‘Impossible’ Now to Reverse Engineer the E-Cat

There had been a very interesting comment today from Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today, which I think many people will find hard to believe:

Anonymous
March 5, 2018 at 12:29 AM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
Aren’t you not worried about the fact that your competitors will probably be the first ones to buy your industrial plants to make the reverse engineering of your IP?

Andrea Rossi
March 5, 2018 at 2:23 AM
Anonymous:
Not at all: we have found the way to make reverse engineering impossible. Believe me: impossible.
Learnt from a top rank specialist of the field.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Given the amount of interest in this technology if it ever reaches the commercial domain, there will obviously be intense interest in how it works, and one would expect there would be little time lost for some people (such as top industrial and military engineers) in tearing one of Rossi’s E-Cats apart to see how it works. Now Rossi says that it will be ‘impossible’ to figure it out.

Here are some follow-up questions and answers:

Frank Acland
March 5, 2018 at 7:58 AM
Dear Andrea,

Very interesting comment regarding the impossibility of reverse engineering your E-Cats.

1. Do you think it will be impossible to reverse engineer both controller and reactor?
2. Does this mean you now feel more confident about wide sales and distribution?
3. Don’t you think maybe another top rank specialist might be able to discover the secrets with enough time and resources?
4. Does this mean you would feel comfortable sending an e-cat for testing to others, and you would not have to be there in person to protect the IP?
5. Do you worry now that by saying it is ‘impossible’ to reverse engineer you have now laid down a challenge for people to ‘crack the code’?

Best wishes,

Frank Acland

Andrea Rossi
March 5, 2018 at 8:52 AM
Frank Acland:
1- yes
2- yes
3- I consider it impossible
4- when we go commercial this point makes no sense. Customers will use the Ecat independently
5- crack the code will be the favorite sport of all our competitors anyway
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Bull – meet red rag.

    • interstellar hobo

      So its not enough to make your vague statements on your big O, now you practically admit you’d like to steal his work?

      • Pink Panther

        Go back to sleep.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Nice. I am merely making a joke inferring that saying something cannot be reverse engineered is a little bit of a bold statement – one that is likely to encourage others to try.

        I have been working hard, for nothing, gathering and sharing hard physical evidence of a realisation that no one has a right or indeed can own. I am building a gallery of extraordinary proof across different claimants and systems of a common effect – this is necessary to make ‘O Day’ irrefutable. For those critically thinking in this forum and others, the questions I am posing, especially in context of the data I am presenting and the research done in last 18 months, are anything but vague – they are all pointing at the same thing.

        If Rossi has his own universe where something else is going on, then, wonderful, he should go for it – we need more solutions not less – I am pleased for him that he thinks it cannot be reverse engineered, that should mean NO more reasons for delays.

        The experiments and core components of them that I am discussing mostly, Hutchison, NOVA, ECCO and LION are open source as is the LION core reaction matrix that I made open source in early 2014 regardless of if the LION author did or did not use it for inspiration (industrial diamonds in Nickel and or copper with hydrogen isotopes based on Celani’s findings in Late 2012 that was made public in early 2013).

        People could have thought they were stealing Shoulder’s work, or Hutchison’s, or Henry Moray’s – whatever – it is all the same thing. You cannot steal something that has been open for a VERY, VERY long time. You can use it though.

        For the record, I have never written to Rossi, spoke with him, been in the same room as him. I have never seen anything other than data he has shared publicly and I don’t read his blog – I do see snippets posted in various places. I made a decision to NOT meet him unless unavoidable from the beginning. I wish him well.

      • Anon2012_2014

        Bob and Alan Smith and the other Alan have indicated here that they needed 4 weeks to replicate the LION reactor. We should get un-vague results soon. The results might be that it works, or it doesn’t work. They will show us openly how it works so we can replicate and build our own hypotheses.

        Secondly, Bob never admitted that he would like to “steal” Rossi’s work or intellectual property. He merely challenged Rossi’s assertion which has not seen a third party open to the public demonstration in at least 4 years. Bob’s on-going assertion is that there is no IP to steal, which is analogous to saying that one cannot steal a law of physics or the DNA sequence that makes common proteins. These are part of nature and Bob is using open science methodology to discover them with all of us.

        I am still against the mystical clickbait “O-Day” description — would prefer that a leader of the MFMP project speak directly without riddles. But I am also willing to wait my 2 more weeks to see if it works, or doesn’t.

  • The technology which will never hit the market is indeed unbreakable.

