is. It could be that the construction of these devices is very simple and that simplicity when combined with a highly skilled engineering team that is already in place could allow the fast tracking of an assembly line that is beyond your experience whatever that might be. You might be comparing the assembly of an automobile with a toaster. Nobody really knows.

  • Buck

    I came to a similar perspective. I saw them automating the low-hanging fruit, the assembly of the 100 QX singlets into the 4kW unit.

    As Rossi stated to question F, the pressures to which the units are exposed depends upon the function of the plant as a whole.

    • Omega Z

      OEM’s will assemble the 4KW units as to their requirements. it would allow OEM’s flexibility in there arrangements and the ability to change out single 4KW units that may become nonfunctional or needing recharged without disassembling an entire 1MW system.

  • causal observer

    I agree that there are many uncertainties, and I’m not an expert on advanced manufacturing. However, my understanding is that everything you cite is designed and planned using software tools (CAD/CASE/CAM). Nothing physical happens (except coffee breaks and the like) until the engineering design, manufacturing design, project plan, marketing plan, financial plan and purchasing documents are all fully specified and agreed on, all online. Another factor is that “advanced” manufacturing is so much more productive than “modern” manufacturing that it is even bringing jobs back to the US. Given the world-wide competition for manufacturing jobs, I assume that corresponding set up times are getting shorter every day as well. And given the accelerating trends in physical logistics, I would not be surprised that once the “go” button is pushed, physical delivery and configuration of the assembly line can start within days. Particularly if that is all happening within ABB (see my other post on that.) Whenever I turn my back on a technology sector for more than six months I’m often astonished at the advances. So while the 2018 goal is clearly highly ambitious, I see no reason to count it as impossible. The key factor in my mind is still the reliable reproducibility of the QX100.

  • cashmemorz

    The last demo was far from providing enough data about the QX to get to the stage where a production line could be agreed on by the likes of ABB.

    If ABB Robotics is the one to make the robotized production lines, I would first want to have a confirmed working plant using the Ecat QX, hand made, in a real third party facility for a few months. Then get feed back from the user of the power, and all details in a way that coves all of the outstanding questions brought out by the year long test. This what is required at this point in time. A field use would confirm that the latest configuration of the QX is good to go for mass production. This is the minimum to get around any units showing up with flaws of any kind from the vagaires of field use. If I were ABB I would insist on more than one such trail client in full field use. Different working scenarios would bring out more potential flaws. No proxies of any kind as in the year long test. If AB figures that Rossi’s tests resulting in his sigma 5 results is sufficient, they know more than I give them credit for. Also I am not ABB or anything close, so I could just be imagining things that have no need to done.

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    February 1, 2018 at 8:29 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    1. Will the first E-Cat Plants be equipped with heat exchangers and plumbing that will allow them to produce easily hot water/steam?

    2. Will customers be able to easily attach the plant to existing hot water/steam systems?

    3. Will the first E-Cat Plants be capable of delivering supercritical steam?

    4. Will it be possible for plant operators to adjust the temperature of the plant to meet their needs?

    5. What will be the approximate cost of a 1MW plant?

    Many thanks for being willing to answer questions on the JONP,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    February 1, 2018 at 9:42 PM
    Frank Acland:
    1- depends on the utilizations they are deployed for
    2- yes
    3- see 1
    4- yes
    5- t.b.d.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    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
    February 1, 2018 at 3:54 PM
    Toussaint Francois:
    It is an extended and complex team.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Buck

    Well, for me this is as much of a confirmation as one might expect from Rossi. Presuming all good things about the E-Cat QX performance, which I do, the IPO will be something for the record books.
    Link>> https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/011215/top-10-largest-global-ipos-all-time.asp
    Link>> http://www.finra.org/investors/5-biggest-us-ipos-all-time

    Regarding his Latin quote, I had to look it up . . . I laughed and laughed. This guy is feeling exuberant and can just barely keep himself grounded, IMHO.

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

    Buck
    February 2, 2018 at 2:11 PM

    Dear Andrea,

    there is nothing more enjoyable than seeing you in such a positive mood after the Stockholm demonstration. You appear to have a clear path to your goal: the E-Cat QX in the marketplace.

