Rossi: “Every Day an Anxious Day” with 1MW Plant (Update: Latest Problem Fixed)

Lest we think everything is smooth sailing with the 1MW plant, there have been some posts by Andrea Rossi recently suggesting that the 1MW E-Cat plant still requires a lot of attention to keep it operating, and repairs are still taking place.

On November 5th Rossi reported there were some problems with the plant, and repairs were needed; later on in the day he noted that the plant had been repaired. Then, yesterday, Rossi reported that the plant was having “some problems,” and this morning he reports that it is “almost repaired.”

I asked Rossi this morning whether the current repair has required his team to take the plant offline, he replied, “partially yes.”

When a reader of the Journal of Nuclear Physics told Rossi today that he was a bit worried about what Rossi reported about these repairs, and the fact that these problems might delay the start of mass production, he responded:

Andrea Rossi
November 7th, 2015 at 8:02 AM
Marco Serra:
Of course I am worried. As I am saying repeatedly, the final results of the tests on course could be either positive or negative. Every day is an anxious day here. Also today. Thank you for your simpathy.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

When I asked him yesterday whether he still expected the test to conclude in February 2016, he replied, “yes,” however it appears that Rossi’s F9 mantra is not just a routine disclaimer; there seem to be enough problems with the plant to make him think that the results of the test are not a foregone conclusion.

UPDATE: A couple of Q&A on the JONP about the latest problems and fixed

Q: “The problems you have been experiencing on the 1MW eCat system — are the primarily associated with a specific 250kW reactor subunit? Or are the problems spread over multiple 250kW reactors? In engineering, a continuing defective component is known as a “weak sister”

A: The problems are “spread”.

Q: Is the problem with the 1 MW E-Cat depending on normal failures, like heat cracks, datarecording etc or on unknown issues?

A: It was unknown of, but now we have understood and fixed it.

  • Omega Z

    A miracle. We agree on something. 🙂

    • EEStorFanFibb

      Shazam!

  • Omega Z

    Rossi is not a Scientist Per se. He is an entrepreneur doing science. If he were a scientist, it is likely he would still be working at milliwatts as most of the others are. Being an entrepreneur, he is not tied to there process. Thus he can advance faster then they.

    Note that Scientist are required to publish that absorbs much of their time. They also have to file patents & copyrights every step of the way. They ALSO withhold secret details of which you need to license before you can make use of it.

    Note that IH/Rossi already are licensing the technology. Entities are waiting, but before things can go forward, the product needs further work to make it ready for use. A license is of little use until there is actually a product to be spread around.

  • Omega Z

    There was wars long before nations existed.
    On any given day there is over 100 conflicts in motion. Just because there small or in isolated places & not in the daily news media doesn’t make them not exist.

    • orsobubu

      yes, my post was restricted to the bourgeoisie concept of nation and to the imperialistic concept of supranational organizations; shifting from middleage (and before) to capitalistic age, the scale of wars took a dramatic upgrade, since the capitals cake to be subdivided grew bigger and bigger

      • Omega Z

        Since WWII, conflicts have been in steady decline. An Effect of free markets & Capitalism. It is better to purchase what you need then to go to war to get what you need.

        • orsobubu

          admin moderated my answer, sorry omegaZ

  • ecatworld

    Dear Andrea,

    Are you reluctant to proclaim that the Rossi effect is real and valid, before the end of the current test in progress? If so, I wonder why, since you have worked with the E-Cat for so many years now.

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

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

    Andrea Rossi

    November 9th, 2015 at 4:16 PM

    Frank Acland:
    Because until remains something to do, it is as if you did nothing.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Bob

      Frank – Thank you for posting this question on JONP
      .
      While I do not necessarily agree with Rossi’s answer, at least I can see it as an honest one.

