How Do You Launch a Potentially World-Changing Energy Technology?

It’s been over five years since Andrea Rossi first went public with his E-Cat. I don’t need to rehearse the twists and turns that have taken place since January 2011, when Rossi and Focardi held their first press conference in Bologna. In early 2011 Rossi was predicting that E-Cats would be on the market within a year, yet here we are, still waiting for the commercialization of LENR technology in a world filled with energy challenges.

To me it is sounding more and more likely that sometime in 2016 the E-Cat will be ready to go on sale for people to use. But how do you launch such a product?

However you do it, I don’t think it can be done painlessly, without upsetting someone or something. The fortunes of nations, businesses and individuals are tied in with energy production in one way or another. Even if you don’t work in the energy sector, billions of dollars of average people (maybe a good portion your retirement account) are invested in financial securities connected to the energy industry in some way.

Here are some possible approaches.

1. You launch a publicity campaign and say in effect: “Here it is, here’s what it can do, who wants to buy it? If you don’t believe me, here’s a report that shows how the E-Cat acted over a 1 year period”. You put products on the market, take orders, and trust the marketplace to take care of the disruptions that might occur.

2. A more low-key approach. You release a report with data verified by a third party and let people study it out for themselves, and invite them to contact you privately if they want to explore the technology further. Commercial development is done quietly under NDA.

3. A gradual and controlled introduction of the technology. You do all you can to soften the blow for people who will be adversely affected by a disruptive energy technology. You do all you can to keep information off the front pages but build support in private, making alliances and getting buy-in from a broad base of people in industry and government. You try to anticipate negative societal change ahead of time, and launch the product gradually in selected markets so as to keep the disruption to a minimum. You give governments time to prepare to introduce laws and regulations on how and where, and for how much this technology should be used and taxed, and how it can be prevented from being used for destructive and criminal purposes, hoping for social stability and providing compensation for parties that might be adversely affected.

4. You don’t launch it. After analysis and consultations you forsee too many serious social problems being caused by such a radical technology and decide it’s for the greater good to keep it from being released — for the time being at least — and somehow bury it.

I realized these are rather simplistic options — the real world is going to be much more complex than is outlined here, with lots of different variables to be taken into account. But the point here is that if the E-Cat works as Andrea Rossi claims, there has never been an energy product like it released into the world. It would be a truly revolutionary technology, and I can’t think of a precedent of how to deal with it. We might look at the launch of nuclear power, but that was rolled out by governments with strict supervision for safety purposes. The E-Cat is coming from the private sector, is vastly cheaper than nuclear fission, and the same safety concerns do not apply.

There’s no rule book in place on how this is to be done, so if this happens, however it is done it will be breaking new ground, and it will be very interesting to see what happens.

  • psi2u2

    No I don’t, but MFMP has recently validated some of the key findings of Rossi’s argument and has finally (after months of inconclusive results) stated unequivocal confidence in at least some critical aspects of Rossi’s theoretical constructs. See other posts on this forum.

  • psi2u2
  • HS61AF91

    Right, the oil lobby will fade and the politicians will too. This leads to the end of business. When energy to do whatever is abundant, accessible, and in the not too distant future, free; trade and wealth accumulation as now exists, disappears. The second amendment, and an e-Cat will have a lot of entrenched, debt-indentured Americans feeling free; able to excel at whatever. Nikola T.’s vindication. “Entrenched interests” will be rebelliously overwhelmed, people will have time enough for love and the good things in life. Yeah!

  • psi2u2

    You mean you have no doubt of it. Many others doubt it quite a bit, but that’s because we’ve actually looked into the larger circumstances, something that doesn’t seem to be your cup of tea.

    • Bruce__H

      No. I mean that there is no doubt that he has had a history that is scam related. He has been prosecuted for fraud and had multiple people accuse him of running scams. There is no doubt about this, it is a matter of record.
      I’m talking about reputation. A reputation that has to be overcome if he really has made a discovery here.

  • Omega Z

    You do not need a scientific explanation. You only need a working product that’s been tested and preapproved as safe. There are many things in the world that have no scientific explanation other then opinions and many that do that are wrong. However, we use these things regardless.

