Leonardo to Begin Commercialization by Selling Heat, not E-Cat Plants: Q & A With Andrea Rossi

Below is a Q & A exchange conducted today via email with Andrea Rossi regarding his plans for the commercial roll-out of industrial E-Cats.

1. Can you explain why you have decided now to announce that you are taking orders for the industrial E-Cat plants?

Because if we make plants we need clients.

2. You have been developing industrial E-Cat products for many years now. However, first generation E-Cat plants, like the one you operated during the 1-year test in Doral, never went into mass production. What is different with the current generation of E-Cat?

The former Ecats were not ready to be operated from clients.

3. For someone hearing about the E-Cat for the first time, and interested as a possible customer, what information would you like to tell them about your product?

The Customer has just to know how much energy we deliver, in which form and at what price, plus the information that will be contained in the safety instructions. We will make the installation

4. What size (in power rating) plants are you taking orders for?

1 MW

5. How much physical space would a 1 MW E-Cat plant occupy?

15′ x 9′ x 9′

6. If someone orders a plant today when can they expect to be able to receive it?

End 2018/2019 first quarter

7. Comparing an E-Cat plant to a typical natural gas heating system of the same power rating, about how much cheaper would it be to operate over one year?

Enough

8. You have mentioned recently for example that industrial plants could be installed in facilities like factories, hospitals and greenhouses which need heat. What would be your definition of an industrial application for an E-Cat?

An application wherein the heat is used by an industry for any purpose

9. What would be the approximate cost of a 1MW plant if it were ordered today?

We will sell heat, not plants

10. Is your business model now to only sell heat, or will you sell plants to customers in the future?

It will depend on the evolution of the situation

11. At the factories where you sell heat, will Leonardo personnel operate the plants, or will employees of the local company operate them?

The plant will be operated in remote from our headquarter, through the cloud with dedicated servers. The Client will not have any operation to do inside the plant

12. When a customer makes an agreement with Leonardo, are they agreeing to pay just a monthly energy bill, or are there other up-front costs involves (such as installation fees)?

This will depend on the agreement.

13. What is the minimum length of time for a contract duration?

5 years

14. What is the guaranteed minimum COP of an E-Cat plant?

Enough

15. What is the maximum temperature or steam that an E-Cat plant can produce?

600 C

16. Who will install E-Cat plants for customers?

Leonardo Corporation

17. How will training on how to operate an E-Cat plant be done?

The expert responsible for safety of the Client will make a course on site

18. Like with any product, a typical customer will more than likely want to see a demonstration of an E-Cat plant before making a decision to purchase. When will you show your new product, and demonstrate it in operation?

When one will be in operation

  • Dr. Mike

    Selling just heat is an interesting market strategy; however, one that will take a huge infrastructure to implement (installation, monitoring, maintenance, etc.). A few more questions that might be normally asked of a vendor supplying a product/service:
    1. What percentage uptime do you guarantee (including routine maintenance)?
    2. What response time do you guarantee when there is a problem with the system?
    3. What are the power requirements that must be supplied to operate the system?

    • LarryJ

      Leonardo will use the grid as backup. Any problem with the reactor and the system will automatically switch over to the grid. It will be transparent to the customer and any problems with the tech will be known only to Leonardo Corp. The customer paid for heat and that is all that he will get.

      It will also allow Leonardo to continue flying under the radar as critics will complain that they are simply selling grid power at a loss. There will be a lot of angst amongst the “I only believe what I see crowd”. Nobody will know the COP.

      The only downside will be the large initial capital outlay but that will be partially offset by the much higher return on power sales if we assume the COP is in line with Doral and Stockholme. He only has to beat his competitors by 10 or 20% but if his COP is 50 the money will come rolling in and payback on the reactors will be fast leaving maybe 4 years of gravy.

      No problem with reverse engineering either. Maybe this was Rossi’s ironic way of saying he had a 100% foolproof method to beat the copycats.

      • Gerard McEk

        A megawatt connection to the grid is relatively expensive. Indeed, only the industry may have these kind of connections, but they would not fancy these. I would think that redundancy may be a beter solution.

        • causal observer

          The grid hookup concept looks to me like a barrier to entry.
          On the other hand big companies might not find it a problem.
          Rossi could potentially bury the cost of both the 1MW electrical installation and the necessary backup current in his pricing.

        • Omega Z

          For many Industries, 1MW isn’t enough to keep the lights on and I mean that in a literal sense.

      • PhysicsForDummies

        This is a great strategy with regards to the grid backup. Since Rossi never allows measurement of power input on his devices, the customer will never know the COP is less than 1. He can just charge for power out. Maybe he is smarter than I thought, but the customers have to be really stupid.

        • LarryJ

          How would selling grid power at a loss be a great strategy?

          In any event I was wrong about this. Rossi later clarified that customers would have to provide a conventional backup

          Absolute proof of the COP will likely remain hidden. This is a good thing as the doubt it creates will prevent a stampede into Rossi’s tech and give them time for an orderly increase in production capacity.

          .

        • Omega Z

          If the customer doesn’t audit there energy bill, then they deserve what they get.

          I don’t know any industry who doesn’t know how much energy they use and the precise cost. This is a criticle component for pricing products to the consumer as are materials labor & benefits.

          They will be very aware of their grid consumption and what they pay Rossi. They will also have a reasonable average of the COP.

    • Gerard McEk

      The last question is the most interesting one as it may give an indication of the COP.
      Yes, it is a strategy and a very smart one: If he sells heat very competitive and if his cost are much lower, than the profit will be huge, much higher then if he would sell the Ecat.

  • Gerard McEk

    Well, that’s a very interesting appoach. You do not have to buy any hardware, it seems, so there is little risk for the customer. Obviously you need to agree about the price and that you will consume the amount of heat minimally during the 5 years ahead.
    So I was thinking: If you can agree with your 50 neighbors that you deliver heat for heating their houses to half the price that they are paying now and you distribute heat through a well-insulated tube to them, then domestic heat from an Ecat may be nearer than you think!

  • greggoble

    Off topic…Here is an interesting analysis of the early history of ‘cold fusion”. I haven’t found any discussion if this article on any LENR blog or news site.

    What James W. McAllister presents leads one to question the wisdom of splitting nuclear science into separate competing disciplines. Indeed, in nature, all nuclear reactive phenomenon fall under the same overarching umbrella… The Atom.

    “Competition Among Scientific Disciplines in Cold Nuclear Fusion Research”
    Cambridge University Press – Science in Context
    Volume 5, Issue 1 Spring 1992 , pp. 17-49
    James W. McAllister
    Published online: 01 September 2008
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/science-in-context/article/competition-among-scientific-disciplines-in-cold-nuclear-fusion-research/1FFC9AC1D3E0F4D15961FF3964BF4B11

    Abstract

    In the controversy in 1989 over the reported achievement of cold nuclear fusion, parts of the physics and chemistry communities were opposed in both a theoretic and a professional competition. Physicists saw the chemists’ announcement as an incursion into territory allocated to their own discipline and strove to restore the interdisciplinary boundaries that had previously held. The events that followed throw light on the manner in which scientists’ knowledge claims and metascientific beliefs are affected by their membership of disciplinary communities. In particular, the controversy offers evidence for a constructivist reinterpretation of the “division of nature into levels,” which is customarily held to underpin the division of science into disciplines.