      Rossi has long stated the only thing that will silence the skeptics (including many in academia) is a working product being sold and used in commerce.
      .
      However, he may be doing himself a big disservice here and possibly the issue of English not being his native language comes into play. When statements are made that leave the impression that after 8 months of testing, he is not certain that his process even works.. “”it is impossible to answer” leaves little room but that the effect has not been confirmed! Surely this is not the case!
      .
      Yet if he really means “I await answering these questions until I have ALL data from a test that has a very definitive test protocol (of which the length is 365 days). Until all the data is in, that will answer all the questions, I must wait” I can understand this point of view.
      .
      Still, it is very odd that he makes posts about “long periods of self sustain” and yet will not quantify that the process has been confirmed.
      .
      Again…. we wait.

      • ecatworld

        More on the topic from AR today:

        “It is obvious that the sole real thing that will dissipate any doubt about a product is the product itself. Until we will not have diffused in the market our product anybody can doubt whatever he wants and maybe he is right. We are working hard to arrive to the product massively diffused in the market, but we need to complete the tests and after the tests, if they will confirm positive results, we will have to make an even harder work to pass from reactors handmade in a small factory to a major producing company.”

  • LindbergofSwed

    Something in the reasoning is not right. if the test at the customer is to prove the LENR effect to be good enough then it is strange to have it developed at the same time. There is a difference between testing a product and testing the effect. If the product fails to perform good enough because of the break downs how can that be a disprove for the LENR effect? Is that not just a prove that they came to the customer with a undeveloped product?

  • georgehants

    Your reply I think is very fair in general but disregarding Mr.Rossi’s keeping the secret, which can only be for that scourge of this World, profit ,then I must ask you to reassess the achievements of science.
    Of course many individual scientists are only concerned with True science but I am referring to the prevailing corrupt, incompetent science shown with Cold Fusion and many other important subjects.
    To cut things short and test my case, below is a link, would you be kind enough to give me your opinion as to how a competent science should respond to this Evidence.
    ——
    Summary of French COMETA Report
    http://www.netowne.com/ufos/important/cometa.htm

    • Omega Z

      George, Do you know what happens to business that does not make a profit. They go broke & close up shop ASAP.

  • georgehants

    orsobubu, all agreed, no I do not trust anything in this World but live in hope, I as usual am living in that Utopian dream of how things should be if our leaders really cared about everybody without, profit, ego’s and power.
    Everything must eventually be handled by a honest coming together of World powers for peace and sharing, I think.
    I see on the news that the US is not backing Syrian peace talks, apparently because they are not in charge.
    Sad, sad World.

  • Owen Geiger

    This is nerve racking. They’re still trying to solve unknown problems. I have to agree with GreenWin below who said “Scaled commercialization is not around the corner.” You can’t start mass producing product until the design is refined and highly reliable.

    • Omega Z

      Owen,

      “You can’t start mass producing product until the design is refined and highly reliable.”

      That is exactly the purpose of the pilot plant. To discover issues & refine the product. That also explains the (F9). You won’t know if all issues are easy to fix or a major problem to be solved.

      • bachcole

        I worry that each fix makes the unit more complicated, fixes of fixes, kludge upon kludge. This will increase the cost of maintenance and repair, among other problems.

        • LindbergofSwed

          or when they have experienced enough errors and it is nearly perfected it will be very unusual with repairs. it seems like it is most material issues, like they need stronger materials for the tough use in an industrial setup

          • blanco69

            This 1MW unit has hundreds, maybe thousands, of components. That’s why I find Rossi’s plan to cheaply mass produce these things hard to swallow. We’ll have to wait a lifetime until he irons out enough kinks to make that idea float. I assume that Rossi’s positive or negative chat has been from a proof of concept point of view as opposed to a reliability one. It would be a shame to fix all the reliability issues only to find that the COP just aint high enough or, that the effect was not nuclear or some other left field consequence.

          • Omega Z

            Correct, Industrial use requires much more robust hardware then that used by the general public.

            You can buy a $40 drill for general use that will hold up for years, but in heavy industrial purposes, last maybe for days or only hours. Someone who builds small things in his basement or garage gets by with a $400 table saw, but a contractor buys the industrial table saw that costs $2500 or more.

  • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

    Rossi is a very funny guy.
    _____________________

    Andrea Rossi

    November 8th, 2015 at 4:13 PM

    John:

    Think to that guy that jumped down from the 110th floor of a skyscraper, to test the exchange of gravitons between his body and the Earth, arrives at the level of the 29th floor and yells: “So far, so good”.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • Roland

    It might be salutatory to ask for a rough breakdown by percentage of the number of problems by category, granting Rossi’s NDA allows it, such as plumbing, control instrumentation, software, and pumps as opposed to actual issues with the reaction itself.

  • Jarea

    I share with you your thoughts!. i hope he can be more open after his patent. He should not be greedy and start selling his invention before it is too late for the planet or somebody stop him to do it

  • Brent Buckner

    We don’t know what non-disclosure elements the agreements amongst Rossi/Leonardo/IH may contain. To get enough funding to develop and launch something commercial Rossi may have constrained what he is presently allowed to do.

  • Oystein Lande

    Jus asked him


    With the results so far from running your 1 MW plant, would you say that cold Fusion / LENR / Rossi Effect is now an absolute proven fact?

    That is: There is an energy source far beyond possible chemical processes, which is the source of heat in your 1 MW plant?

    In that case it is more a matter of finding the optimal cost effective design to exploit this energy source, which is what you have been doing this year and going forward….

    And the Rossi answer is: “it is impossible to answer before knowing if the final results will be positive.”

    ???!!! Strange answer or what …..???????

    • nietsnie

      Yeah – that is peculiar.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      NDA

      • Oystein Lande

        Then hen should have answered “NDA”, and not “…If the final result will be positive”

        What final result????? What more results do you need to conclude on the science part of cold fusion after 12 Months run????

        • radvar

          Perhaps the situation is influence by one of the 50,000+ variables in the entire business-technological-psychological-physiological situation that Rossi is immersed in that he regretfully doesn’t have time to fully report to us about.

        • Teemu Soilamo

          Unless the NDA is bound to NDA.

        • Omega Z

          Oystein Lande

          This is important!!!
          COP>1 would have been established before expending time & money building an expensive pilot plant & initiating a costly 1 year test. Also consider that Rossi indicated to a question that he wouldn’t have spent so much time in the container were the initial COP results negative.
          ———————————————-
          Rossi’s M.O. when asked about the Rossi effect on JONP is to evade answering the question.
          Example-
          John says, “I would take your parable to mean that the effect definitely works,”
          To which Rossi says, “It is a very complex and difficult work.”
          ———————————————-
          It would appear there is a conflicting situation here in Rossi’s responses where it could be just a matter of protocol. Rossi has said there is a Referee collecting data. Should this Referee intend to publish, Rossi would be prohibited from publishing certain details on JONP as it would void the Referees paper from being published. (This is dependent on just who the Referee is.) Just as probable, the Referee has asked that certain details be withheld until the test is concluded.

          Another consideration that “I” consider the most likely. Should Rossi acknowledge COP>1 then people will request numbers. If Rossi were to say average COP=25 & the Referee specifies COP=20, The skeps have a field day. Even if the Referee said COP=24, the skeps will use this as ammunition against Rossi & the E-cat.

          If Rossi got this wrong, probably he has been wrong all along. If Rossi/IH have any prior connection whatsoever with the customer, then along with the COP discrepancy it will be used to totally discredit the test. At least in their eyes. The best way for Rossi to avoid this is to avoid giving such details. At least until the Referee documents & confirms the data.

      • Bob

        I do not believe this NDA logic. Who is the NDA with? The “secret customer”? This customer could not prohibit Rossi from publishing general data about his own invention. Only information that protects the identity of the customer.
        .
        NDA with IH? Possibly, but again, Rossi has been clear that HE owns the eCat and the technology. IH is only a license holder. Also, if IH had a true NDA and wanted to enforce it, they would have stopped Rossi’s blogs long ago.
        .
        No, there are no NDA’a preventing this release of information. The only NDA in place with Rossi is with himself! (And it is true that he does not have to tell us anything! )
        .
        However, he does himself harm by posting these nonsensical answers. I do not see NDA’s here. This answer to Lande’s question is illogical and it would have been better for Rossi to simply state “I am not saying”. Although I cannot understand why he would state that. He posts regularly about self sustain mode, etc. why would he not state I believe the results have proven LENR/Rossi effect? If you are running in self sustain mode without changing the fuel core, you have a non-chemical (thus likely nuclear) reaction. Period.