    • BTW The case of Steorn Orbo cube comes on mind here. Steorn attempted to cover technology by sealing device by epoxy resin, which has lead into failure of electric components inside it due to overheating (just few first minutes of run has lead to irreversible destruction of Acland’s device). So that (attempts for) hiding the technology can also get counterproductive. After all, IBM got its success with PC just by opening this platform for another manufacturers.

  • LOL!!! He sounds like The Trumpster. “Belive me, it’s impossible!” Rossi has had to walk back other things that he has said, though. If nothing else, there’s always dumb luck.

  • Bruce__H

    I suggest that the reason Rossi is going down this route is because he doesn’t want to patent the technology. If he were to seek a patent he would have to give explicit instructions on how to replicate it.

    • Vinney

      One of the advantages of keeping so much of the iterative developments secret, and then releasing a highly developed, sophisticated finished product. The competition have no idea of the steps involved in reaching there.
      I think in building a successful Ecat QX module, Rossi went through as many prototypes as arriving at the first Ecat, and by not revealing their shortcomings, or anything about them means the steps are unknown to us.
      He was only satisfied when he achieved something the size he wanted that worked.
      He must feel invincible also considering no-one has managed to make even a low temperature Ecat with a COP nearing some of his early prototypes.

  • Montague Withnail

    It’s the wrong question. 99.9% of the world currently has either never heard of LENR or believes it doesn’t exist. If Rossi’s machine works and sells and people start to see it working and, if it does what he claims on roughly the claimed economics, there will be the biggest wake-up call moment in the history of the world. Sorry, that understates it by many orders of magnitude. It would be an event without any precedent whatsoever in the history of the world.

    One thing that could happen is that tens or hundreds of billions of dollars of R&D funding will start to flow immediately towards the biggest and brightest brains we’ve got – who will focus on working this out from first principles. In this scenario, these people won’t be bothered about reverse engineering Rossi’s machine, they will create their own and believe they’ll come up with a much better product in the long run. That is a very rosy scenario though which I don’t really believe.

    If this wake up call happens, there will be governments, banks, and basically the whole industrial-military complex staring down the barrel of utter chaos and the global paper loss of of energy asset book value equal to tens of trillions of dollars. It is not remotely conceivable that the finance industry could survive that loss so we are talking about a scenario which would make the Lehmans moment look like a pleasant dream. IF this wake up call comes, there will be a reaction, which could be anything from simply discrediting the whole thing, forcibly nationalising it, banning it, or nuclear war. Who knows. The least credible scenario is that Rossi would just be allowed to do what he wants in an otherwise unchanged world.

    • orsobubu

      Yes, I’m writing these concepts here since 2013 at least. There is another unintended consequence too, the huge possible increase of productivity. Paired with artificial intelligence and automation, LENR technologies will cause a biblical fall in the profit rate of capitalistic economy, because there would be plenty of useless, discarded, obsolete human work, which is the only true origin of real money, as a conversion from exploited human wage work.

      On the one hand, capitalists would absolutely need to invent incredibly high new quantity of new industries, apt to employ billions of jobless humans, in order to sustain an expansion rate of profit at least in the 2% figure yearly; these are very hard to imagine, for the inherently characteristics of self-replication, self-configuration, self-designing, self-sustaining, etc typical of LENR, machine learning, automation,

      On the other hand, because of the huge increase in quantity of products on sale thanks to these robotic technologies, capitalists absolutely would need to exponentially increase the respective markets size. These could be achieved only through: extraplanetary human adaptation, robotic implants inside the body, imperialistic wars.

      Think of the economic expansion in post-war Asia, where billions of workers were and are being ripped off the agricultural, middle-age traditional way of live to be urbanized as the only solution for a capitalistic sustained growth in profit rate. Without a continuous, history-of-the world-defining process like that in Asia, previously at work in America and Europe, and now at work in Africa as well, capitalists surely would have chosen the road of global wars, to destroy and then rebuild.

      So, while approaching the time of the well-known singularity event, LENRs are a viable and, from workers’ interests political point of view, a desiderable perspective only if coupled with a totally different, revolutionary production system other than capitalism.

      • HS61AF91

        Could not have done better capsulizing views, coincident with mine. I do see a bright free future; capital markets adjusting; people having more freedom to express their talents, and service to others. Thank you.

        • orsobubu

          Perhaps you’ll know it better than me, but I point you to Venus Project

          https://www.thevenusproject.com/

          which is only a naive site full of imaginative futurist renderings, rather than a poliltical and technological program, but it gives well the idea about the possibilities of libertarian communism, a resource-based economy and scientifiic marxian doctrine totally different from ideologies as soviet-like state capitalism, cultural marxism, and libertarian anarcho-capitalism.