  • causal observer

    Observations:
    > 15x9x9 isn’t a reactor, it’s a control room.
    > Same pipe-in / pipe-out configuration as Doral
    > Interesting comments about “driver” and “backup” electrical hookups, by others, below
    > Installers work for Leonardo. Hmm. Makes sense for control, however, it means a lot of staff and overhead and a couple of management layers at least. That’s an expensive way to maintain trade secrets, if that’s the point. On the other hand installation sub-contractors would have to get their nuclear engineering licenses, heh heh, er… need a lot training. And Rossi would not want QA boo boo’s in his debut.
    > From comments here 600C is apparently hot enough to run a Stirling for electrical power, however there’s still the question of COP. Seems like electrical generation is off the road map for Release 1.
    > 5 years is a long time for a small business, however, if you’re cooking 100 tons of potatoes a day, you probably have some market duration.
    > Rossi must have a lot of confidence in his gadget’s reliability and performance to commit to producing 1MW of up to 600C heat at below current market costs for 5 years. Of course he hasn’t signed any contracts yet…

  • Buck

    In the following exchange, Rossi summarizes why he is confident in his IP protection methods

    ==============================================
    JPR
    May 17, 2018 at 1:12 PM

    Your strategy aimed to sell only heat, not plants and to direct the plants through a cloud is genial. This way nobody has access to the technology. I imagine your remote control destroys someway the secret parts if somebody tries to violate the closed box. Am I correct?

    _____________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    May 17, 2018 at 1:23 PM

    JPR:

    As a matter of fact all the industrial secrets related to the control system will not be in the plant, but in our control headquarter; what will be found in the plant is already described in the patent, that for obvious reasons has been published in all the 57 Countries that have granted it. It will be like to steal the secrets of AT&T looking at the telephone set on the table of the sitting room. This will make us waste no time with fake-clients-real-spies, because at this point we will be contacted only by Customers that really want only to save money, when buying energy, not giving a damn about how it can happen. It should also speed up our penetration, because the Client has no risks, makes no investments, if he gets energy with a profit he pays, otherwise he does not pay and we get back the plant. In case of malfunction the Client can use his traditional system as a back up and all the risks are upon us.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • causal observer

      What?!? Is there something about my model of the engineering that is missing? The assumption has been, based on Stockholm, that there’s a “sparker” (controller) near the “arc lamp” (module), and that there’s some secret sauce timing and frequency in the sparker. Can’t send sparks through the wire. So what part of the set up could conceivably be distributed and connected remotely to the sparker? The frequency? The timing of the sparks? Besides being industrially fragile, that can be hacked. I’m getting a “does not compute”. Any ideas?

      • Axil Axil

        Rossi has always had trouble controlling the reactor. In the Dural test, Rossi had on site to watch the 1 Mw plate while it was in operation.

        It could be that without a automated remote supervisor, the plant will go out of control and destroy itself…just a guess.

        If this is the case, there is a limit to how many plants that can be controlled in this way.

        • Gerard McEk

          No sensible engineer would remotely control/monitor a reactor that is virtually unstable. Control and monitoring must be done locally and fast. No time delays.
          No, I think this is just a construction to monitor and prevent intrusion into the system, which in itself is not a bad idea. On the other hand it may give an entry port for hackers. No connection to the outside world is the best way to prevent that. It’s a dilemma.

          • Omega Z

            It appears Rossi has overcome many of the control issues. He did indicate some months ago that the QX doesn’t runaway into self destruction. I take it that it self stabilizes at around 2700`C.

      • causal observer

        Sven’s answer above covered it: downloaded firmware that evaporates if the controller box is tampered with.

  • William Doerr

    Spy agencies or just common criminals will steal an early, complete, installation.
    You can make it harder for them to steal it, but there is no way to prevent it.
    The CIA could take one from Rossi’s factory and throw anybody who releases that information into jail.

    Corrupt governments, business and businessmen will not be deterred by Rossi’s plan.

    • cashmemorz

      Rossi said the units will be virtually hack proof. I wonder if that will work like the clothing theft prevention devices. One attempt to open the device and you get sprayed with purple indelible ink. If the one trying to hack the device does not know how it is made to be hack proof, how will they try to hack it? I know there are cybernetics methods of guessing what is inside a black box. And I assume Ross’s people know about cybernetics. They just have to make the device self destruct if hacked, And by self destruct I mean a sudden very high run away temperature grade and a block wide area. So the hacker will need a large area and very thick walls. Gets expensive to do all that, but maybe not too hard.

      • MasterBlaster7

        Ok…you are overthinking it. I’m pretty sure that it will be impossible to reverse engineer because of the changes to the mechanical and chemical structure of the mixture after the plant is activated. So, you have Rossi’s secret sauce and nano structure loaded into the pre-use e-cats…then you fire it up…there are chemical changes, structural changes and even new atom changes….point is…after it is fired up there are too many pathways back to the original secret sauce…obscuring it. I bet the plants will be fired up a few times before they leave Leonardo to customer. That is my theory on how it works anyways.

        • cashmemorz

          I also wrote that before reading further down the comments. Where Rossi mentions control over the cloud at another place where the crucial control signals are, I assume. Without that the hardware at the clients site means little. It probably consists of components already known by a potential hacker. Then the hacker will have to find that central site and look for signals emanating via a window. So Rossi’s people will have to avoid windows and use Faraday cages and the like to keep signals from leaking to the outside. I wonder how highly developed hacking works in those kinds of situations?

          • MasterBlaster7

            When they say hacking they are not talking about traditional computer hacking…they are talking about reverse engineering Rossi’s ‘secret sauce’…that is the only real secret…the hardware is easy to reverse engineer.

          • cashmemorz

            The installation at the clients site may be hacked just by cutting power to the Rossi’s side. Then the client has to contact Rossi to find out what happened while the client uses traditional power. That is all a hacker has to do to put a wrench into Rossi’s installation. To avoid that Rossi’s installation would have to be within the boundaries of the clients property, cameras around the installation, alarms and more. If the device itself is not of interest, if made of known components, then it is not about hacking but impediments to slow Rossi down at any and every opportunity. Like he was stalled in Italy with his Petrol dragon recycling business. Competition in a very lucrative business like LENR seems to have potential for, will bring out the dragons.

      • Vinney

        Just fry the firmware chip, plant is disabled.
        New iteration of firmware installed as repair. Just keep one step ahead of the ‘hackers’.
        To those that think that stealing the plant will get you anywhere, IH where shown how to build Hot Cats had Hot cat E-cats in their hands, and even owned the Doral plant and they were not able to get any of it to work.

        • cashmemorz

          That was not the fault of IH. Rossi just gave them enough to make them agree to a deal. Rossi likes to play one step ahead of the other guy, even the guy who is supposed to pay a hundred million, just in case the money is not quite given to Rossi. IH didn’t like that tatic so they acted like they might not pay. So Rossi took that as the minimal signal to go to court.

          • Omega Z

            Yeah, Rossi doesn’t trust people and for good reason.

  • MasterBlaster7

    Huge red flag? sure it is discouraging for people who want to know exactly how it works…but selling 25% below cost? Who would pump in the millions and millions of dollars it would take to keep a ‘scam’ going? It wouldn’t make sense…it would have to be real.

    • causal observer

      And Leonardo profits will drive fully wild the funders for labs of Airbus, Toyota, Great Wall Inc. and a hundred other clandestine investigators.

    • Anon2012_2014

      Unless you are powering this with natural gas, it needs to be 75% below cost to compete as power line electricity cost $35 per MWH in 2017 (FERC) yet natural gas (NYMEX) ran (and still cost) around $2.80 per mm BTU = $9.5 per MWH. Unless ECAT takes in natural gas for most of its energy need, it needs a COP of at least 5 to give a 25% discount and that is with no fixed cost. (A 25% discount to natural gas is 9.5x.75 ~= $7.10/MWH. $35/$7.1 ~= 5x COP )

      • Vinney

        Not all states in the US have such low natural gas prices, it various widely.
        This technology has advantages over natural gas as it has less waste heat to the environment, so can be used safely in smaller spaces, and where safety is a concern and/or where high pressure gas mains are not available.
        I am certain his 100 first 1 MW units will be oversubscribed in a matter of weeks.

    • Vinney

      How could you store 6 months worth of fuel in a 15 x 9 x 9ft container.
      It would have to 100’s more energy dense than oil or liquified gas.
      Plus they have emissions and you could smell the mere presence of the fuel anywhere near the container.
      And remember you are metering what goes in.
      If you can indicate how this scam is conducted, I would like to know. If its a battery or capacitor, I am sure much of the world would like to get their hands on one.
      Outstripping other battery manufacturers by an order of magnitude.

