Rossi: E-Cat Industrialization Strategy Still Undecided

Here’s another comment from Andrea Rossi today which gives little new information, but indicates that they are still making plans on how to ramp up production for the E-Cat.

Thank you and best wishes to you.
Wishes are all we can give so far, the loooong period is necessary for a final, decisive long term validation after which will be decided which kind of investments and which kind of industrialization will have to be set up, if the results will be positive. We have studied different industrialization strategies, but the choice ( if any) will be made after the current process of validation and R&D. All I can say is that substantial progress has been achieved in the last 4 months.
Decisively within 2014 we will have a consistent response.
Thank you again for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,

Unless the partner has masses of money to spend — which I doubt — there is going to have to major investment if E-Cats and plants are going to be produced on a large scale. I suppose that those decisions will be based in some degree on what reports are presented, and how they are communicated. If the reports are positive they may well get plenty of offers for investment from outside entities — with various kinds of proposed conditions, I am sure.

Still, we have the proviso from Rossi that all is dependent upon whether results are positive or negative. I suspect positive, based on his statement about ‘substantial progress’ having been achieved over the last four months (the length of current testing?)

  • Fortyniner

    Sorry it’s all been such a disappointment. Bye.

  • bachcole

    Context is so incredibly important, especially when dealing with paradigm shifts. And we all forget this. We forget the context of our own taking months and years to get to know Levi, Essen, Rossi, McKubre, various tubes and set-ups, LENR in general, various theories, etc. etc. When the May 2013 Levi et. al. report came out, I had seen interviews with Levi and Essen and the rest of them; I had seen hot, wet steam blasting out of a tube held by Rossi. I was very familiar with Rossi. I knew at the very least that he was a very unusual con if not the worst con-artist in history.

    If I had read the May report WITHOUT any context, no familiarity with Levi, Essen, the rest of the crew, pipes, tin foil, interviews, Mike McKubre’s lectures, blasting hot, wet steam, etc., etc., etc., there is absolutely, positively no way that I would have become a believer. I see many of us, including myself, telling newbies, “Hey, if you would but just read the May 2013 report, then you will also become a believer.” But that is not what us believers did. Perhaps AlainCo and others could do that, but I doubt it.

    When doing a paradigm shift, there is a lot of context that a person has to get used to in order to understand and appreciate what is going on. And being an expert in the scientific method and physics doesn’t helps.

  • Conrad Goodger

    I’m afraid this post has turned me into a sceptic. A.R. “the loooong period is necessary for a final, decisive long term validation after which will be decided which kind of investments and which kind of industrialization will have to be set up”
    This sounds like a guy with nothing, trying to keep the dreem alive for the fans.
    Surely he would know. How long the validation will take and what sort of electroc converter they will use eventualy.
    Or: It’s a genuine R&D process.

    One company I have shares in tested breaks for garbage trucks – 5 years testing trial. + a year either side for organizing. And this company has been using and seling the same break in the mining industry for 5 years+ before the start of the trial.

    • Fortyniner

      And had the unspecified company selling truck brakes had a prototype tested and shown to operate as claimed, by a group of scientists funded by a corporate concern?

      You claim to have recently become a sceptic but I don’t recall seeing any positive comments posted under your ID. Odd that you now choose to break your silence with this negative comment. Perhaps you should go back through this blog and find out why “the fans” seem so positive before making uninformed comments.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Concerning AR’s positive/negative litany. I see at least two motivations: 1) it increases overall credibility by emphasising their rigorous approach, 2) it creates an option to include some negative results in the report. Having options is an edge in business. While they want to prove themselves in the report, revealing all capabilities is not mandatory. Maybe one reactor misbehaved in testing and they are planning to report it or haven’t decided yet but want to keep such option.

  • bachcole

    It is really quite simple what is going. It is the PARTNER who wants to be absolutely, positively convinced that they have a marketable product. The PARTNER is not so much interested in whether LENR+ is real, like some of us. The partner already knows this. But the partner is unwilling to lay out a great deal of cash for developing a factory unless they know that they can get a good return on their investment.

    • Bob

      The “partner” is not convinced that they have anything.
      Rossi is convinced but so far he has not been able to convince the partner.
      If he had, they would already be planning applications and strategies to implement them.
      This latest announcement shows that so far they are convinced of nothing and they are still only trying to determine if they have anything at all which can be developed into a useful product.
      This is why Rossi now includes in his announcements the possibility of a negative result.
      He never did that before. His proclamations were always that there was a guaranteed COP of 6. That certainty seems to have disappeared.
      If the partner is as clever, well equiped, experienced and all powerful as some here suggest then they wont be as easily persuaded as the band of faithful internet followers who seem happy to accept things on the basis of what Rossi says.
      We shall see. But apparently now, not until 2014.
      Or is that 2015, or perhaps 2016?
      Or, maybe we wont see. 🙂

      • GreenWin

        The blind don’t see Bob. The ignorant don’t want to see.

      • bachcole

        Bob, you are making absolutely not sense: “If he had, they would already be planning applications and strategies to implement them.” How in the world do you know these things except by the super-power of your psychic ability.

