Rossi on the Challenges of Developing E-Cat Plants (Updated with Follow-up Q&A)

I asked Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics how things were progressing in developing the next generation of low temperature 1MW E-Cat plants (based on their experience with the plant in the 1-year test), and this was his response.

Andrea Rossi
July 25, 2016 at 9:33 PM
Frank Acland:
The construction is going on. The difficulty and the improvement are generated from the necessity to make a subject that does not need Andrea Rossi inside 16- 18 hours per day, and the engineer and the technician of IH for 8 hours per day. We need a subject able to work alone, with nobody, but a certified operator that has to check tha gauges now and again.
To write this is easy, to imagine that it is not simple is easy too, but to understand really the difficulties is impossible for anybody that has not lived with the plant, inside the plant, for one year of his own life, attending and listening to the plant with his body inside it. The problems we had during the year have been multiple, have been resolved by our great team because we were there immediately when something was gone wrong.
Now the E-Cat must be able to work alone.
Warm Regards,

From Rossi’s response here, it seems that they are engaged in a difficult challenge to automate the control and management of a complex system. We have very little information about the reasons for the interventions they continually made with the original plant, but it seems like constant supervision was required to keep the plant operational.

Rossi has said in a previous comment that the early plants will be for “pioneer” customers:

Andrea Rossi
July 8, 2016 at 7:31 AM
Pietro F.:
That is because our product is not yet ready for a massive market, needs more R&D to arrive to that level. Our industrial 1 MW plants are still destined to the so called “pioneer customers”, which means customers that are aware that the product could have problems and are open to tolerate any unforeseen problem that could emerge.
Warm Regards,

While Rossi may not be able to be personally on site for these early installations, I expect that he may have team members available to provide support and intervention remotely, and when necessary, on site.

UPDATE: July 27, 2016

I asked some follow-up questions on the JONP which are posted below with Rossi’s responses.

Frank Acland
July 26, 2016 at 10:31 PM
Dear Andrea,

With regards to creating an E-Cat plant that can operate with stability

1) Do the E-Cat plants still need your (or your team’s) intervention to maintain stability? – it is impossible: I am not ubiquitous ( this too depends on the fact that Fermions can’t reach the speed of the light ).
2) If yes, can it be controlled remotely via the internet, or does a human technician have to be on site? – the safety certification makes necessary that a certified technician is present in the factory where the E-Cat is working, but not necessarily adjacent to the plant
3) Do you currently have a sufficient theoretical grasp of the E-Cat reaction to be able understand its behavior? -yes
4) Do you currently have the staff on hand with the skills to create the needed automated control system? -yes
5) Will your release of the 1MW plants to “pioneer” customers include having Leonardo personnel on-site for troubleshooting? – not necessarily on-site, but necessarily in connection with

Thank you,

Frank Acland

168 Replies to “Rossi on the Challenges of Developing E-Cat Plants (Updated with Follow-up Q&A)”

  1. ‘intervention remotely’ would be a start. It only requires a web connection and a SSH(Secure SHell) server running in the plant to allow a remote logon. From there everything you can do and see from a computer terminal in the plant can be done from anywhere.

    It may require more monitoring and control equipment to be fitted, plus enhanced protection to stop the plant damaging itself. The key thing is that the plant can trip itself safely and shutdown.

    1. I agree but should be isolated from the internet through a LAN line for now. Too big of a target for hackers.

      1. A fresh dedicated AI kernel and extremely robust encryption on a dedicated network are probably the minimum requirements needed going forwards.

        1. I agree:

          October 9th, 2015 at 1:51 PM

          Dear Andrea,

          I can foresee shutting down one reactor at a time with
          spares to avoid complete shutdown disruptions while uploading the new updated software or firmware. But the question that troubles me (sorry for your luck) is how confident are you
          sending those packets/programs over a ‘secured internet’
          (oxymoron for these days) and prevent an individual or government hacker from mutating the program and resending them out to all the unsuspecting customers?
          As you are aware they could cause irreparable damage either through failed energy systems or defeating overload-safeguards thus destroying the reactors.
          I can only think it would require a very robust encryption algorithm
          super-computers could not crack. (Or F9).
          Thank you.