  • nietsnie

    To be fair, he’s selling heat that is created in your own space and pulling power for it that is being metered there as well. So you measure what is coming in and going out. Contractually, no-one is going to agree to new, black box, technology that isn’t a significant improvement compared to anything else on the market. He could have a dragon in there doing the heating as far as they know – and they wouldn’t care.

    In this forum, we are ravenously curious as to how it’s done. But, in the larger world, if he is producing clean, reliable, power more cheaply than can otherwise be obtained – that’s a huge win for the world. And it’s just a start.

    The biggest significance to me is that his technology will finally be tested in the real world – no longer in the shadows. It has finally come to a head. It’s put up or shut up time – both for Rossi and his detractors. Soon neither will be able to hide in ambiguity.

  • Frank Acland

    No, it has not been mentioned before, although Rossi has said recently that he has had experts in “the cloud” working with him.

  • Omega Z

    Selling heat is probably a necessary strategy at this time. As I’ve stated before, this technology isn’t a drop in replacement. There is going to be a learning process to determine the best way to integrate this technology into our current systems.

    Probably the simplest product to replace with LENR as of today would be a simple electric water heater. Even that would need some redesign work as a new consumer product.

    https://images.homedepot-static.com/productImages/e6a7b5c2-1d73-4d99-a90c-c572baa18244/svn/everbilt-water-heater-parts-15024-64_300.jpg

    A LENR heating element from what we know wouldn’t be hard to create and would be a simple installation & replacement form factor with a control/thermostat system mounted on the side. Depended on user demand, such a water heater should last around 5 years between fuel recharge.

    Going beyond this in industrial use will require a lot more engineering to create a form factor that is both quick and easy to change out while being optimized for heat transfer. Especially at high temperatures.

    • Gerard McEk

      As I said below, it also allows for a lot more profit, once it is shown it works and is reliable. He can sell heat just under the lowest market price that any other device can make. With a large COP, the margin to any future compatitor is very comfortable. He will be filthy rich….if it works.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        “[…] it also allows for a lot more profit”

        That would depend on the balance of

        1) production and installation costs
        2) costs of electric input
        3) maintenance costs
        4) amount of thermal energy produced per time unit
        5) lifetime of the plant
        6) price per thermal kWh

        compared to the profit he could obtain by selling the plants.

        An advantage might be that once a plant is installed it could generate revenue over many years – provided that (as you say) it works reliably, the supply of spare parts can be guaranteed and the basic conditions (particularly the energy prices) remain within an acceptable range.

      • Vinney

        Also very correct. Making money from the ‘bullshit’ being spun by all other market generators, and there is a mighty lot of that.
        The more bullshit they spin, the more money he makes.

      • Omega Z

        This is likely a start up strategy until any unknown issues are resolved. It’s an attempt to thwart competitors from taking advantage of this risky period. It will also allow Rossi to collect a large data base of E-cat working knowledge without having Leonardo techs at customer site 24/7. But this isn’t a viable long term plan if he intends to mass produce this technology.

        It also appears Rossi is confident that he has resolved his control issues to a point that he can manage an E-cat over the cloud.

  • Nelson Vogel

    Very complex way of selling a power plant, as once inside a private property or another country one have few control of any device installed. So E-Cat will never be sold to China, for example ? Can’t see how he will avoid reverse engineering this way, and protect IP forever. The solution would be purchase an area next to an industrial installation, and pump the heat from there, but this black box safety system wouldn’t be possible in many countries. Will be very interesting see if this strategy works. Hope it be a success, as what matters is that the customer will save money and the planet will be cleaner.

    • greggoble

      “Inside private property…” Simple legal solution in the States or any other contract stable nation is: Rent property from the customer, the square footage including access/easement, of the thermal plant. Even if the rent is a nominal $1 a year, with a 5 year lease, this gives Rossi et.al. legal rights to property (now Leonardo Corp property) inside a private property of a customer.

  • Anon2012_2014

    It’s too convenient (for Rossi) that now at least 10 years on there will now NEVER be independent verification from Rossi. “Selling a sealed box’s heat” — It’s a perfect cover if he does NOT have a working LENR device.

    And the very idea of a high power 1 MW thermal plant “self destructing” or being “remotely controlled” from some “trust me” amateur cloud operation is not going to work for any reasonable customer worried about liability. I am now more doubtful in my assessment of Rossi having a working ECAT and thus disappointed with this latest announcement.

    • Gerard McEk

      If he sells heat that is not competitive with other heating devices now on the market, it won’t sell, would it?
      In fact it must be extremely advantageous in comparison, otherwise no one will take the risk to install such a noval device.
      Time will tell Anon!

      • Vinney

        They can assess the electricity consumption of the device, which will indicate its efficacy.
        If they measure the weight of it at installation and when its replaced ( or refuelledl) they will be ‘gobsmacked’.
        They will calculate hundreds even thousands of MW excess heat from milligrams of fuel.
        But what is it.

        • Gerard McEk

          Yes, you are completely right, the COP can be easily determined when in operation. That may give some negotiation power to the customers in the future.

          If I had a factory that would use this heat for its production process and would rely on remote control governed by another company, I would not want to have it, because you are corruptible by that company.

          Needing to instal a back-up system just because AR wants to control it remotely via Internet is also not a very strong point in AR’s strategy.

          • Frank Acland

            Gerard, since Rossi is most likely going to be dealing with established companies as customers who will already have a fuel system in place, it probably won’t be too much of a burden for them to keep it. Rossi will put an E-Cat in, and if it works it will mean they won’t be buying nearly as much gas or coal as they normally do, and they will benefit from the savings that the E-Cat provides.

          • Omega Z

            This being a new technology, most customers would want to keep the current system in place until costs and reliability are established. This is actually a practice in most business even with simple unproven upgrades.

          • Gerard McEk

            Frank, I was just giving my thoughts about these unusual demands Andrea has now vented. These may seriously reduce the willingness of companies to utilize the Ecat QX, apart from the fact that the technology is novel.
            The offered energy price will have to be very competitive to persuade companies to use the Ecat.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, I agree this is a very unusual strategy. The kind of offer that industrial customers have never had before. I wonder who will take him up on it.

          • nietsnie

            Hopefully not a ‘food manufacturer’ who chooses to remain anonymous and whose food-heating process is so secretive that not even investors are allowed to see it in action.

    • nietsnie

      >”Selling a sealed box’s heat” — It’s a perfect cover if he does NOT have a working LENR device.

      I at least think you’re implying that there is a possibility that he could hide a conventional heat source within that 9’x9’X15′ box capable of producing 1 mw of heat continuously for a year. The Doral test was said to have reactors that ran for very close to a year on the same fuel. Presuming that fuel is still expected to last for a year, how much potential energy is in that box? 24 hours X 365 days X 1 megawatt per hour = 8,760 total megawatt hours produced during the year. Is there enough room to store 8,760 mwh of something else in a 9’X9’X15′ box?

      Coal:
      After short investigation (http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/fuel.html) there is some small disagreement as to how much coal is required to produce 1 mwh of electricity. But, let’s use 1,000 lb – it might be slightly more or less depending upon the type of coal and the efficiency of the generator. At 1,000 lb per mwh, a years worth of coal would require 8,760,000 lb of it.

      Of course, Rossi is producing hot water, not electricity. For illustrations sake, let’s presume that the hot water to electricity conversion is only 25% efficient (which is very conservative) and the rest just escapes. If we presume the same for Rossi’s hot water, that still amounts to 2,190,000 pounds of coal – which would not fit in the box, let alone the box if it also contained a furnace. Plus – there is ash and smoke produced when coal burns, no convenient place to store it for a year, and the box won’t appear from the outside to smoke. So… coal is definitely out.