        There is no way that the “partner” would be funding 16 or 17 people if the partner was not convinced that the E-cat can’t give a COP much greater than 1. And given the delay, there is no way that the “partner” IS convinced that the E-Cat is ready for market, because, surprise, surprise, the E-Cat isn’t being marketed.

        “the band of faithful internet followers who seem happy to accept things on the basis of what Rossi says.” And how does this stand up to Levi et. al. 2013. You are a skeptopath. If you don’t believe the reality of Levi et. al. 2013, then we have nothing to talk about.

        • Bob

          Well Roger, you’re right about having nothing to talk about, which is why I haven’t posted anything for the last 8 months.
          There has been nothing to talk about.
          And “how I know these things” is not because I’m psychic, but by the fact that I spend hours ploughing through company announcements and releases to determine which ones to invest in.
          I’m not infallible and sometimes I make a mistake, but mostly, I might say, I do very well out of it.
          What I can tell you here is, having followed this from the first public announcements, nothing here looks right.
          I agree it did look good for the first six, maybe twelve months or so, but not since, and certainly not now.
          For a start up business requiring millions to get into production of an as yet undefined and changing product, nothing looks right.
          Just my opinion so feel free to ignore it, which I know you will. 🙂
          I wll go away now an leave you in peace.
          Merry christmas.

          • bachcole

            So I guess that there must be a lot of “Bob (Guest)”s around because you posted within the past 2 weeks. I am not real crazy about prevaricators, and 8 months vs. 2 weeks is a ratio of 17 to 1, which may put you in the prevaricator category. I dislike prevarication so much that I did not finish your post.

          • Fortyniner

            Just a suggestion for your portfolio, Bob – look into nicotinamide ribose and anti-aging products based on this compound. It’s probably going to be the new resveratrol.

      • Omega Z

        For the Partnership to commence, The partner had to be able to Build/Replicate Rossi’s Hot-Cat obtaining similar or better results then the March 31st tests. Using Rossi’s instructions. Rossi only observed.

        Also the Partner having Hands On long since, would know with certainty that the Excess Heat is or isn’t real. Also known are results of the 3rd party test which revealed excess heat. And that Elforsk is financing an Additional Long term tests at present.

        And the Partner continues R&D. Likely to improve & enhance the Phenomenon. Maybe work on some Control issue’s. A better understanding of the technology & a Theory…
        Stated by Rossi, working on improving/shortening Start/Stop times.
        Obtaining Data on Durability/Dependability/Safety Issue’s. Optimizing Fuel/Catalyst Core design.

        SO-When Rossi say, Results will be provided- Positive or Negative-
        I look at the Information available to us from Rossi & supported by evidence from the 3rd party test.

        We have- A “Dry” Run Hot-Cat. 1 Minute powered. 2 minutes self-sustain cycle.
        So- What Happens when Heat is extracted in mass by liquid/steam with intent to generate Electricity.

        All the Dynamics change. Can the timing cycles be controlled. Can it maintain a temp within a plus/minus 5% range. What about COP. A COP>6 is essential to be Viable as an electrical energy source.

        An Energy Corporation may accept a prototype of COP>6 proof of concept, but would likely Require/Demand a COP>10 before they would fully facilitate this technology. It works doesn’t cut it.Their interest is in Cost/Return or ROI.

        Can it Economically Produce Electricity?
        OR- Has Rossi only developed an efficient electric space heater?
        Results to be seen Positive or Negative.

        These Results will Also Strongly effect the “Industrialization Strategy”
        Only to be determined when conclusive results are reached.

      • Peter Shwartz

        Bob, “This is why Rossi now includes in his announcements the possibility of a negative result. He never did that before.” Unfortunately, he has stated potentially negative comment, many times.

        • Bruce Williams

          I totally agree with you : he has been very careful to point out the possibility of a negative result on many occasions. This is the sign of a real investigator.

        • Bob

          Only in the last year has he included the possibility of a negative result.
          Prior to that it was always “we guaratee a COP of 6” , and there is no proof required because “the market will decide.”
          Well, the market has decided. I don’t think any are sold yet, unless you count the one which has been allegedly ‘sold’ to his secret partner.
          But then the first one was supposed to be sold to a secret military, and still no word from anyone.
          It is still possible of course that i could all turn out exactly as he says and as people hope, but on the face of it so far, except for that one glimmer of hope back in April 2013, it all looks like 2013 has been just another year of the same.
          Oh well, 2014 in a few weeks. See how it goes.

    • Marc Ellenbroek

      I believe that the main issue is the repeatability of the process. It must still be unknown under which circumstances the process works best. There must be parameters which they do not control or know off. Also: Is it safe during its lifetime? What happens in the long run, do control parameters change? The reason is that the theory behind LENR is not ready yet. They do not fully understand the LENR process. That makes also the commercial aspects risky.

      • Daniel Maris

        Yes, this sounds very much like the early days of electricity when they didn’t understand how it worked – hence the problems they encountered when first they tried to use telegraphy over very long distances.