    • LindbergofSwed

      yes, I agree, if it is running in ssm, how can it not be a proven effect of LENR?
      I think he wants the competion to be uncertain so he can be more and more ahead

    • Bob

      Thank you O. Lande for asking this question to Rossi. Unfortunately, the answer is extremely disappointing.
      .
      I find Dr. Rossi very interesting and believe that overall, he tries to be an honest person..
      .
      However, this answer is completely B.S. I posted earlier that Rossi seems to refuse to separate the “LENR/Rossi Effect” from the 1MW plant “durability test”. This is absolute nonsense. If his statement after 200+ days is “impossible to answer..”, i.e. it is impossible to know if the COP >1 or >2 or > whatever, then something is terribly wrong with the measuring systems in place!
      .
      Of all things I have heard him say, this discredits him the most. While he does not have to tell us anything, he would be better served to simply say “I am not saying” rather than a silly answer of “it is impossible to tell…” 🙁
      .
      We have to remember, there are no NDA’s here except possibly between Rossi and himself! The secret customer cannot prevent one from publishing general data about one’s own product. IH might have some sort of NDA, but probably not about general data. Otherwise they would have stopped Rossi’s blogs long ago. Rossi is the owner of the eCat. Any NDA would be with himself!
      .
      I am thankful that we hear the occasional bit of info from Rossi as I realize he does not have to post anything. However, he does himself a great dis-service posting these nonsensical answers about confirming LENR/Rossi Effect and the F9 plant status!

  • georgehants

    Everything seems perfectly normal to me with any new venture.
    Mr. Rossi appears to have moved further in five years than than our Wonderful qualified scientists have moved in 50 years on most subjects.
    It is kind of Mr.Rossi to keep us updated unlike the crazy establishment that lives in a comical World of black power mongering, with no concern for the welfare of any people.
    How far forward are these investigations after Mr. Rossi was instructed to give the technology to the military establishment.
    We will never know, as producing another weapon to destroy people seems their only goal.
    Perhaps an open public invitation for a peaceful sharing co-existence would be better that the present seemingly ego driven desire only to wield power in the World.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes, send the UN in if Luca Brasi fails.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        “… a kinder, gentler machine gun hand…”
        -Neil Young

    • Owen Geiger

      I agree about the role of government meddling/ trying to control everything. Just watched a pretty good video on YouTube about the secret history of Silicon Valley that makes the point. The ‘secret’ is obvious to anyone paying attention.

      • georgehants

        Owen, the corruption everywhere is beyond debate, the question becomes what is to be done about it, I think.
        Best

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I haven’t seen the whole video yet but it looks like a good one.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA7yqvtktK4

  • BillH

    The length of this test is a rather arbitrary 365-400 days. The only real question to ask is, after 200 days was the test on course to complete successfully? i.e. at least 180 days of uptime on all reactors. If not, then the only reason to continue the test further is that there is still hope that that by day 400 that contract requirements can still be met. It should be noted that has the downtime exceeded 35 days then the test has already failed. Since test failure has not been announced it can be assumed that downtime of 35 days has not been reached but the downtime is mounting up and is perhaps over 21 days now, hence the reasons to be worried. On the other hand if the downtime were less than 14 days say, there would be no reason to be overly pessimistic as it would merely be on schedule. Over to you Mr Rossi.

    • GreenWin

      Let’s see Bill… Using the analog of the successful Bloom Energy, Bloom Box “server” (SOFC) and the 30MW Delaware Diamond State Generation Partners Reports, we find an average downtime (offline) of 18-20% or 70-75 days annually, higher than predicted CO2 emissions, efficiency only slightly better than grid, and taxpayer subsidies of over $1Billion dollars hidden in Delaware tax and ratepayers billing.