      Natural Gas
      How about natural gas? The conversion rate of natural gas to mwh is about 1,000,000 cubic feet to 1. Therefore 8,760 mwh would require 8,760,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas. Let’s presume the same 25% efficiency, so make that 2,190,000,000 cubic ft. I don’t work with gas myself, so someone should correct me if I am dead wrong – but it’s hard for me to believe that over 2 billion cubic ft of any gas could be safely compressed to fit within that enclosure. And again, burning natural gas leaves a byproduct that would normally be vented but in this case could not be. So – not natural gas.

      Lithium Batteries
      How about lithium batteries? In a perfect world – they don’t leave any byproduct that wasn’t already in the batteries (no smoke or ash). How many mwh of leccy could ‘the best’ lithium batteries store in a 9’X9’X15′ box?

      I consulted this article: https://www.wired.com/2015/02/size-battery-need-power-house/. He presumes 48 kwh to run a house for a day then stretches that into a week – so 336 kwh to run a house for a week. He translates that to the volume in lithium batteries necessary to store that and comes up with 1/2 cubic yard. Therefore the conversion is 1/2 cubic yard lithium batteries = 336 kwh. A 9’X9’X15′ box would contain 45 cubic yards of available battery space – or 90 1/2 cubic yards. 90 X 336 kwh = 30,240 kwh, or 30.24 mwh of electrical storage available in 64 cu yds-worth of lithium batteries. Unfortunately, we need 8,760 mwh of electricity – not ~30. So… the box isn’t big enough (1/292) to store anywhere near enough batteries to produce a continuous megawatt of power for a year. Plus, of course, you’d also have to then use that power to heat water to 600 C in the box somehow too – and there is also inefficiency involved in that, and blah, blah, blah. Let’s conclude that it’s just not even close to possible to store 8,760 mwh of power in lithium batteries that would fit in the available enclosure.

      Gasoline
      Okay, time to pull out the big gun. A box that size could store 9,088.83 gallons of gasoline. A gallon of gas converts to 33.7 kwh of energy. Ergo, a container the size of the box could hold 306,293.571 kwh, or ~306.23 mwh of energy. Awfully impressive, really, but not nearly enough compared to 8,760 mwh. And let’s not even bother again with equip. to heat water, wastage, etc.

      Really, I can’t think of any independent, conventional, non-nuclear, power source that is remotely close to being capable of containing 8,760 mwh of energy in a space the size of the box – let alone sharing it with a facility to heat water. Rossi couldn’t get a licence to run a conventional nuclear reactor in a food factory. So, unless I’ve flubbed my arithmetic yet again, just the fact that it produces 1 mw continuously for a year in a volume that size eliminates everything but LENR.

      • Anon2012_2014

        The point of the Miami court is the Rossi agreed to a settlement without ever proving he made any excess power. So we see again that Rossi doesn’t need to prove anything — not withstanding your calculations about how much fuel he would need to bring to the power plant.

        I absolutely agree that the amount of fuel needed to be hidden or resupplied to make continuous 1 MW with at 4:1 COP is enormous. But what I see here is a delay of him ever needed to do exactly that. All for the specious argument that someone will steal his precious trade secrets if he actually sells a working plant without strings.

        The net result is we are going to wait till now 2020 and we still have no public evidence. Rossi is not doing us LENR enthusiasts any favors with this newest strategy. Color me skeptical of Rossi — I am waiting for evidence.

        • nietsnie

          I do share some of your skepticism. And I agree that it’s possible that Rossi may again slip between the horns. For instance, his secretive ‘customer’ may end up being an empty room next door or their result may be silenced by an NDA. But, if he actually does make a deal with a real company this time (after all, this is profit he’s after now – which is different than demonstrating proof – someone will have to pay he and his investors real money) then just the exchange of cash for heat will leave a trail. And a real customer is going to want a COP high enough to be valuable to them monetarily.

          And, yes I agree that he is not doing LENR enthusiasts any favors. But… doing favors for the peanut gallery isn’t really why he’s in business.

          • Anon2012_2014

            Assuming he is in business to sell heat and not just stringing us along. We don’t really know what his strategy is. He might be in business to sell heat. I hope he is in business to sell heat. But I cannot rule out the opposite without evidence. I would normally say that time will tell, but in Rossi’s case, we waited it out for 3 years with the Doral test. If he delays as he did with Doral, it will be 2022 and if it ends like Doral, we will still have nothing more definitive. I therefore look to the other LENR players who are open about their research.

      • Vinney

        No doubt when this reactor is installed in a industrial workplace, both union and OHS officers are going to ask to glimpse inside the plant.
        If only to assure themselves that there are no combustibles, or no poisonious fumes from electrolytic or other batteries, so as to reassure their members. It will be obvious that nothing but E-cats are producing the heat.

  • Gerard McEk

    I think it is nonsense. See my answer to Axil above.

  • Rene

    Rossi is being deceptive again. The latency variations in internet coms may be minor to many applications but it is a huge deal to real-time operations. I would guess the controller will do its real-time sparking/ freq’ing and either have some updates sent to it by HQ to adjust for power demands, and, it can have an encrypted dead-man signal being sent to it periodically, so that when the signaling stops the controller executes a shutdown and then slags itself. That latter part is probably what Rossi really means about his cloudy headquarters.

    • causal observer

      Sven addressed this above. The controls can be in downloaded firmware; nothing real-time is required.

      • Rene

        Sven wrote a more detailed version of my summary. There are systems that run the actual code encrypted. It requires either the entirety of the processor and its memory encapsulated in a chip with tamper resistant hardware (known art – TPM), or a processor runs encrypted code, decrypting internally (also known art: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0228548.html). So, yes, it is possible to build a strongly protected system today with off the shelf parts that can withstand physical inspection.

        But, in the end it comes down to the actual moment to moment operation is code running in situ. The ‘cloud’ (such a lovely marketing term) is likely more for remote monitoring and sedate adjustments. this kind of monitoring and updating is known art. BUT, it needs to be DDOS resilient, and the coms needs to be tamper resistant – this is also known art, and a hard problem.

  • Curbina

    The curse of having good memory is that you can realize how people are falling for the same trick once again, but no one believes you. I was an enthusiastic follower of Rossi’s shenanigans until, during the infamous lawsuit, I realized it was all a hollow. It is still fun to see the Rossi enthusiasts getting high on Rossi says.

    • LarryJ

      In the lawsuit settlement Rossi recovered the licenses for North America, South America, Central America, China and Russia as well as the ecat IP and the 1MW reactor built and owned by Industrial Heat. He kept the $11 million down payment.

      Some people claim Rossi didn’t win because he didn’t get cash but that’s nonsense because he could resell the recovered IP and licenses now for far more than the 100 million he got in 2012.

      It was a huge victory for Rossi and the fact that Darden’s legal team felt they could not discredit the ERV or his report was a tacit admission as to its accuracy. An average COP of 50 over the 1 year course of the test.

      • Curbina

        My interpretation of the lawsuit settlement is completely different and I reserve the exact wording for avoiding a ban. A mild wording is that the settlement was the realization of two non transparent parties that they were calling too much attention to themselves and it was wiser to stop and cut their respective loses.

        • Omega Z

          Darden didn’t have the money($89M) to pay Rossi from the beginning. He lied/mislead Rossi from the start. He also tried to steal Rossi’s IP. The patent application was there for all to see. However, Darden’s patent attorney screwed up the patent application by labeling it LENR/Cold Fusion. Also for all to see if you search the patent codes at the top of the application. Lacking the money and no doubt unable to get the patent(IP), (Attempted IP theft would stand out. Why are you trying to steal what you claim didn’t work.) In court, A judge may find both parties not being fully honest.They may then rule against the one that’s the least honest. Darden cut his loses.