    You’ve suggested that your expanded complex team has substantially modified the QX in preparation for market release. You’ve shared with Frank Acland the ‘new’ E-Cat QX will be a highly adaptable heat source capable of meeting the needs of many industrial applications. And, of course you’ve stated that the IPO of E-Cat company would come on the initial success in the industrial marketplace.

    All of this suggests a business development plan that will greatly and positively impact the IPO’s acceptance by investors: You can and
    will work with different OEM’s supplying E-Cats to different industries having very different performance requirements. These OEMs will then configure and build the ‘interface’ between the E-Cat and the particular industrial application’s heat/steam requirements.

    Does this fairly represent your path to your IPO? If it is, I think the market for your IPO will be enormous and you will easily obtain the financing for the massive attack upon the “heat source” market you envision.

    Of course, my best to you, your complex team, and your tennis coach.

    Buck

    ps. Does your tennis coach still feel that you don’t bring enough heat to your game?

    ________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    February 2, 2018 at 2:28 PM

    Buck:

    Thank you for your sustain and insight.

    About the tennis coach: nemo propheta in patria.

    Warm Regards

    A.R.

  • sam

    Lance
    February 2, 2018 at 7:51 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    You still on schedule at the beginning of february? Still think the sales will start this
    Andrea Rossi
    February 2, 2018 at 11:37 AM
    Lance:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • sam

    Carla French
    February 2, 2018 at 9:39 PM
    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Are you working today Saturday?
    Doing what?
    Where?
    Just curiosity,
    Carla
    Andrea Rossi
    February 3, 2018 at 8:41 AM

    Carla French:
    1- yes
    2- studying the robots
    3- in Miami
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Frank Acland

    February 3, 2018 at 9:08 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    When you say you are “studying the robots”, does this mean you now have robots in the lab that you are working with?

    Best regards,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi

    February 3, 2018 at 11:07 AM
    Frank Acland:

    Not yet, but I have all their characteristics.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Buck

    Rossi, continues to repeat his target of before 2018 year end. Again, I suggest his mood is based upon the continued positive balance between positive vs. negative news on industrialization.

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

    Yrka
    February 6, 2018 at 9:32 AM

    Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi.

    You have stopped responding to all technical and commercial issues.
    I understand it.
    You have a business plan, share what is planned in the coming months and until the end of the year (in the context of the calendar plan).
    Give some time frames, not dates but months.

    1. When do you plan to start assembling the robots on the assembly line?
    2. When do you plan to manufacture the first unit?

    I think that’s what’s worried about all your supporters now.

    Sorry, may questions distract you from work, but for years we’ve got used to reading your answers, they then get into blogs and forums. They are read by thousands of interested people.

    Thank you, good luck and health.

    Yuriy Isaev
    Engineer
    Russia, Tyumen
    _________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    February 6, 2018 at 11:34 AM

    Yrka:

    1- within 2018
    2- within 2018
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Buck

    Four days ago, Rossi projected a 70% probability of beating the EOY 2018 goal of commercial introduction. Today, Rossi has changed the 70% to between 80-90%. Today, Rossi is now projecting that the 1st presentation of this commercial product will be in the USA.

    I’ve said it before, and this acts as a confirmation, Rossi is very pleased with the progress.

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

    Priscilla
    February 14, 2018 at 2:21 PM

    Mr Andrea Rossi,
    As of today how many probabilities you think are there, that within this year the first industrialized product will be put in the market?
    _______________________________________

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    February 14, 2018 at 7:19 PM

    Priscilla:
    Today I think between 80 and 90%.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Lindsey
    February 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM

    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Where do you foresee the first presentation of the industrialized product will be made?
    Godspeed,
    Lindsey
    ___________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    February 14, 2018 at 7:17 PM

    Lindsey:
    As things have developed now, I think the first presentation of the product will be made in the USA.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Robert
    February 10, 2018 at 7:49 AM

    Mr Rossi,
    How many probabilities are there that you will start the sales of the industrial plants in 2018?
    Cheers,
    Rob
    ________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    February 10, 2018 at 8:28 AM

    Robert:
    70% now.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

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