    • Peter Shwartz

      Looking for a good production factory facility ? Can’t beat the soon to be empty GM General Motors Holden factory in Victoria and South Australia, Australia. Robotics, foundry, secondary production teams available, and going cheap; one supposes. Premises probably empty at the right time setting for R&D completion, couple of years, Go, Go, Go.

  • Babble

    Whether it is Graphine, new chemistry, new high density memory or increasing communication bandwidth by ten fold, we see the ever increasing pace of knowledge discovery. This is aided by computing power which is vastly increased in just a human lifetime. With LENR providing unlimited energy we are entering the run up to the singularity. One major problem will be financial stability world wide which could stop everything if credit stops. That industry seems to be controlled by people who’s goal is to enrich themselves. They are the danger.

  • bitplayer

    I suspect that the proviso about “if positive” is something the partner’s lawyers hammered into him.

    Frank, why your comment about doubting that the partner has internal sources of capital for ramping up production?

    • ecatworld

      Hi, BP — just the fact that he is talking about still not having decided on investment options for industrialization makes me think they don’t have all the money they need on hand.

  • Christina

    It’s great that lots of progress has been made the last four months. It can’t be taken for granted at all.

    Merry Christmas everyone and may God bless us all.

    • ecatworld

      Thanks, Christina — same to you.

  • georgehants


    The Mail

    :New Salt Compounds Challenge the Foundation of Chemistry

    “We have learned an important lesson — that even in well-defined systems,
    like sodium chloride, you can find totally new chemistry, and totally new
    and very exciting materials,” Oganov says. “It’s like discovering a new
    continent; now we need to map the land. Current rules cannot cope with this
    new chemistry. We need to invent something that will.”

    • Bruce Williams

      GH, I cant get this site to download : did you get the site name correctly? It looks interesting and may be related to some of the odd/unexplained things that seem to be happening with LENR.Thanks.

    • bitplayer

      Great find, George. I really like this passage:

      “For a long time, this idea was haunting me—when a chemistry textbook says that a certain compound is impossible, what does it really mean, impossible? Because I can, on the computer, place atoms in certain positions and in certain proportions. Then I can compute the energy. ‘Impossible’ really means that the energy is going to be high. So how high is it going to be? And is there any way to bring that energy down, and make these compounds stable?”

      To Oganov, impossible didn’t mean something absolute. “The rules of chemistry are not like mathematical theorems, which cannot be broken,” he says. “The rules of chemistry can be broken, because impossible only means ‘softly’ impossible. You just need to find conditions where these rules no longer hold.”

      Like, the impossible eCat.

      • Omega Z

        Nearly Everything WE take for granted today was at one time- Impossible.
        Impossible should be defined as A Roadblock waiting to be overcome.

        • Christina

          I use” to think every basic thing was discovered; but now, with all these changes to science popping up here and there, it feels like I’ve entered the realm of “Star Trek”‘s “Enterprise.” It’s really exciting and highly dangerous because of how immoral people could use some of this technology. Pray!

          • georgehants

            Christina, science is just smoke and mirrors, always trying to make out that they know things.
            One day a great scientist will stand up and say we don’t have a clue and we need to get on and find out.

            “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is
            those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert
            that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”

            Charles Darwin,
            The Descent of Man

            • Pekka Janhunen

              Many young people who start a science career do so because they have a burning need to unravel the secrets of nature and/or to improve the world. However, during their careers most of them at least partly lose the idealism. One reason is that nowadays the number of scientists is quite large and only a small fraction of them makes really progressive and creative things. People anyway have a basic need to experience satisfaction at work, so many seasoned scientists enjoy accepted publications, positive referee statements, grants, nominations, prizes, meetings, etc. etc. Things were different in Edison’s time when a larger fraction of scientists were able to really change the world. Today, the absolute number of scientists who are changing the world is larger than before, but their fractional number in relation to all scientists has diminished.

              I’m not saying that this is right or inevitable or the only reason, but just that it’s one of the meta-issues that science has nowadays.

              To some extent, the division of science into many disciplines has helped: it’s easier to be a leader in a small field than the whole of physics, for example. But the explosion of disciplines has also made radical progress more difficult by creating new domain boundaries.

              I believe that motivation and need creates the means. If people act stupid (like many scientists today do), it’s not because they lack common sense as such, but because they, for whatever reason, lack the motivation to use it.

      • georgehants

        bitplayer, science does not know one fundamental fact of the Universe not derived from measurement or theory.
        Only that we exist and that somewhere is an answer to where we come from, which only can be termed a creator,
        Even our math could be a local phenomenon quite different in another place.

        “To be evenminded
        is the greatest virtue.
        Wisdom is to speak
        the truth and act
        in keeping with its nature.”


    • Greenwin

      Dear George, we are nearing the day when we reckognize that man’s laws of “nature” are little different than the laws of man. Both are merely ideas that attempt to make man feel secure in the vast inhibiting space he does not know.

      • georgehants

        Greenwin, so much wonder and beauty out there to find and enjoy if only open-minds and Truth where to lead the way.

        “The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.”
        Albert Einstein

      • Peter Shwartz

        “that man’s “perceived” laws of “nature” are little different

        • Peter Shwartz

          …”that man’s “perceived” laws of “nature” are little different…