  • Job001

    Assume the strategy of selling heat is rational. Possible rational (unknowns) for selling heat vs selling electricity;
    1.Less complex process and equipment.
    2.Litigation avoidance from renewable sensitized Electrical industry suffering capacity and profit pressure.
    3.Allows “pay to delay” income to protect FF(fossil fuel) resource valuation and/or electrical infrastructure.
    4.Allows time to research into improved results.
    5.Allows time for adapting to hostile IP/Regulations.
    6.Military constraints may be in play.
    7.Other.
    Given the extreme “Capital First” global world we live inhabit, “Follow the Money” should be first assumption rather than secondary to objectives such as pure research, ethics, morality, truth, life, etc.

    • Vinney

      It is also ‘infallible’ for the customer.
      If the E-cat doesn’t perform, they will drop the contract, and regardless of NDA the world will know about it.
      The world is also going to be ‘re-iterated’ another fact we all know well here.
      The fuel consumption for annual operation of 1MW plant is going to be in the order of milligrams (Doral ERV report) for those of you not paying attention. That is going to be phase two of this saga. Rossi is playing us (and the media) llike an orchestra, and there will be an ever increasing ‘crescendo”.
      He wants his accolades, more than the money.
      No one will in the future associate this technology with anyone other than Andrea Rossi.

      • greggoble

        Please keep in mind that future historians will dig deep and be exhaustive in thesis written… more so than, let’s say for examples, the many Mozart or Manhattan Project historical thesis. Accolades, and perhaps some blame/theories for perceived delays or lack of acceptance, will be bestowed where appropriate and be numerous. I expect both the worlds of academics and the general public will have a great interest in this history once its’ importance is commercially ‘on the table’ so to speak… soon.

        • Omega Z

          ->”the general public will have a great interest in this history”

          So this history will include something about the “Kardashian sisters”
          NO, well then they wont have any interest in this history. People have become very shallow.

          • greggoble

            Yes they will… believe you me. Let me explain my bias… I am an important part of the general public as, perhaps, are you and others on this site. Although my comment was about accolades not about denigrating opinions of the general public; which should include a debate about faith in humanity as a plank in a healthy platform… It causes one to wonder, “How can we create/enable a world culture/humanity that we can have more faith in?” Many individuals and organizations are pursuing this line of reasoning… look around and you will find them. I imagine LENR may help in this endeavor and can easily envision how it will enable ‘humanities’, including preliminary steps to initiate dialog… these folks will too. Now is a good time to join in… in any of your capacities. Looming commercial LENR energy tech “information advocacy” to these groups is important at this time.

            A good place to begin looking into this is with Carl Moedas, European Commissioner for Science, Research and Innovation, European Commission. He has a bit of LENR savvy and a great heart, a role model. The following posts include links to some noteworthy organizations working towards the emancipation (i.e. improvement/evolution of the general public, unsupported masses, ecology and environment.

            Science for Peace
            2017-11-10 Plenary Session, Closing Ceremony
            Endorsement of the Declaration ‘Science for Peace’

            “Bring together science and the humanities so that they can mutually support each other.” World Science Forum 2017

            Carlos Moedas is at the 30 minute mark and the 1 hour and 25 minute mark. Inspirational video all in all, worth listening to in its’ entirety.
            Endorsement of the Declaration ‘Science for Peace’
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaHZSSAsuQ8
            Published on Feb 12, 2018 World Science Forum 2017 Day 4, 10 November 2017

            European Parliament – Parliamentary question (in regards to LENR)

            27 February 2017 E-009616/2016 Answer given by Mr Moedas on behalf of the Commission http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2016-009616&language=EN

            Quote
            The Commission is aware of the claimed successes in the field of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR).

            As mentioned by the Honourable Member, this domain includes a vast array of apparently unrelated phenomena that seem to point to the possibility of nuclear events at relatively low levels of energy, but this is still debated by the scientific community and there is no unanimous agreement on the mechanisms behind the experimental findings.

            However, apparently some of these results have been replicated lately, in a few cases by reputed scientists or laboratories.

            Such research could in principle be supported by the bottom-up parts of Horizon 2020(1), such as the European Research Council(2) and Future and Emerging Technologies(3), but the mounting body of evidence and the growing investment by companies and governments outside Europe might indeed require an in-depth review and assessment of results to date in view of deciding whether research funding should be granted in this domain. .

            (1) The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020
            (2) https://erc.europa.eu/
            (3) http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/future-and-emerging-technologies

            – end quotes

          • Omega Z

            Denigrating the general public. emm yah, Guess I was, but the fact is the general public as a whole really aren’t much into history of any kind. They live by & for sound bites. Sad really because I do believe the old adage- Those who do not study history are prone to repeat it.

            From following your posts, it appears you are developing a data base on the development of LENR. Good for you. There actually is a small percentage of the masses that in the future will appreciate it.

          • greggoble

            Thank you…

            Perhaps the ‘general public’ of which you speak is a smaller subset of the whole than the ‘general public’ of which I speak, or I might concede that the dumbed down general public outnumbers the under-educated and unsupported masses ‘general public’ of which I speak. Considering this conversation in a broader semantic sense we are both factually correct.

            A number of technologies are poised to alter the lives of the under-educated and unsupported masses ‘general public’ of which I speak.

            Education through Cloud and Universal cell phone Connectivity.
            3-D Printing Distributed Manufacturing
            Nuclear Dense Non Radioactive Energy

            The soon-to-be teenagers and children of the up-coming generation of the under-educated and unsupported masses ‘general public’ of which I speak may be empowered by these in more ways than I can imagine. Certainly aspects of our generation will be rendered obsolete. The next generation of historians will write of this and one would think it will become a part of everyones natural cognizance. Like electricity, popular books, movies and dramas will be written about it’s emergence as an everyday thing.

            As technology advances elements of our economic systems will crumble and evolved economic systems, which encompass these technological advances, will take hold.

            Sustainable economic generosity created through the continuous resource of energy at point of use for the health of community; economy experienced as the word’s Ancient Greek roots imply: οἰκονομία (oikonomia, “management of a household, administration”) from οἶκος (oikos, “house”) + νόμος (nomos, “custom” or “law”), hence “rules of the house(hold)”. Maximizing the profit of mutual well-being will be the new measure of success.

    • greggoble

      7. Other

      ROI – Return on investment; for both Leonardo Corp. and the customer. Selling heat vs selling electricity means that Rossi needs only recover cost of thermal plant development, manufacture and operation… not the cost of electrical production equipment, electricity producer license and sales agreements etc…
      Consider also that, on the market, the price of electricity fluctuates while the price charged for heat supplied to the customer most likely is set and stable. For the industrial customer who needs a whole lot of heat (there are thousands or maybe millions) there may be little up front investment, pay as the heat comes in. If less expensive than previous years… a no brainer, Simpler ROI in my opinion.

      Another consideration…
      Is an industrial customer who needs heat to produce electricity for sale to the grid exempted as a customer by Rossi or Leonardo Corp? I would think not.

      • cashmemorz

        Leonardo can pick and choose who is a least risk to his IP. But also cannot be too picky. Not to make any potential customer to feel slighted. Good customer relations are always a factor, even if the customers might appear suspect. A tight rope to walk. A good PR department should know how to talk to all potential customers, citing the need to consider all factors with potential customers in order to avoid any problems the new tech could cause a customer and nothing about a customer is ever considered to be a reason for choosing another customer as one of the first. Or words to that effect. Or a simple, “We are not equipped to handle your particular needs at this time. But we will continue to keep you informed about progress we are having on each of your points in that regard.” One would assume Leonardo Corp. has someone to handle that kind of problem.

    • Omega Z

      7)

      Not yet anywhere ready for electricity production in any economical sense. There is a lot of work and engineering to be done likely several years at least. There is no doubt in my mind that even simple heat processes will need much engineering to optimize this technology. As I’ve stated many times, this is not drop in replacement friendly technology…

  • Vinney

    The plant is shutdown also in instances of landline internet malfunction or shutdown, he will be advised to allow 4G (or LTE)/ backup, just to be nice to his few first customers.