      Yet with all these apparent negatives, Bloom is the darling of Google, Facebook, E-Bay, even CalTech!! And wouldn’t you know it, Bloom’s big backers include Kleiner Perkins, Goldman Sachs, and Credit Suisse AG Group. Since Rossi’s in course test costs taxpayers absolutely nothing, and potential cost savings blow Bloom and other FCs away… Let’s let Dr. Rossi work on growing the best system he can without undue negativity. Over to you Bill. https://criblog.wordpress.com/category/fuel-cells/

  • bachcole

    Show me otherwise. I sweated 19 months not believing Rossi until the 2013 test that I thought (and still do) was definitive. Just because you don’t doesn’t mean that I am not keen about evidence.

  • nietsnie

    I think that this is further evidence that, although to some in the peanut gallery this year-long test is a to convince us of the existence of the basic technology itself, to Rossi it is a test of the readiness of the technology to be commercialized. He does not intend to supply a team to sleep in every installation, just in case. The idea with his test is to prove to himself and his backer that the technology, as it already exists, is sufficient already to send out into the world. It is no longer a matter of whether it is capable of producing power – but whether that power can be safely and consistently harnessed and controlled.

    • Jimr

      I agree it is a test of reliability. I understood it must operate 350 of 400 days. We don’t know if at 100% effiency or less is satisfactory. ( I’m aware he has spares in test unit, however I don’t believe they will be in delivered units) Rossi has reason to be concerned since he has had 172 failures in the first 8 months ( although I’m sure most were of a minor nature). I don’t think that mass shipments will occur for some time.

      • nietsnie

        Yes, exactly. At this late point in the process he is still having minor catastrophes. It doesn’t sound ready for prime time. At the same tie – it’s also clearly doing good work. If they could afford to devote a small team to live with each reactor installation – they’d have it. But, it’s not running like a set it and forget it boiler.

        Whenever you write oversight software you have to define the universe of situations that it must be capable of handling. I wonder whether they are still finding occasional outlier situations that the software isn’t designed to manage properly.

        • bachcole

          You are right, except that it would be conceivable that they could leave a tech (paid $70 per year) on-site to take care of little problems and the customer would still make a boatload.

    • BillH

      There is some reason to hope that a successful contract as agreed by the customer and AR/IH would result in more openness. Remember, the customer might wish to continue using the plant and reaping the benefits. This could be made conditional on the details of the plants reliability being made public and corroborated by the customer. It would be quite easy for IH to insist the test has been conclude and remove the plant from the site otherwise. The best of all outcomes would be that the customer would order more plant, this option may well be written into the current contract. At this stage there could be nothing better than a happy customer making profits and ordering more plant, confidence would go sky high and competitors would sit up and take notice.

  • Christina

    But to Rossi, because he couldn’t get the scientific community to take his invention seriously, commercialization of the e-cat will be the proof.

    Christina

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Bob

    ….”make him think that the results of the test are not a foregone conclusion.”
    .
    Conclusion for what?
    .
    The conclusion that the plant is not 100% ready for industrial commercial sales, then I could fully understand and believe this. Actually, it would be quite remarkable that the very first prototype plant would run without issue and go directly to market.. So F9 no problem on the durability / industrial design.
    .
    If he is talking F9 about the “Rossi Effect”/ LENR/Cold Fusion, I cannot really believe this. If one has run a reactor, producing 1MW of heat for several months, without changing the fuel core from a device the size we have been given, it is simply not a chemical reaction. If the COP > 6 and often running in self sustain modes for lengthy periods of time, it is not a chemical reaction. (Again, with the fuel core unchanged).
    .
    Why does Rossi not differentiate between the “Rossi Effect”/LENR/Cold Fusion being verified and the design/commerical viability of the plant being robust?!? This is like the Wright brothers stating… “Until we have a 747 size plane flying across the Atlantic, with 100,000 pounds of cargo, with no computer glitches, no hydraulic issues, no toilets failing to flush, no seats with broken recliners, we cannot say that powered flight is possible”!