          Andrea Rossi
          October 9th, 2015 at 3:37 PM

          This is also true.
          Warm Regards,

          1. Hi Brokeeper,

            So what is different to any therma power plant, high voltage network distribution system, low voltage distribution system, gas, waste water, sewage, building / site UPS or other such remotely controlled high value asset?

            They all play the game, trying to stay one or two steps in front of the hackers.

            ECats are not special in that way, so no reason to single them out.

          2. Good point but brings back to my original thought – why internet connection at all? LAN lines would do just as well.

          3. Hi Brokeeper,

            Speaking as an engineer, if I had +100 installed ECats, I would like to be able to, from my office or elsewhere, download past & real time performance data and run analysis against the data to see the worst and best performing reactors. Establish trends. Build historical data bases. Look for units that are showing signs of declining COP, low/over temp, low superheated steam, pressure issues, etc BEFORE it impacts the customer, so preventative maintenance can be achieved.

            Goal is to deliver a higher level of reliability & service than the customer expects.

          4. Could all that not be achieved locally and if needed passed manually to an internet server to cut any hackers, domestic or international, from directly controlling the E-Cats (or other power plants). If updates were needed to be uploaded could they not be delivered through a courier? Yes slower but wouldn’t it be much safer.
            I’m just trying to think out of the box with my limited power plant requirement understanding.

          5. Yes. The idea of the monitoring, control and protection systems all being merged into one computer system gives me the creeps but it happens. They should be entirely separate but it costs more.

            Protection preferably not digital at all and no external access under any circumstances. Control digital but normally isolated from outside the plant and its control point. Monitoring OK if duplicated for internal and external purposes.

          6. Not to mention the light bulbs

            Osram Lightify light bulbs ‘vulnerable to hack’
            Security researchers have discovered nine vulnerabilities in a range of internet-connected light bulbs made by Osram.

            The flaws in the Lightify products could give attackers access to a home wi-fi network, and potentially operate the lights without permission.

    2. That all works great until the reaction time to some signature event needs to be in the single digit milliseconds. I can see why he moved toward smaller, lower thermal mass, possibly self-quench systems like the Quark.

      1. Monitoring:
        An example: Every large Rolls-Royce gas turbine engine that is flying is continuously monitored from a control room in the UK. Pressures, temperatures, vibration, spools speeds, alarms, the whole shooting match. The data is processed near real time and the pilots first indication that something is wrong can easily come from the ground.

        Control is a whole different ball game and all control loops have their own time constants but you can control a drone over Afghanistan from a control room in the USofA.

        Protection is not control. Protection stops the plant from getting into an unsafe state. It sets the absolute limits of operation and can include any parameter. An example would be nuclear reactors that not only trip on high neutron flux but also on high rate of change of flux. Time constants for protection response tend to be the shortest and have the greatest need for reliability and redundancy.

        As ever, it just has to be engineered right.

  2. Patrick Ellul
    July 26, 2016 at 5:39 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    It seems like you are focusing your efforts on getting the plant to behave by itself without the constant need of human supervision and intervention.
    Without this your 1MW would not be cost effective.

    1) What areas of expertise are you mostly making use of to solve this problem? Plumbers, electricians, electronics, computer programming, etc?

    2) Also, a typical 1000MW Natural Gas power station is manned by about 30 employees. Does it make sense to operate multiple of your 1MW plants from the same location and sell power to the grid, to reduce the manning costs?

    Best regards,

    Andrea Rossi
    July 26, 2016 at 6:53 AM
    Patrick Ellul:
    1) All of them
    2) This is a very intelligent consideration. Makes sense.
    Warm Regards,

    1. Hmmm? Steam at 1.2barA/110C is not going to make a lot of electricity. If we could discuss an E-cat that makes steam at, say, 120bar/450C I would be really interested.

      Of course, rapid improvements in the technology seem likely and a 1GW LENR generating plant should come along. With the Quark, a gas turbine that can use 1200C heat would be the best first stage, followed by a conventional steam generator at lower temperatures.

      1. Steam simply for heat transfer is fine, you can use a much lower-temp working fluid in a Carnot cycle to make as much electricity as the system will allow. Heat losses and lowered efficiency in the steam can be greatly minimized, it’s the poor performance of the conventional electricity generation that makes not just Rossi’s, but every other contender in the field need to explore other generation schema.