  • Vinney

    Begs the question, what solutions he has in place to stop hackers.
    It certainly is different to their normal ‘modus operandi’ to target financial systems.
    They have been known to hack electrical distribution systems and nuclear research facilities (Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear processing hardware). This may be what he means by his IP is ‘impenetrable’, a hardware/software lock.

  • You might ask about the vital e-cat bits, 1. what is the size cylindrical volume of a heat producing core in an e-cat module, 2. what is the number of modules in a ‘plant’, 3. what is maximum temperature of modules in operation, 4. given the recent observation of gamma radiation that accompanies these reactions what shielding, material and thickness, is in place.

  • Vinney

    If they are advanced and good enough let’s see them produce LENR products.
    I don’t think we will see anything from them other than ‘paper’. Rossi has outsmarted them again, they are not going to get their hands on LENR for years.
    With any luck, Rossi’s next iteration of his product will delay them further years.

    • Omega Z

      ->”I don’t think we will see anything from them other than ‘paper'”

      Sorry. I disagree.

      That said, it wont be very soon. They can easily study things for 20 years before attempting to actually produce a working product. Might need to try it out in mousey world first.

      They can grow a complete functional heart, liver and reverse aging in mice. I do believe mice will soon have a longer life span then humans. It is a great time to be a mouse. Long live King Mickey…

  • greggoble

    Slightly off topic…

    While reviewing articles by Lawrence Forsley and associates, I came across this on Google Scholar. Are all these folks really the authors of this or is it an error?

    Google Scholar Lawrence Forsley
    NASA – Verified email at nasa.gov
    physics condensed matter
    https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=nEKWTnwAAAAJ&hl=en

    title? COLD FUSION NOW!

    Authors

    Ugo Abundo, M Srinivasan, A Meulenberg, Michael CH McKubre, Peter L Hagelstein, Irfan U Chaudhary, Akito Takahashi, KP Sinha, CL Liang, ZM Dong, XZ Li, Vladimir I Vysotskii, Mykhaylo V Vysotskyy, Edmund Storms, V Violante, E Castagna, S Lecci, F Sarto, M Sansovini, A Torre, A La Gatta, R Duncan, G Hubler, A El Boher, O Aziz, D Pease, D Knies, M McKubre, Dennis Letts, GK Hubler, A El-Boher, O Azizi, JH He, W Isaacson, S Gangopadhyay, DA Kidwell, DD Dominguez, KS Grabowski, LF DeChiaro Jr, Dennis Cravens, Mitchell R Swartz, Brian Ahern, PA Mosier-Boss, LP Forsley, AS Roussetski, AG Lipson, F Tanzella, EI Saunin, B Earle, D Zhou, A Kitamura, A Takahashi, R Seto, Y Fujita, A Taniike, Y Furuyama, Goyle M Verner, Jeffrey W Tolleson, VI Vysotskii, AA Kornilova, AO Vasilenko, Mathieu Valat, Ryan Hunt, Bob Greenyer, Mahadeva Srinivasan, Yasuhiro Iwamura, Takehiko Itoh, Shigenori Tsuruga, Jean-Paul Biberian, David J Nagel

    Publication date: 2015/2

    Description

    Fig-1 Heating resistance of ceramics Fig-1 Heating resistance of ceramics The Open Power Association at Hydrobetatron.org has published Report No. 11 describing the set-up for an upcoming replication of the Parkhomov-style E-Cat.

    Results of the experiments will be reported at the upcoming 19th International Conference on Cold Fusion this April 2015. What follows is a slightly-modified google-translated English translation of the report. Open Power’s Ugo Abundo provided these pictures of the construction of the cell. See more detailed photos and read the original report in Italian here. Fig-6 Steel pipe containment. The experimental campaign: IT Abetatron will also include the replication of the process that is believed to take place in the E-cat and the study of its variants, with the aim of enhancing its performances such as controllability, efficiency, etc. by the adoption of specific criteria that inform such our …

  • LarryJ

    The Doral reactor couldn’t be commercialized because of the lawsuit that immediately ensued following the completion of the 1 year test. In short, nobody really knew who owned the ecat. While this was being resolved the technology moved on to the QX.

    Since circa 2012 the ecat was owned by Industrial Heat and as much as Rossi wanted and hoped they would help him industrialize, history has shown they were only interested in selling investments.

    • Toussaint françois

      Yes absolutley ! IH has done a great harm in slowing down Rossi towards the commercialisation of the E-CATS

  • Omega Z

    So, as the customer, I would want to know why my Metered bill hasn’t changed and I find myself paying Rossi for said savings at the same time. Your scenario doesn’t fly. The customer would notice.

  • greggoble

    Please post a link to this DTRA Technology Assessment Report of June 29, 2007, I can’t locate it.

    I am reading the DTRA 2007 budget justification report and found this on page 44… Gives one an idea of DTRA importance.
    Quote
    Financial and Human Resource Management: DTRA financial and human resource management activities reflect DTRA’s complex mission. DTRA executes approximately $2.6 billion per fiscal year from five Defense-wide appropriations, using $1.2 billion from DTRA’s obligation authority and $1.4 billion from the DoD Chemical-Biological Defense Program funding and other external sources. The DTRA Business Directorate provides the full range of DoD planning, programming, budgeting, and execution services, including a partial in-house finance and accounting function and liaison with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). Human resources management includes the full range of personnel services for approximately 800 military and 1,100 civilian employees, as well as payroll and workforce management. – end quote

    http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2007/budget_justification/pdfs/01_Operation_and_Maintenanace/O_M_VOL_1_PARTS/DTRA.pdf

    Right when I almost gave up… Found it at New Energy Times.

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/DTRA/DTRA-Report-on-LENR.shtml

  • causal observer

    Sven, thanks, that helps answer my “What?!?” post below (pretty clear in retrospect).

    So, conjecture:

    With strong encryption and good physical access controls that approach looks like it would require a very significant effort to successfully reverse engineer the product. If someone had all the physical components they would 1) have to figure out how the key materials were created (which took Rossi years) and 2) need to explore the parameter space of all possible control signals from the electronics to find the right ones (which would burn up a lot of difficult to manufacture prototypes). All that would require some serious resources.

    So, continuing the conjecture, that means the perpetrator would likely have assets that would be vulnerable to lawsuits and/or a brand that could be vulnerable to negative publicity.

    OR, the perpetrator might be a state actor that had decided that the negative reaction would be worth it. Unlikely that such a state actor would be a major energy producer. More likely a big country with poor energy resources. However, once the “cat is out of the bag”, it might be easier for such a country to simply dump a lot of science on the problem.

    By that time Rossi’s legacy in establishing LENR as a world-transforming invention would be secure, which I what I think he wants most.

  • Omega Z

    The Doral unit wasn’t ready for market. Far to many problems only kept operating with 24/7 attention of Rossi. However, what was learned during that time was invaluable for advancing the technology.

  • causal observer

    It’s not really remote control. It can be done with downloaded firmware, per Sven’s comment above.

    • Omega Z

      “downloaded firmware”
      There are people with cloud controlled or remote monitored & controlled pace makers. Have been for some years. Anyway, I think this is just early on practice until they get the obvious unknown issues that will arise dealt with. This keeps the competitors at bay during the risky phase.

    • Rene

      But remember that this entire issue is a reaction to Rossi saying it is all done in the cloud. This is inaccurate or deceptive on his part. CO, once you accepted code is being downloaded, it is clearly not running in the ‘cloud’. That means either code is sitting in RAM or NVRAM in the clear (bad news), or it uses a CPU that executes encrypted code and saves dynamic data encrypted – the CPU decrypts on cache fills, encrypts on cache cast-out to RAM. Known art.

      • Omega Z

        I think you’re way over or maybe under thinking this. Back in the day, floppy drives had purpose specific processors in them. They could actually read certain code from the disk that they were not able to write. This allowed copy protection by the producers so the consumers couldn’t make a usable copy of the disk.