    .
    Cold Fusion would be the discovery of the century. Due to possible new understandings of physics, possibly approaching par with Einsteins discovery. Especially if the process is quantum based. Yet here we are hearing… that the whole concept could be negative based upon this one plant not meeting the requirements of a fully developed, certified and tested, industrial heat source? I cannot understand this!.
    .
    I understand that Rossi cares if the plant can be sold. That is how he will make money. But if he can prove that LENR/Cold Fusion works, he will have all the money, engineering staff, resources, labs, plumbers, computer technicians and yes, even janitors that he could ever possibly need. Look at the billions spend on Hot Fusion.
    .
    No, I do not understand this continued F9 business. Dr. Rossi has never distinguished between the “Plant success” and confirmation of “The Rossi Effect”. He seemingly ties the two together. How can this be after all this time? Darden’s involvement gives me a much higher degree of hope. This continued F9 business (and I do not buy for a minute the NDA and all that wishful thinking by some) does not build by hope at all.
    .
    Again we continue to wait! Recent postings seem to indicate that the 1MW plant may very well be considered a negative in February. The failing grade due to it not meeting the “up time” requirement arbitrarily placed by some “secret customer”. (Which would have nothing to do with LENR)
    And then we will be on to the eCat X project and 2017.. 🙁
    .
    Dr. Rossi, if you read this site, please respond to the difference between the 1MW plant and your patented effect.!!!

    • Gerard McEk

      Yes, Andrea Rossi has given himself an awfull difficult task and as you say, Bob, if it goes wrong, it will delay the introduction of LENR to the world dramatically. It is hardly understandable why somebody would do that, exept perhaps for the money. But really, billionaires, tell me: Is there a difference between possessing a billion or 1000 billion? What can one afford more if you have more billions than having only one? Does that make you more happy?
      If you look who will be rememberd in history: Not the people with the money, but the people who really did somthing for the World that matters. What really matters right now is a proper energy source that does not pollute the environment and is abundant.
      So Andrea, if it does not work this time, at least tell us how it works, so we can quickly introduce it to the world before it is too late!
      PS: You wil be billionaire anyway with all your patents in place!

      • Jarea

        i totally agree with you Gerard. Well said!

      • Observer

        Ask the Gates Foundation. With great wealth, comes great responsibility.

    • GreenWin

      Dear Bob.

      I agree. Regardless our gnashing of teeth and feral angst, I doubt Mr. Rossi reads or cares what either of us think. It is darned frustrating! BUT, if LuFong is correct and the U.S. government owns Rossi’s very first 1MW plant, we may be in luck. Since government is financed by the taxpayer, and the 1MW E-Cat belongs to American citizens – why not mount a robust campaign to obtain its secrets?

      The IH/Rossi project is a private company with its own financing there is little we can do. But Bob (if you’re an American) we have rights. We can write to our Congressmen and demand the government throw open its doors and reveal all there is to know about the first 1MW reactor. Who can complain about a need to know the science behind the invention that will save our grandchildren? We need a lot more Orphan Annie (the musical) here. Without spunk and a bit of outrage, the sun may NOT come out tomorrow!

    • EEStorFanFibb

      “Dr. Rossi has never distinguished between the “Plant success” and confirmation of “The Rossi Effect”. He seemingly ties the two together. ”

      He ties the two together because, “In Mercato Veritas”

      http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/01/rossis-new-motto-in-mercato-veritas-in-the-market-is-truth/

      • Jarea

        In Mercato Veritas with the Rossi Effect? really? you as inventor would like to put in doubt the Rossi effect because your product cannot be sold? That makes no sense to me. It is more simple to think that he doesn´t want to risk or disappoint everybody or he need the disclaimer for legal reasons. In any case, he should be clear about the reasons of F9 because with his ambiguity he is really, as you said, killing the confidence in the Rossi Effect.