    • Omega Z

      “energy asset book value equal to tens of trillions of dollars”

      Nope. Well over 90% of oil reserves are owned by Governments and aren’t even tapped or accounted for in the market. Many of those reserves may not even exist.

      Shell thought there could be a multi billion barrel reserve located on there lease off North Alaska shores. They spent 5 billion$ exploring a field only to find it barren of oil. They surrendered their lease back to the government.

      If the E-cat comes to market, it will take decades to replace just part of todays energy use. Within the next 10 years, 25% of all the worlds oil reserves will be gone. The real question is this. Is LENR going to arrive in time to avoid the utter chaos of dwindling energy. Within 20 years, Nations are going to get very restless with half or more of all the Oil reserves depleted. Food production is energy intensive. When people start going without food on a massive scale the world over, things are going to go south fast.

      • Montague Withnail

        The 5 biggest oil and gas companies alone have a market cap above $1tn combined, and they are only a small fraction of the oil and gas market, let alone the total global energy market. The notional market value of physically delivered crude is around $2tn per year at current prices but that’s just crude. The future value of all energy assets would be put in doubt – nuclear power stations, power grids, gas and oil pipelines, refineries, tanker fleets, coal mines, LNG terminals, wind farms and on and on, it’s a very long list. The point is not that they would be become redundant immediately, of course they wouldn’t, but they would have to be revalued.

        It would take decades for the e-cat to have a significant impact on energy consumption, if the e-cat was all that happened, but that spectacularly misses the point. The fulcrum moment is the moment the world actually believes that these reactions are real (if it turns out they are – I personally haven’t seen them yet). That is the role of the e-cat. When that happens, people won’t sit around saying dang someone else got there first. Unless something stops them (in which case that thing will also stop Rossi), they will pile in, there will be 20 completely different reactor concepts within 6 months, growth will extremely rapid.

        • Omega Z

          ->”The notional market value of physically delivered crude is around $2tn per year”

          That’s the total world market. slightly less then 100 Million barrels a day.

          None of what you post really matters. Fossil energy will still be required for many decades even if the price is lower. It will still require many decades to replace there use.

          How many e-cats plus competitors products produced will be dictated by the resources available-including skilled labor. Even without this limitation, the market itself can only absorb so much at any given time.

          Most assets have a limited life cycle. Power plants will be replaced by LENR fueled plants mostly by attrition(Plants that become defunct). Thus a gradual transition of assets. Will some value be lost. Undoubtedly, but it will only be a fraction of the total. Most will be replaced by the new assets though a natural attrition process.

          You talk as if everyone will produce their own energy needs. They wont. 1, The consumers don’t want the headaches of dealing with it. They like convenience. 2, A localized grid will provide energy far cheaper then the cost of having your own system. The only LENR product you’ll likely have in your home is a heating system for winter use. You’ll have cheap heat powered by a small amount of cheap electricity.

    • The closest historical precedent was the Wright brothers, who spent years fighting against patent thieves like Glenn Curtiss.

  • Brokeeper

    Wow! What a bold statement. I believed, with enough resources, it was always possible to reverse engineer any device/product. Can any of our fellow engineers here conceive how this may be accomplished? The only thing I could think of is to set off a self destruct event should anyone tamper with the module, but even that would eventually be defeated if legally allowed and safely done.

    • Ophelia Rump

      It sounds like he morphs some material before it is put in, and you cannot determine from the morphed identity what materials and process produced it.

  • Anon2012_2014

    “Impossible to reverse engineer E-Cat”

    Because ECAT is vaporware. Can’t reverse engineer vapor.

    I will believe it when I see it.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Then man, what are you doing here?

      I can understand supporting something you believe in, or even trying to discredit something you believe in but have personal interests served by discrediting.

      Why would anyone hang around to be negative about something they do not believe in or have some self interest in opposing?

      What is motivating you?

      • Mylan

        I don’t agree. I hope that the E-Cat works but am still sceptical, also because Rossi says strange things, just like this absurd statement that it is impossible to replicate his E-Cat. If it is real it can be replicated, if it can’t be replicated it is not real.
        I don’t see the problem of criticism on the forum, as long as it is not personal or aggressive. I like this forum because the tone is mostly very civilized.

      • Anon2012_2014

        Rump,

        “What am I doing here”

        I have been following LENR for a while. I want to see positive validated results. ECW is the fastest way to see if anything new is happening.