        A friend and I made an add on board that bypassed the factory processor for a fully functional CPU. (Full Disclosure-My Idea, but mostly his electronic expertise & I did all the programing) This modified drive could then write any format for any computer brand and could do any copy protection technics that the original producers could ever create.

        The point here is Rossi could have the primary hardware installed in the E-cat, but the number of possible codes to tell the CPU what and when to do it are unimaginable. And only a specific instruction would make it react in the proper manner. Having the hardware in hand would be useless without the proper code. This cloud control is much simpler then most imagine. And latency isn’t an issue. Rossi’s technology is no longer prone to self destruct.

  • cashmemorz

    Those are one of the risks a customer will take under advisement when ordering an Ecat from Rossi. Getting into a contract with all eyes full opened is how business is usually done. I take it you see the down time for his site as a reason to no ttrust some aspect of the new device. What aspect? The fact that a new device is likey to have down time? That is an assumed aspect of any new device, even the big, long time running power grid is down at odd times. Do we all tell the grid to go away and we will try someone else? That is a risk to be taken under consideration and then make sure there is another source of power if it needs to be taken care of. Not too hard if one has ones ducks in a row. Uninteruptable power unit s are available, if the grid is also not available.

  • sam

    Anonymous
    May 18, 2018 at 6:09 AM
    Dear Andrea:
    Did you already select the IT experts to realize the remote control that from your factory will have to control the operation of plants around the world?

    Andrea Rossi
    May 18, 2018 at 10:21 AM
    Anonymous:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Prof
    May 18, 2018 at 6:10 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Your strategy to maintain the control system centralized in your HQ is one of the most genial solution you could think about.
    Godspeed,
    Prof

    Andrea Rossi
    May 18, 2018 at 10:20 AM
    Prof:
    It has resolved the reverse engineering issue and allows us to maintain a direct observation of the behavior of all our Ecats. Surely this will be our strategy for the first “pioneers” years. Eventually, we will see.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • sam

    Former Sceptic
    May 18, 2018 at 6:08 AM
    It is impressive the work you did from the demo of Stockholm of November 2017, in total 5 months, during which has been achieved what follows:
    1- solution of all the problems of overheating
    2- realization of a prototype ready for industrialization
    3- power of the module raised from 20 W to 1 kW with the same dimensions
    4- R&D of the SK
    5- project of the centralized control of the plants of the customers from your site
    All this in a normal concern would need years to be realized.
    Monstruous.
    Godspeed,
    A former sceptic turned your fan

    Andrea Rossi
    May 18, 2018 at 10:26 AM
    Former Sceptic:
    All that, thanks to my great Team.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Axil Axil

    The QX system is built to be a distributed system located in the customer’s site. Local control of that system is a problem for Rossi.

    Lack of an expert to control a local system is the weakness of Rossi’s system. He wants to keep the need to have a trained operator on site to a minimum or even better have no local operator. This internet remote control is dangerous, not so much to protect the Rossi IP, but to protect his system from the sabotage that a competitor might want to inflect onto the entire population of Rossi’s product line. A system that needs no control expertice is a system that will defeat Rossi in the marketplace.

    Rossi made a mistake when he designed the QX. In a centralized system where control is provided by on site experts, power density and minimum material usage is what will win in the marketplace.

    A 20 gigawatt reactor that can operate inside a room will defeat a huge centralized e-cat site using millions of QX reactors. High power density means cheap up front costs.

  • Buck

    Rossi zeros in on why his IP protection method will work.

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

    Italo R.
    May 18, 2018 at 5:06 PM

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    Assuming that someone steals the elements of a plant, he will never discover the software and control signals that make it competitive.
    This is, I believe, the secret to preventing reverse engineering. Is it correct?

    Best Regards,

    Italo R.
    ___________________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    May 18, 2018 at 6:53 PM

    Italo R.:

    Yes.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • Axil Axil

      A hacker could mount a denial of service attack against Rossi’s entire product line and no control signals will get though to any of his systems. What does Rossi do then?

      • cashmemorz

        Once Rossi finds a robust method of control, is to translate it into a miniaturized analogue or complex hardware way of operating as backup system until the digital version is corrected. There is more than one way to fix or repair things. If the system is not too complex. The analogue might be too easily stolen though and too easily revers engineered. Going backwards with technology might be an unexpected thing for the dragons to consider.

    • GiveADogABone

      I am not a hacker but …
      … I think Rossi seriously underestimates the ability of the world’s black hat commumity, including nation states, to extract the plain text from encrypted communications. There are always weaknesses to exploit.

      Let’s see: The operating system for a 1MW QX might be kept in RAM, so it completely disappears on loss of power. So how is it reloaded from a central source? There has to be some permanent firmware to initiate the encrypted link, to decrypt the downloaded operating system, install the plain text operating sytem and boot it.

      So, if you install a modified boot firmware in the QX that captures the plain text from RAM and transmits it into the web, have you not obtained the desired result? Even better would be finding the plain text source code for the operating system in Rossi’s office computers.

      • causal observer

        These problems, including DOS attacks, have been widely considered in the IT security community. There are no perfect solutions, however, there are pretty good ones. Just add money.

        As I mentioned elsewhere, technical means are only one layer. Contracts and litigation are others. The black hats may be hidden, but their buyers can be convicted of receiving stolen goods.

      • Omega Z

        Can you find an acquaintance of mine. I think his name is Bob or Joe. Can’t recall for sure. I know he communicates with Sara or was it Suria. I think she lives somewhere in Europe. Or does she live in Australia. Dang, Can’t remember.

        Even the Black Hat community needs some details to do something with. Rossi could list his control center as Didgeridoo or any other possibility and likely any customer will also be unknown. It’s also possible to use a dedicated hard line.

        ->”plain text source”
        Who says there needs to be plain text. Not necessary. And if it were done in machine code, there would be very little data to send/receive. Have to admit tho the number of people who use machine code are few in numbers today. Anyway, it would not be hard to fly under the radar if any thought is given to it in advance.

    • Rory McCune

      If Mr Rossi is really relying on the idea that an attacker who was willing to spend enough money to get an instance of the eCat on their site to reverse engineer and was willing to act illegally in breaking into/trying to reverse engineer it, but would be unable to attack their cloud based software and comms protocols…. then all I’ll say is, I hope he’s hired some really good developers/Cloud DevOps/IT Sec. professionals 🙂

      Ensuring secure development/deployment/management of a cloud based control system for the eCat is a non-trivial task, if your threat model includes high-end attackers, who would be willing to commit serious cash to an attempt to reverse engineer their systems…

  • Omega Z

    The U.S. Nuclear Power plants are connected to the internet so that key personnel can monitor and control them while not being on the premises. Think about that for a moment.

  • Buck

    Rossi shares his understanding that his IP protection methods will evolve.

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

    SM
    May 19, 2018 at 12:43 AM

    Dr Andrea Rossi,

    The idea of a centralized control system to protect the IP is surely a good idea, but when you will have millions of Ecats in the world it will be difficult to menage.

    Cheers

    SM
    ________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    May 19, 2018 at 8:51 AM

    SM:

    True, but by then we will have the right solution, not to mention the fact that we will have reached a strongly dominant position in the market.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

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

    DT
    May 18, 2018 at 8:49 PM

    Dear DAndrea,

    Do you think the control system through the cloud makes impossible the reverse engineering?

    Warm Regards,

    DT
    ______________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    May 19, 2018 at 8:58 AM

    DT:

    Nothing is impossible, but I can guarantee you the way we transmit through a cloud is very well protected.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • Vinney

      This must be one of the reasons his limiting announcements to 100 1MW units in 2019, he is testing the remote control system.
      This may also be why it is operating at a safe COP of at least 6.
      As he becomes confident it is fail-safe he will increase production.
      We already know IT is not his ‘forte’ so it takes time to select, test and modify the correct system. Then there is the problem of performance under multiple demands, and scalability.
      For the system to be ready by Christmas, Rossi must be training the control software now, so that it will have sufficient decision making ability at launch.