        1. ‘you can use a much lower-temp working fluid in a Carnot cycle to make as much electricity as the system will allow’

          What Th and Tc are you using?
          What is your working fluid?
          What is the resulting Carnot Efficiency?

          The formula for maximum efficiency is :-
          where Tc is the absolute temperature in the cold reservoir and Th is the absolute temperature of the hot reservoir …

          The examples I quoted :-
          Case 1:
          e=1-313/383 = 0.183 or 18.3%

          Case 2:
          e=1-313/723 = 0.567 or 56.7%
          The real efficiency will be substantially lower.

  3. This is an interesting part of A.R. Comment
    , to understand really the difficulties is impossible for anybody that has not lived with the plant, inside the plant, for one year of his own life, attending and listening to the plant with his body inside it.
    Does anyone know who the Engineer and
    technician of I.H. are who Rossi says
    spent 8 hrs a day in the plant.

      1. Fabiani was the one who was
        positive about A.R. and the
        Ecat in Mats Lewan interview.
        I guess that means I.H. do
        not believe there employees.

  4. I am finally starting to read plain speaking honesty from Rossi instead of market-speak. For years, listening to his over-optimistic responses, I gathered that he had to be part of the control system, that there were things the automation missed but that that he could discern, hence:

    “The difficulty and the improvement are generated from the necessity to make a subject that does not need Andrea Rossi inside 16- 18 hours per day” – AR
    Glad to read he’s owned up to those deficiencies and is working to resolve them. It is annoying that his deep secrecy bordering on paranoia meant he could not hire people who understand complex control systems, s they might have by now solved the issues.

    1. I not aware this is any news. I mean, Rossi flat out stated he was spending that time in the plant. So what is new here? You mean Rossi “left out” the fact that he was spending his days in the
      plant? I am struggling to figure out what is “new” news here?

      The issue is how self-maintaining do you want the plant to be.

      If Rossi was in the plant for 16 hours, then what and how was the plant running for the other 14 hours? (I really don’ want to start giving grade school math lessons here!).

      Rossi has consistently stated he was spending his days tending that plant. I struggle to grasp why you think this is news?

      The computer controls that ran this plant are rather complex. The plant obviously and could run for hours without intervention. It just really a question of the “balance” of how much automated
      control systems vs that of some human tweaking and running of that plant.

      While the controls for the ecat reactors were quite refined, things like increasing the water flow, or reducing the water flow and other issues required Rossi and “some” intervention.

      I mean, even in your house you might set the thermostat, but if a room is a bit warm, you might open a window a bit since turning down the temperature will make other rooms cold. And if you’re
      not around, then who’s going to open or close that window a bit to achieve the desired temperature in that one room?

      Today it is common that HVAC is controlled remote. Dean Kamen’s company will manage your heating and air condition remotely (HVAC). Dean is well known for the Segway. In fact in from Kamen’s head office (Chicago I believe) they manage HVAC for all kinds of business around
      the world including the Sidney Opera house way around the world in Australia.
      So remote control and managing of such systems is common place today.

      So it is COMMON place for a business to allow remote control of onsite HVAC systems remote. I suppose when the Sidney opera gets hacked, then this trend might change – but right now people don’t give this technology and practice a second thought.

      So if we remote control the heating in your house and that one room is still too hot, then a human will have to walk into that room and open up the window, right? The solution to “eliminate” that onsite service call would be to install a remote control windows, or another control
      value for that part of the building. However, if the cost of sending a human a
      few times is LESS then installing that automated part, then you increase cost
      of that HVAC system by automation.

      So the question is how “close” Rossi can get the plant to run 24/7 without someone on site is the issue. I certainly think that remote control is an option.

      In practical terms remote control does not eliminate the need for a caretaker to visit that building and tweak things – it just a question of how much tweaking you eliminate and automate.

      So you might have to call Joe caretaker to open the value a bit more for the school gym on those cold days despite having a computer and remote controlled heating system for that school.

      Rossi really just dealing with the same issues. Who’s going to control what and how far do you eliminate the need for someone to be on-site.

      Because of all those ecat cores – it sounds like those parts are rather mature in terms of automation. In fact I quite much believe that the SSM mode and software is responsbile for a HUGE portion of achieving the high COP. However, how well the plant reacts to heat flow, load demands etc. is likely where additional work is required. Of course, one cannot build a new plant and control system every month during a test – only lean form the test and then move on to the next design in which less intervention and labor is required.