        In the interim Rossi, the greatest disappointment in this field in my opinion, continues to make vaporware pronouncements while never shipping a product. (Vaporware is a term for software that a company announces prematurely before it is near to being ready, yet doesn’t ship, for the purpose of preventing consumers from purchasing competing software.)

        I have been watching and waiting for Mr. Rossi to ship something since he talked about the Florida robot factory, maybe 5 years ago, with his term “In Mercato Veritas”. http://e-catworld.com/2014/06/01/rossis-new-motto-in-mercato-veritas-in-the-market-is-truth/

        I see that everything that Rossi says cannot be validated. How convenient for him.

        This is an open forum. I am free to voice my opinion just like you.

        • HS61AF91

          I’d suggest you relax a little, and wait to see what happens. Like we’ve sort of been doing these past years. A little longer won’t hurt!

  • miles

    Technology that’s impossible to reverse engineer will never be released. Doesn’t mean you can’t hack saw & use a grinder to see whats inside to study the workings. If they can reverse engineer UFO technology, they can do this. I’m finding this to be a hard sell. I’m just not swallowing it.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Sounds a rash claim even if he made it dangerous to do so. (Which would be a bad idea.)
    His idea of making them cheaply enough sounds better.
    I expect he has a reason for the statement but we don’t know what it is.

    I’ve been banned again from the lenr-forum.
    See the thread starting with my post (4th down) here: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?pageNo=68

    Contrary to Walker’s claim I didn’t attack anybody. Looks like Rossi defenders are not welcome there.

    • Mike Rion

      They never were, Adrian.

    • Walker is just an ahole

  • Buck

    Interesting exchange which gives Rossi’s perspective on how “practically impossible” will impact the Ecat QX’s commercial introduction:

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

    TOUSSAINT François
    March 5, 2018 at 12:01 PM

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    Now that you have find a way to make reverse engineering impossible, will have the effect to accelerate the commercialization of your product?

    Warm Regards,

    Toussaint François

    ____________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    March 5, 2018 at 3:20 PM

    Toussaint Francois:

    It will make it easier.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    For example, if one breaches the container, it breaches some internal vessel containing some chemical that rapidly destroys the sensitive parts. The reverse engineer can determine the bulk chemical composition, but it cannot see stuff like surface nanostructure, if that’s relevant.

  • Bob Greenyer

    This is a spam comment copying from my comment on another thread.

    Looks like ECW is either compromised again – or the paid trolls are really gearing up for a FUD campaign.

  • Monty

    Impossible is such a big word. Flying was once impossible. Being faster than a horse once was. I wouldn’t trust people who say something is “impossible”. Except when it comes together with invention 😉

  • HS61AF91

    I like Dr. Rossi’s answers, the forth and fifth ones in particular, to Franks questions, made me chuckle.

  • Brokeeper

    Maybe a bit OT (or not):
    God and Science?
    https://mashable.com/2018/03/05/stephen-hawking-video-before-big-bang/#9zz6.ZKq3aqI
    (Gen 1:1)
    Something to chew on.

    • georgehants

      Brokeeper, it is sad to read of such people making such elementary logical mistakes, before the big bang (if genuine) he claims there was nothing, rubbish, there must have been the “potential” for our universe, that potential is something, perhaps he would like to tell us where that potential originated.

      • Brokeeper

        Yes, there is always a cause and effect. If a creation then there has to be a creator.

        • Mylan

          No, because then who created the creator? You could continue that endlessly. At some point we must accept that something is simply there because it is so.

          • georgehants

            Mylan, Ha so that’s that sorted, no need for science,etc. back to the stone ages and put our brains in the deep freeze.

      • Buck

        George,
        when science is able to develop a more complete understanding of the “Observer” and the “Observer Effect” in Quantum Mechanics, then maybe they won’t sound so out of touch with the existence we all experience, however subtle. Personally, I consider “consciousness” and “observer” to be within the same metaphorical description, leading to some hard to explain subjective experiences that are easier to explain within the metaphor of religion.

        • georgehants

          Buck So agree, open-minded Research of everything is the only way. no religious scientific restrictions.
          No religion required just basic scientific Facts and Logic that we can not move beyond without more open Research, or we might as well give up and keep the scientific inquisition.
          One can choose to believe in an intelligent creator or a dumb brained machine, what ever one’s personal non-scientific biases may be, but one cannot remove a creator or what gave rise to that creator.
          We do not know, but I know that my consciousness exists and it arose from somewhere, indisputably.
          If we do not have the final answer then opinions and beliefs are scientifically worthless, negative or positive.

  • Omega Z

    The QX technology is basically the same E-cat technology with some tweaks.