    • Jacques

      Uh, name some if these things, please. 🙂

  • cashmemorz

    Why doesn’t anyone here acknowledge this: LENR manhattan project

  • psi2u2

    I did not refer to that issue in anything that I wrote. I have no direct knowledge about that matter at all. I was responding to the vaguely and condescendingly remarks about Rossi’s so-called “scam related” history. I see now that the remark also included a comment about the patents. The problem is that the “Rossi is a scammer” narrative has been pretty dead for a long time among those who have followed the development closely. As to the status of the patents, like I said, I really don’t claim to know.

  • SG

    Mr. Rossi and Dr. Cook are working on that. Also, bear in mind, there is no dearth of scientific theories for LENR. There is only a lack of consensus as to which one should be the accepted one.

  • Brent Buckner

    I gather that the choice of pursuing a patent versus maintaining a trade secret is complicated. For example, Dart Container Corporation has heaps of patents for cups and lids –
    but is also known for maintaining as a trade secret how it molds
    expandable polystyrene – )

    Perhaps Rossi has tried to patent a device because he’d be selling it, so it would be immediately reverse-engineered, while seeking to maintain as a trade secret a process for pre-treating fuel.

  • Brent Buckner

    Perhaps because with a patent one can enjoin others from using the innovation (with such exceptions as that prior use defense above).

  • Zephir

    While I consider the finding of new energy source extraordinarily important with respect to geopolitical stability of the world, I’m not a huge fan of cold fusion and I hope, it will be replaced with overunity technologies from simple reason: the cold fusion devices could be still abused as a dirty bombs or even triggers of classical nuclear bombs, which would be very dangerous tool in hands terrorist groups and regimes.

    • SG

      We shouldn’t worry too much. There is no radioactive fuel and no radioactive waste. Only X-rays interior to the reactor, which can be easily blocked by certain materials such as Pb and W. X-rays can be generated using sticky tape. I don’t see how a dirty bomb let alone a bomb is even possible.

    • Fedir Mykhaylov

      We need an international control over the conversion of uranium 238 and thorium. Piantelli patent proposes to use them is very dangerous.

    • psi2u2

      You don’t know this, and nobody does until the science is better understood.

      • Zephir

        The people like you also insisted, I cannot know, that the cold fusion is real.

        • psi2u2

          “the people like me”?

          I think you may be confusing me with someone else. Really, I’ve been following this story and blogging positively about LENR on my website since 2011. So, you’ve got me confused with someone else.

          • Zephir

            You simply cannot know, what I or other people know – so don’t pretend otherwise…

            • psi2u2

              What evidence do you have for your claim that LENR can be used for “dirty bombs.”

              We know very well that existing fission processes can be used to create nuclear bombs, but please explain to us, with some links to your sources, what evidence supports your claim. If you convince me that you know it, then you do. Until you convince me, I have every right to retain my skepticism over your claims to knowledge.

              And kindly don’t tell me what words I can or cannot use. Its a really rude thing to do.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    The issue of Rossi stating the device being safe is MOOT.

    Sure they are safe, but if regulars play the nuclear card, then long delays before introduction this product to consumers could occur.

    I don’t “think” regulars can prevent LENR based on the nuclear scare, but it could slow adoption down for a bit. So this kind of issue is not Rossi’s choice at all.

    I don’t believe Rossi stated products will be on sale this year?

    (anyone have a link or quote of text???).

    Quite sure Rossi stated he wants to have products on sale, or it might be possible, or he “hopes”. So anything is nearly possible, and I bet Rossi wanted the device to be on sale 20 years ago.

    Wanting, or hoping is not even close to a statement that products will be on sale this year.

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Maybe Rossi could profitably sell “scientific e-kits” to his followers with all the necessary precautions and admonitions. “May be harmful to ingest.” “Keep away from small children.” “It is only legal to operate an e-kit where not prohibited by law.”