      At the end of the day, I don’t think Rossi made ANY kind of effort to hide that he was spending each day in that plant.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      1. Yes he actually did hide the fact his plants required nearly constant manual intervention. He made optimistic statements how he had plants ready to go to customers unnamed. How could that be since each plant requires manual reaction control tweaks? It is also not clear whether he dialed back the COP to prevent runaway issues when he was not there to monitor them. Basically, he was still dong research on the “production 1MW plant” and he was doing high COP careful monitoring likely because he had not programmed his expertise into the control algorithms. I don’t have a problem with that tack but I am happy he finally admits the deficiencies he has to master to make those plants autonomous. From JONP: “That is because our product is not yet ready for a massive market, needs more R&D to arrive to that level.”-AR
        My house inverters do not melt down because I am not around to monitor the shifting phase angles in the exciters whenever a motor kicks on. My house batteries do not explode or deplete to zero. My boiler does not crack the chamber because the gas flame overheated it. This is this kind of control I am discussing, not your poor examples, Albert, of thermostats and windows.

        1. he actually did hide the fact his plants required nearly constant manual intervention.

          Really, then how did the plant run for the 8 hours when Rossi was not around then? Can you explain this logic of yours? If you concluding the plant required near constant manual operation, then how did the plant run without Rossi around for 8 hours a day?

          There nothing really I can see that is hidden or a surprise here. I mean, you have to ask yourself for what possible reason was Rossi spending 16 hours a day in that plant. What possible reason could you cook up for Rossi to spend day after day in that plant? (it easy to see Rossi was doing R&D, and testing ideas, and yes of course tweaking the plant).

          You actually think a person of Rossi’s mind and intelligence is going to sit in a chair watching a plant run all day and not have to be present? So why spend day after day holed up in the plant? Honestly, what were you thinking here?

          He made optimistic statements how he had plants ready to go to customers unnamed.

          I don’t recall anything overly optimistic. In fact Rossi stated he was constantly learning things that will be incorporated into future designs. This was stated over and over like a parrot.

          How could that be since each plant requires manual reaction control tweaks?

          How much manual control tweaking? Why such newfound speculation here on your part? So you go from being surprised Rossi spend all that time in the plant to now suggesting that per minute types of adjustments are required? Why such a silly logical approach to reason here?

          The issue is not manual control tweaks but HOW much and HOW often and of what of tweaks you want.

          We have little information on what kind of reaction control changes are required or that Rossi wants now. In fact we have zero evidence such reaction controls are even at issue here – it could be any number of issues.

          How can we use logic and reason to determine that Rossi not required to be at the controls every 5 or even 10 minutes for hours on end?

          I really should not have to do your thinking here, but what is dead obvious seems to escape you.

          So, just in case, I do the math and reason for you here:

          24 hours in 1 day. (I sure you can handle this number and fact).

          Rossi stated he spends 16 hours a day in the plant. (again, not too hard for you????)

          So, using grade school math to help you reason this out:

          24 – 16 = 8 hours (I am worried now – this has real math!)

          Ok, are you still with me? (grab your grade school book).

          So, how did the plant run for 8 hours per day without Rossi?

          It is also not clear whether he dialed back the COP to prevent runaway issues

          That’s is correct – it is not clear. Any statements on your part would be wild speculation and without evidence, reason, or logic on your part.

          On the other hand, we do have clear evidence that Rossi was not in the plant for about 8 hours per day.

          Rossi stated nothing in the past or now that suggests anything in regards prevention of runaways. In fact Rossi stated the exact opposite and that safety of the DESIGN was the #1 consideration.

          Basically, he was still dong research on the “production 1MW plant”

          Ya think?

          Well done Mr. Sherlock!

          Rossi quite much suggested and stated the above nearly every post he made.

          and he was doing high COP careful monitoring likely because he had not programmed his expertise into the control algorithms.

          Again, pure speculation on your part. Since the ERV report states a COP of 50, we can assume that at least 30% of the time that COP was achieved without Rossi in the 1MW plant.