    • Pablo

      It is not socially acceptable to use the “Doctor” title for those individuals with honorary degrees. The bestowing institution may use it towards the individual, but others using it is in poor etiquette.

  • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

    I wish Rossi and Industrial Heat would partner with GE or Westinghouse. They need a big corporation with the manpower and experience to iron out all the bugs so the E-Cat can be brought to market ASAP. Just having a few people working on the E-Cat is too slow. The world needs it now.

    • GreenWin

      During the later stages of the Manhattan project there were many many design changes – Thin Man, Fat Man, implosion, plutonium, uranium, ordnance size, muzzle velocity etc etc. etc. There are now at least 6 major nations at work on LENR. Who knows how many more black ops and corporate efforts are underway? Let’s keep in mind Rossi’s effort is the only fully public project. It attracts all the attention. By design. 🙂

      • nietsnie

        “…muzzle velocity…” of an atomic bomb?

        • Roland

          Of the variant where critical mass is not achieved through implosion but by propelling the polonium initiator and the additional reactive mass down a barrel like assembly at high velocity. There is, as you correctly observed, no muzzle.

          • nietsnie

            Yeah, I guess it isn’t technically correct – but it certainly gets the basic point across accurately. Close enough for me.

        • GreenWin

          Odd isn’t it. “Detonated by a mechanism that resembled a cannon, Little Boy had a
          muzzle or target that was a hollowed-out subcritical mass of uranium.”

    • deleo77

      When it comes to refining the reaction in the container so that it is reliable and stable, I actually think Rossi doing this with a small team may be the best bet. Rossi’s head is so in this thing that he can likely iterate in ways that outsiders wouldn’t even understand. Darden is likely just leaving him alone to work out the kinks in the reaction itself. I’m sure Darden is thinking that Rossi has gotten the e-cat this far, so is there anyone better to take it further?

      I think what we are seeing is Rossi going through the daily headaches and grind of getting a sporadic reaction to become a safe and reliable commercial product. That is a very difficult step for any endeavor. Rossi is slaving away on this this plant trying to get it up to speed. Darden is thinking about the next steps. Where will the commercial development and assembly take place? It sounds like a combination of Raleigh and China. Who will become engineering and manufacturing suppliers? Perhaps GE and Westinghouse are on that list. How much money will they need to bring it to market? So it’s a divide and conquer strategy. Rossi just has the unenviable position of making the thing work right now. So I’m sure Darden would agree that Rossi has the hard part.

  • Publius

    No disrespect to Mr. Rossi, but the brilliant and top-trained minds of the ilk of F&P, McKubre, et al., have failed in harnessing CF, so I still believe it’s an incredible long shot for Rossi to have a commercial ready unit as early as 2016. He certainly has something worth investing in, but mass production is further than we think. I want him to succeed, but the betting odds are not good.

    • bachcole

      Betting odds depend upon the consensus of opinion. We don’t do consensus of opinion here. We do evidence and evidence alone.

      • GreenWin

        It is curious how Publius’ doubts manifest into betting odds. In another couple weeks we will learn all is swell and the test unit is running SSM for days at a time. This news arrives in a waveform. By now many here recognize the pattern and are unperturbed by it.

        • Publius

          Simply a metaphor. I wish all in CF well, as I believe in the phenomena, but for my own sanity remain cautiously guarded that commercialization is just around the corner. I’d rather be pleasantly surprised tomorrow rather than disappointed today.

          • GreenWin

            Scaled commercialization is not around the corner. As I pointed out recently, we have a good analog in the Bloom Box. Bloom has been at it for 5 years now. They have the blessings of consensus science, mainstream media, silicon valley deep pockets, testimony of happy clients Facebook, Google, E-Bay, WalMart, Staples, Macy’s, even CalTech! They all testify to its cost saving efficacy.

            At $750k/box – Bloom is $2.25M MORE expensive than Rossi’s E-Cat.
            And the E-Cat operates overunity at a COP of ~20+. Meaning the cost
            savings will far outstrip any fuel cell technology. http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/30/beyond-the-e-cat-test-the-next-phase/