      • Obvious

        Do not add the enclosed yeast to this brick of raisins and add water…

    • US_Citizen71

      I’m not sure that nuclear is even a point to worry about look at the extreme measures MFMP are going through to even detect what X Rays there are. If it doesn’t make their Geiger counters jump then they have no laws to currently use to control it. LENR so far produces less detectable radiological energy than a smoke detector, which has Americium 241 in the ionization chamber and virtually every western home has at least one..

  • TVulgaris

    How many phones get sold on release day? That is how fast it COULD happen, if the same sort of effort in promotion was made. I think that would be insanely unwise, but it COULD be that fast. Do a release for early adopters to generate some buzz and the capital for your promotion budget, and then those 10’s of millions of units could flood the market literally overnight.

  • clovis ray

    your first observation, is correct, this will be confirmed when the customer tells what he thinks about the test cat, from what i have read he was elated , and he wanted it promptly replaced once it was recharged and i would think the test cat should be replaced with a new and improved model, and the test cat be saved for historical posterity .

  • psi2u2

    You seem to be pretty new here. You might want to consult some more reliable sources, like Mat Lewan’s biography of Rossi. Those who have been discussing here for a while are well aware of these accusations. You can doubt as much as you like, but your arguments are not persuasive to those with a more thorough grounding in the history.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Rossi keeps using Microsoft as an example, a company making billions on software that runs on other company’s hardware. In my opinion Rossi and his competitors are going to sell their new LENR energy, in a form similar to batteries, to be used in the hardware created by thousands of companies. It will happen as fast, probably faster, than the computer industry.

  • Brent Buckner

    cf. Frank’s “Why I Believe in The E-Cat”

  • DrD

    I see an intersting Sci Fi story here, about the scientist who invented the philosophers stone and all the chaos that ensued. The former is not fiction, the chaos I can’t begin to imagine but I hope it won’t be. it’s food for thought for a talented writer which I’m not.
    I picture acres of rusting wind farms (I was surprised yesterday how many have apeared since I last went that way). I see fields of stockpiled new cars that no one wants. I see crumbling power stations and petrol (FILLING) stations.
    NO, I assume that AR is correct, it will take time to achieve all the vaidation needed to get that far. UNFORTUNATELY.

  • Karl Venter

    Lets say they launch their product
    I for one will buy them but them I have to incorporate it into the system/infrastructure
    Be it central heating or your houses electrical supply etc not an overnight job
    Who is going to do that hardware – the unit that takes the heat /electricity and puts it into practical household/industrial use
    Rossi cant do that so that’s why he makes Quarks
    eg Tesla redesigns their cars to take Quarks – best 6 months- So incorporation by OEMs will take time – some large corporation don’t change fast and will suffer as a result but having deep pockets will eventually get there
    Factories producing goods don’t have a design team to redesign their manufacturing process to accommodate quarks overnight or even 6 months. This will all take time
    So the list grows.
    The challenge is going to be how to integrate the quarks into the current infrastructure and then the design of a whole new system / paradigm in energy production will start
    So I predict a massive spike in sales of quarks initially then the race to bring the units with their practical application to market -( and we know that’s vast ) — will be more gradual as the new systems come on the market.
    How long does it take a person to build a system that integrates to a house hold heating system and then lets say he has no problem selling them but has to keep up demand. ( which will be huge) here again the race will be on as to who is first
    The skeptos will fight it I believe on the radiation front – cant have a nuclear reactor in your house or it must be controlled by the nuclear authorities making big corporation the only ones with access to it lets hope they don’t get government on their side. I certainly hope not.
    Interesting dilemma for APCO to solve
    Wonder what they will come up with as a launch plan?
    After publishing the 1 MW results how long before we have a launch and a product on the market
    I know its 2016 but I have my doubts that you and I will be able to buy a quark and intergate it into a system
    Are they going to have preferential customers first then us plebs – Rossi I believe says not he want to flood the market
    I believe if they have prefeerential customers they will be copied quite quickly – and that makes me hopeful that they will selol to all
    Am very very keen to see what a Quark looks like as I am sure most of us here do

    Anyway good to speculate a bit

    • Gerard McEk

      For the QuarkX you need sun glasses! 😉
      Initially AR and IH will just deliver the industrial market and I am sure AR will do that as quick as he can. But even that will take enormous time. The raising for the money to support the fund-flow for erecting plants and delivering products as well as to organize and build-up service centers world wide will take considerable time. Banks and investors need convincing the product is real, even after the ERV report. I would guess 5-10 years, so it will go gradually anyway.
      Not delivering is no option, others (countries) will do.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Well, you only need sunglasses if you have the device opened and you are looking at the light. (the question assumed that you cannot look at the light unless the devices is opened to allow such light out).