          This suggests that the control system is rather refined in terms of achieving the high COP. If the Risk of some runaway existed, then Rossi would be in the plant 24/7. Or they would not have run the plant 24/7, but gone though a long startup process everyday.

          That 30% of time the reactor ran without Rossi represents about a 100 days of operation or more without Rossi at the controls.

          So average high COP’s were obtained, and that included periods without Rossi at the controls.

          Perhaps the issue is as the fuel charges wear out, then a manual tweak and adjustment is required and then plant runs for 3 weeks before another adjustment. And Rossi not going to find this issue out unless he spends nearly every day in the plant, is he?

          My house inverters do not melt down

          Sure, and we have zero statements from Rossi that the additional changes and tweaks he desires are in regards to safety, or performance, or preventing some melt down. We don’t know what tweaks and controls Rossi was talking about or wants to incorporate into these designs. Cleary some of the “human” choices and adjustments are hard to do with software and controls.

          However, we DO know that 100+ days of operation of time existed without Rossi in the reactor or being at the controls.

          So what we do know is Rossi spent a lot of time in that reactor, and anyone using the process of reason would conclude that reasons existed for Rossi to spend that kind of time.

          So the challenge here is “refinement” of the control systems, and obviously some of these are challenging.

          Refinements are always the hard part as you improve a design.

          It is high unlikely that per minute adjustments are required, because we know Rossi has to go the little boys room just like you do. (you do realize this, right???).

          The tweaks and refinements Rossi wants are clearly of a “higher” nature since Rossi was not at a plant during many an 8 hour stretch of time.

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          1. And a plant to coax into running in protracted SSM while coming up with solutions to existing problems and inventing the next two iterations (Hot-Cats & Quarks) of his technology, oh, and trying to figure out exactly why any of this works.

            Not bad for an old guy…

          2. There’s a ton of Albert true-believerism going on and the answer to how did it run when Rossi was not around is evident in much of what he said and what the contract required. The plant was considered successful so long as minimums were met, which meant the plant could operate at different COP levels, even have some reactors offline for short periods of time.
            Again,from what Rossi has stated in the past is that the probability of runaway (exponential growth) reactions occurs at higher COP aka higher LENR gain. I posit that when he was there most of the time he cranked up the COP to very high levels. The automated reaction monitoring control process did most of the work, and Rossi watched for the signs of things getting out of hand. When he wasn’t around he probably lowered the COP to a tad above the minimum, in a safer operating point that the automatics could handle without need for human intervention.
            But again, Albert the believer, read what Rossi has finally said recently – the reaction control process needs improvements before that part of the control system can be left to its own.
            Yes, there are other non-LENR related control systems too in the 1MW plant. Those are controls one sees in large power plants. They too operate autonomously, but those systems are well known art.

          3. No real surprise the plant required an operator. I suppose waking up one day and realizing 2 = 2 is a surprise?

            The plant requires monitoring and I don’t think that is much of a surprise to anyone. One has to really grasp at straws to cook up some thoughts as to why this any kind of surprise.

            We have no facts as to the kinds of additional monitoring the plant requires – including that of running at a lower or higher COP when Rossi is present or not. Such conclusions are pure speculation.

            We also have zero evidence that the plant was close to, or ever reached anything close to runaway conditions. Test “bone” reactors on a lab rack as opposed to a plant supplying heat are two very different statements. The context of “past” statements about higher COP = more chance of runaway is true, but were in the context of test reactors.
            We have nothing here that suggests plant operators EVER risked running the plant too hard and destroying the yearlong test (that’s a big risk and Rossi would lose the test with such a failure and have to start the clock over again). In fact we have nothing that suggests the plants COP was higher when Rossi was at the controls.

            It not any surprise that the plant required an operator – the questions that remain are how critical is the operator to the plant, and are minute to minute adjustments required by that operator? We see no fact or even “implied” evidence that minute by minute adjustments are required by the operator.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          4. Your incorrect assertions are ignoring the years of Rossi statements about runaway conditions in higher COP configurations. Most of his time has been characterizing those conditions to derive a control mechanisms of the reaction. He has a quench mechanism to prevent meltdown. Look it up. It’s all there, except of course, the specifics of how he does it (trade secret).