      • Buck

        I think Frank has just started a new thread, “Rossi’s Industrial E-cat Strategy”, that makes a great start at seeing the plus-minus of Rossi’s declared strategy. Your comment goes to the heart of the conversation.

  • LarryJ

    Nothing could be sold while the lawsuit was under way. Prior to the lawsuit IH owned the tech, were doing just fine selling investments against it, ie Woodford, and had no reason to sell it. After the lawsuit they no longer held it.

  • Björn-Ola

    We will not be able to know the real COP.
    The price the costumer pay will be te only indicator.

    • Omega Z

      If the customer audits it’s energy use and know how much they are actually using, they would have a reasonable idea of what the cop is. Not exact, but fairly close.

      • Björn-Ola

        May 19, 2018 at 1:17 AM
        Dear Mr Rossi

        Will the customer be able to measure the COP of the plant?

        Warm regards

        Björn
        May 19, 2018 at 8:50 AM

        Yes, by his wallet.
        Warm Regards,
        A.R.

        If I understand the answer correctly, the customer will probably not supply the electricity for the plant, so we will not know the real COP.

        • causal observer

          Then COP will be estimated by how long Leonardo is able to stay out of bankruptcy.

        • Omega Z

          The customer will still have a meter and a bill to pay. He will know how many kilowatts he is using and how many kilowatts of heat is supplied by Rossi’ E-cat. The difference of these 2 will give a rough approximation of COP.

          • Björn-Ola

            Not if the plant has its own connection to the grid.

  • causal observer

    Domestic certification is much more complicated.

    • Omega Z

      Yes, Rossi has said it would require at least a couple years of industrial safety data to obtain domestic certification.

      • cashmemorz

        Also long term reliability on its own has to proven by various real real word locations. Whatever sigma 5 or greater, that Rossi gets in his place of testing, the real world can throw unexpected conditions at the Ecat , to make that sigma number obtained in the lab, to work out to be a sigma one or two in the field. Only a few industrial locations for the first five years should be done. This is to keep the burden of running around to fix anything that might go wrong to a reasonable level. Too many locations with too many problems can get to be a logistical nightmare, even for the best equipped organization. Time wasted at a few locations costs little money. time wasted at many locations costs much more. Ten or twenty might be a good number of locations for that first five years. Then a few more places as time and experience indicates what is a reasonable rate of increase. There are probably methods to calculate how much risky activity can be anticipated versus maximum potential progress. Risk management?

  • causal observer

    Guess he’d better order a programming book from Amazon…

  • Buck

    Does Rossi’s lack of knowledge about software and IT mean that he is not allowed to do the necessary research and due diligence? And, to then hire the extreme global experts . . . the experts is military grade security?

    I believe ABB has the necessary contacts to help an important customer like Rossi.

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

    CC
    May 19, 2018 at 2:11 PM

    Is your internet protection for the transmission of the control system of military grade?
    ________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    May 19, 2018 at 2:37 PM

    CC:

    I think so.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • Omega Z

    Fabio Fulviani has worked with Rossi for around 5 years and is skilled in electronics and programing. Always people think this is a 1 man show. Rossi has had 3 to 5 people working with him for many years.

  • Omega Z

    ->”the full history on rossilivecat is gone after the last crash”

    NOPE. This lists all 41755 posts on rossilivecat to Mar. 3rd 2010
    http://rossilivecat.com/all

  • sam

    Iggy Dalrymple
    May 19, 2018 at 8:48 PM
    Dear Dr Rossi,
    I would like to toot my horn.
    Almost 6 years ago……..
    Iggy Dalrymple
    June 6, 2012 at 8:04 AM
    Dear Dr Rossi,
    Have you considered forming your own wholesale electric utility? You could sell electric power to cities, utility companies, and large industrial users. That way you could better protect your intellectual property. My small town (population 2,500) sells electricity to its citizens, but buys all its power from the grid.

    As you know, there are many small remote villages that use diesel generated electricity produced with diesel oil barged in at great expense.http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/AEO/RemotePower/RemotePower.html

    Some small island states could use your service without any bureaucratic interference.

    Sincerely,
    Iggy Dalrymple
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Andrea Rossi
    June 6, 2012 at 8:18 AM
    Dear Iggy Dalrymple:
    Our strategy is to sell the reactors, but your sggestion could become of actuality in future.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Back then I suggested retaining ownership of your reactors and selling electricity.
    Well, selling heat is the next best thing.

    Best regards,
    Iggy

    Andrea Rossi
    May 19, 2018 at 10:08 PM
    Iggy Dalrymple:
    You have been right in past as well as you are right now, possibly.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Dan Galburt
    May 19, 2018 at 9:39 PM
    Dear Dr. Rossi,
    Of importance to many followers of your work is the desire to have independent third party verification of the power output and COP of your E-Cat system. It is understood that you want to keep critical details of how the E-Cat operates secret. For this reason you are retaining ownership and the giving the customer no access to details of how the system works. When you install an E-Cat QX system in a customer’s facility surely the customer will be able to measure the integrated energy fed to the installed E-Cat as well as the energy outputted by the E-Cat system. In all likelihood the electrical power fed to the E-Cat would be monitored with a standard Kilowatt hour meter, and the heat produced by the E-Cat would be monitored by flow and temperature gauges installed where the hot water or steam passes from your E-Cat to his facility. The primary propose of these measurements would be to verify that the E-Cat is complying with your contract to provide net energy in the form of heat, but this data over time can potentially provide multiple third party verification of the E-Cat’s performance as a “Black box”. Hopefully such “black box” data would not give away any E-Cat secrets that would help a competitor but would increase interest in and acceptance of your E-Cat system.
    Such verification will be of interest to your followers only if both you and your customers allow it to be released into the public domain. Further that the customers as independent agents publicly represent the data to be accurate. I believe (hope) that some of your customers will agree to provide such third party verification if you don’t make keeping it confidential a contractual requirement.

    Questions:

    1. Do you want your E-Cat system to be widely accepted as a viable energy producing system in the 2018 to 2019 time frame?

    2. Assuming that some of your early customers are willing to do so; will you allow them to publically disclose electrical input and thermal output data as integrated energy values over periods of time like days, weeks, or months?

    I am a retired systems engineer who worked for years on advanced technology associated with the manufacture of integrated circuits. My interest in your work is driven by the desire to see some form of safe cheap nuclear energy become a reality in my life time.

    Thank You,

    Dan Galburt

    Andrea Rossi
    May 19, 2018 at 10:05 PM
    Dan Galburt:
    I agree with you: the wallet of our Customers will be the best and most convincing witness of the economical advantages, if any, of our technology and such independent witness will not affect the defense of our IP.
    I am convinced that some Customer of ours will not have difficulties about giving testimony regarding our efficiency in the delivery of thermal energy and its competitiveness.
    It is obvious that in the context of this commercial strategy it is naif to ask us other demonstrations, for the same reason for which Exxon does not need to give any demo about the fact that their gas works and has the price their customers pay for each gallon.
    Thank you for your comment,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    CC
    May 19, 2018 at 2:11 PM
    Is your internet protection for the transmission of the control system of military grade?

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    May 19, 2018 at 2:37 PM
    CC:
    I think so.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Philip
    May 19, 2018 at 2:06 PM
    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Are you still convinced that your effect comes from the annihilation of virtual low energy particles born by a temperature equal to their energy?

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    May 19, 2018 at 2:37 PM
    Philip:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    DT
    May 18, 2018 at 8:49 PM
    Dear DAndrea,
    Do you think the control system through the cloud makes impossible the reverse engineering?
    Warm Regards,
    DT

    Andrea Rossi
    May 19, 2018 at 8:58 AM
    DT:
    Nothing is impossible, but I can guarantee you the way we transmit through a cloud is very well protected, made by specialists from the highest levels of the field.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

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