        The industrial market will no doubt be first. Perhaps 2 years we could see industrial sales occur.
        I think the consumer side going to be a challenge, and that challenge
        will be assuring government regulators that such devices are not emitting radiation,
        don’t produce radioactive waste, and they cannot be used to make nuclear bombs. So 5+ years as you note is “possible” but not assured. The regulatory challenge could take a short say 7 years, but it will take time.
        Remember, to build a typical say hi-rise apartment in a city, it takes about 5 years of passing through regulators in terms of traffic, and environment impacts. With nuclear, then such timeframes are larger. I do think it possible that say within 10 years we see consumer devices.

        So the consumer ready products are many years away, but industrial customers COULD occur in say the next 5 years.
        The above timeframe are shorter then I expected, but given the 1MW plant, then I now see above timeframes as possible!
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • mycropht

    I believe a key factor is completely missing from this analysis. We are heading into a major ecological disaster and something like e-cat is needed not tomorrow but day before yesterday. The e-cat technology should be on the market as soon as possible.

    I understand Dr. Rossi is waiting until he is ready for a forest fire approach but I just hope it will be sooner than later.

    Our planet is way more fragile than our rulers (mostly undereducated in natural sciences) are able to grasp. At a point where the disaster would be obvious even to the likes of Trump, it could already be too late.

    Btw, the e-cat could be a key “ingredient” for our survival on Mars and elsewhere… It is year 2016 already and we have total of zero space colonies. 🙁

  • Roland

    Being credulous sure is painful.

    You can, however, take comfort in being part of the herd.

  • LarryJ

    Every new technology is introduced more quickly than its predecessors. Look at vinyl records, to tapes, to cds, to dvds to flash drives. This technology will appear with blinding speed. Once they have a robotized factory they can clone it very quickly.

  • LuFong

    I definitely think Rossi is in it for more than the money. He has a reputation to rebuild (rightly or wrongly), there is always ego (with the possible exception of Gluck), and he may even be a narcissist. But it’s pure hubris to think that one can come out with a product, to lay the golden egg that all humanity will worship. Like all technologies we commonly use today, people will laugh at the first versions and the shortsightedness of the application. In a short time others will pass Rossi’s achievements. If Rossi has what he says he has, then his place in history is assured (right after F&P, Forcardi, Piantelli) in addition to certainly profiting on the patents his head start, hard work, and inventiveness has managed to secure him.

    That said, I am not Rossi so I don’t know exactly his circumstances and what he is up against. If he is to be believed, Rossi has achieved phenomenal things. But from my vantage point I would not withhold the underlying science about the basic LENR reaction. Now some will say that it’s been replicated–so Rossi’s done that but I’m not entirely convinced despite promising reports or replication.

    Also some will say IH now has the secret to replication so Rossi has disclosed it but now I’m worried about their so called LENR thought leaders. Yikes! Business people always try to squeeze every possible penny out of the consumer with their technology all in the name of profit-oriented progress. Rossi has been saying much the same thing.

    All of this could very well go away this year or certainly by the next. Replications appear to be closing in and at the very latest once a LENR product is released, the science will follow one way or another.

    Sorry about the long rant. It’s been a long wait!

  • SG

    What is a cunning hybrid war?

  • LilyLover

    I think we go a little further … We deny any importance to the grid. The grid may stay connected or get lost, but the ability to not need the grid and let it wallow in self pity as a discarded doormat in our homes is even better.
    There is no need to get away from grid … which in itself awards some undeserved significance to the grid.
    To make off-gridding unimportant is better than to be off-grid!!