      2. From the drawing engineer48 from Fabiani shared they had the remote controll option. Personaly i think its about the load demand and adapting to that, besides offcourse design flaws and unexpected behavior because it is the first plant acting in a real enviroment. I wonder is it possible to store super heated steam like you can choose to store cold water if you want your cooling installation to be less like an on/off one(simply said)

    2. There is two ways to look at this. If indeed the 1MW plant worked but required Rossi to be present 16-18 hours a day, then it may have worked but Rossi forfeits the GPT payment since the GPT was intended to demonstrate industrial readiness of the 1MW plant. Allowances were made for Rossi to make commercially reasonable best efforts to cause general performance to be achieved, but I would say having Rossi there 16-18 hours, and only Rossi 24/7/350, to achieve this performance is not commercially reasonable. The 1MW plant is not ready for commercialization as Rossi is stating now.

      The other way to look at this, and what I am partial to, is that Rossi did not have to be there but chose to in order to protect his operation. You can fill in the blanks as to what Rossi was protecting and why.

      1. I don’t see where the GPT is predicated on anything but output to input performance and time up. Do you have a link to where it stipulated commercial readiness in such a way? That would be quite an interesting nugget if so.

        We do know he wasn’t there 24/7 as there were times he had to be away on business, but any power company has people working in their plants at all hours of the day, 24/7, via shifts, so that isn’t too big a deal.

        1. Read the contract. Also compare the performance criteria for the acceptance test and the GPT. I’ve never seen a Chief Scientist babysit a installation 24/7/400.

          1. Indeed, and Rossi didn’t. At most, 16 or 18 hours for most of the time, but we know there were times he was gone for awhile. Exaggeration is pointless, but in an industrial setting there is always a shift worker around, so the argument is fundamentally flawed at best as 24/7 is an industry standard in power plant settings.

            And I still see nothing in the contract and agreement that has anything to do with an undefined “commercially viablility” for payment, just COP and uptime, nothing about personel. Do you have a direct quote available that could help?

          2. I’m not exaggerating unless you take what I say literally. And how was Rossi able to be away 6-8 hours a day regularly every day but not take time off during the other times? Was the 1MW plant somehow operating differently during the time Rossi was away? I don’t think so.

            Read Section 4 (Validation of the Plant) and Section 5 (Guaranteed Performance) in the License Agreement. The role of the ERV report is expressed differently and given that this contract was written by lawyers, the differences are important. The Validation of the Plant clearly is determined by the ERV report: “Validation will be deemed successful and achieved…”. For the GPT it doesn’t say this but rather the ERV only confirms the general performance and is only a necessary requirement (but not determining): “Guaranteed Performance will not be deemed achieved unless …” These are important differences and are not merely the same thing written differently.

            The intent of the GPT was to show that the E-Cat was commercial ready. Allowances were made for Rossi to keep things going: “Each of Leonardo and Rossi will use their commercially reasonably best efforts to cause Guaranteed Performance to be achieved…” If Rossi could demonstrate this with a successful GPT then the license agreement called for IH to pay them up to $89M. But clearly having Rossi there indicates that the E-Cat is not commercial ready.

            These are Rossi’s own words: “The difficulty and the improvement are generated to the necessity to make a subject that does not need Andrea Rossi inside 16- 18 hours per day, and the engineer and the technician of IH for 8 hours per day. We need a subject able to work alone, with nobody, but a certified operator that has to chenk [sic] tha [sic] gauges now and again. ”

            Rossi’s actions during the 1MW plant test and his own words/actions following show that the 1MW plant is not commercial ready and hence fails the GPT.

          3. The Licence Agreement – Section 5 :
            The ERV (…) will be engaged to confirm in writing the Guaranteed Performance. Guaranteed Performance will not be deemed achieved unless such written confirmation is received.

            LuFong states :
            … For the GPT it doesn’t say this but rather the ERV only confirms the general performance and is only a necessary requirement (but not determining):

            The licence agreement states ‘to confirm in writing the Guaranteed Performance’.
            LuFong states ‘only confirms the general performance’.

            I do not see those two statements as compatible.

          4. I don’t agree in the slightest, I am afraid. Those snippet quotes have nothing to do with personnel or how much labor must go into the plant, just that it works at the specified level for the specified time. The rest is far too much a stretch and I see no support for that interpretation. Every power plant has people working constantly to keep it going, so such is entirely commercially feasable. Rossi’s goal for greater automation does not change or affect that basic fact–he is aiming for a higher unnecessary standard.

            We also know Rossi was gone for extended periods as tests were performed on the plant behind his back during those times. The entire house of cards that this argument leans on fails in its first principles I am afraid. As long as the plant ran at the proper performance range for the proper time, the GPT test was a success and IH owes Rossi money. No one has ever disputed that idea or floated the argument that people working on the plant to keep it going as evidence it isn’t commercially viable–till you here.

            I am sorry, but it is a bridge too far.

          5. The Rossi story is a bunch of dots and each of us connect them differently to create different pictures. That’s mine regardless of what you call it.

            How do we know Rossi was gone “extended” times? Also re-read my original post. I don’t believe Rossi had to be there despite what he says. He was there to protect his operation.

          6. But those “dots” must be facts. There are no facts to back up your idea, I am sorry but there isn’t. Nothing in the license agreement says Rossi can’t be there, and you are unable to provide any quote to back that idea up. It was only COP (production) and up time (reliability) that mattered to the agreement. There was nothing about labor, and no egregious amounts of labor has been used (just IH techs and Rossi). There is nothing commercially nonviable about this, and it is normal for an expert in a plant’s operation to be on hand at all times via shifts.

            I’m sorry, LuFong, but I just don’t get it and can’t follow you on this one. If it were a valid defense, IH would have used it, they didn’t. Even the crazy ramblings of Weaver, who talked about the plant being examined (e.g. fuel) while Rossi was away (who knows if that is true or not, but that was my assumption source there and it is right to question that source’s validity), has never tried to use that argument in IH’s defense. Why? Because it is invalid and has absolutely zero support. IH techs built the thing and helped run it, nothing wrong for an expert to be on hand as part of the team.

            Rossi has always had lofty goals, but as it is now, there is currently no directly known evidence to us as to the plant not being commercially viable if it works as advertised, which makes sense of why people are trying to order more of these things.

            Belief is good and fine, but at some point it must give way to facts. Maybe we will find out more though that will shore up support of your view.

          7. Well considering the FACT that IH has not provided an answer yet to the civil suit, it is no wonder IH hasn’t used this as a defense yet. But you are right, if and when we do see their defense, it will be telling if they bring this issue up. It may also indeed be an issue but they may decide not to pursue it.

            But again, if you look at the license agreement there is a stipulation in it that I quoted (FACT) that says Rossi is allowed make “commercially reasonably best efforts” to keep the plant going which obviously means he could be there. So I never claimed that Rossi could not be there–you have your FACTs wrong by implying I meant this. This clause in FACT gives Rossi the opportunity to be their and make fixes etc. But the clause also is very specific. It doesn’t just say Rossi is able to make repairs etc. Besides giving Rossi access it limits his role and I claim that Rossi violated that limit in both action and speech by being and claiming to have to be their around the clock.

            Re-read Rossi’s statement (FACT) that I gave you. He explains this all to you since you seem to ignore anything I’ve been saying. Rossi rebuffs most of your argument right there.

            And you are bringing up sales of the 1MW plan as justification of the commercial viability of the plant? Aside from the FACT that there is no known sale of a 1MW plant outside of IH , the FACT is that IH essentially claiming it doesn’t work . Even Rossi’s customer for the 1 year test did not buy the plant but leased it. And the FACT is Rossi even waffled on first saying they bought the plant and then later saying they leased it. Others have tried to buy these and we for mysterious reasons could not (FACT). So it really doesn’t matter how many trying to buy these plants–they do not seem to be for sale.

            I gave you FACTs Ged. You’ve chosen to ignore then or not believe them. That’s fine; that’s what this is all about.

          8. Well, it not a fact that Rossi’s actions or having to be present for some X hours per day means the plant is not commercially viable. And there no real evidence that such operator requirements suggests the plant is not commercially viable.

            You are the one making this concludes.

            We not arguing the fact about Rossi and some technician being present to run the plant, we are disagreeing with your logic and conclusion that some requirement to have an operator sitting around drinking coffee and looking at gauges means the plant is not commercially viable.

            I see nothing here that suggests having to have operators to maintain and run the plant in any way invalidates the commercial viability of the plant.

            Rossi simply stated that is a challenge to “automate” some of the tasks required to keep the plant running. Obviously Rossi would not be building several plants now for customers if such plants required Rossi to live inside for 16 hours a day. (true it is speculation of such plants being built).

            But it also speculation as to how much and the types of tasks Rossi wants to further automate in the plant (and thus you can’t conclude the plant not viable until such time you know what tasks and issues Rossi wants to further automate – so you don’t have hard facts on your side, do you?).

            I mean, the first coal furnaces required you to shovel in coal. Not the end of the world, but later models had a screw feed to pull the coal from a hopper and thus you did not have to get up several times a night to shovel coal in your furnace. The idea that the furnace was not commercial viable because you have to shovel some coal a few times a day in no way suggests the coal furnace was not commercially viable.

            So we not auguring with the facts you present, but we certainly are dismissing the silly conclusions you are making from those facts you present.

            Rossi not suggesting that the plant is not commercial viable (you are!). Rossi simply stating it’s a challenge to increase automation levels and include tasks that currently require an operator.

            As noted, the plant was able to run for stretches without Rossi, it not clear if Rossi attempting to extend such time stretches to weeks, months etc, but as such this issue does not eliminate or by default suggest the plant is not commercially viable.

            So until you can state and show what kind of tasks Rossi talking about, then you are the one making conclusions about commercial viability without facts to support that position. We not arguing the facts, but your concluding based on these facts don’t fly until such time you can point out the automation issues Rossi is talking about.

            All we know is Rossi wants more automation of the plant – this does not suggest the plant can’t run without Rossi, nor does it suggest that the plant is not commercially viable. One so far can only conclude that these additional automation features are a challenge.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          9. Exactly my point! We don’t know, and thus I make only speculation. I don’t stand here and state I know why,and then when challnege don’t state I only providing facts. So then why are you making concluding that is not based on facts and ones that don’t support your position?

            You ARE the one attempting to claim you’re only stating facts, but then turn around and speculate about the reason for Rossi having to be on site! If you don’t know then why make claims that you don’t know? Or at least place those claims in context of speculation and not attempt to claim your position is factual.

            You are the one arguing that no one disagree with the facts you present. As I stated, we not arguing the facts, but your conclusions you are attempting to make that are thus without merit.

            Further, as I stated, EVEN in the case that an operator is required at the controls does not invalidate the plant nor suggest we been mislead, nor does it suggest the plant is not commercially viable. It certainly does suggest Rossi wants a better level of automation, and Rossi flat out stated as such.

            However, I am MOST certainly stating that Rossi spending every day at the plant is NOT new nor a surprise. For anyone to be surprised that an operator is required to run the plant would be someone who is not aware of the facts or choose to ignore these facts. As a result, you are simply deflecting this lack of knowledge on your part.

            It not new news in ANY way that Rossi was spending near all of his time in a day on site at the reactor. Again, this is NOT new news.

            If you going to hide behind the concept of you only presenting facts, then simply present those facts and remove your speculations. Or simply admit your concluding are speculate at best. There nothing wrong with presenting speculative ideas here, but you are attempting to present such speculation
            as fact and that’s where you gone wrong.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          10. I didn’t say Rossi had to be on site. I’m saying IF Rossi had to be there to keep things going then the E-Cat 1MW plant is not industrial ready and fails the criteria for the test. If Rossi didn’t have to be there I left it up to the reader to decide why.

            Rossi’s being there 400/24/7 is extraordinary. I mentioned this at the very beginning of the test and nothing since has changed my mind. If indeed Rossi had transferred the IP then IH could have manned the test with 3 IH employees and ran the test. Also remember that there were only 10 down days. Based on Rossi’s comments they had start up problems and a few leaks but that is nothing requiring Rossi to be there at the cost of his health and possibly the GPT success.

            So the question is why was he there? My belief, as I stated was he was protecting something.

            I think you will save yourself a lot of angst if you read what I write more carefully.

    3. Rossi was his most reticent and conservative self, in his commentary and remarks, on the operational achievements attained during the actual year long test period if you go back and reference what he revealed then against what we’ve subsequently learned from the court fillings.

      Rossi at his most ebullient was the man who’d just received US$11.5 million and the contractual agreement that laid out his path to receiving a further US$89 million by doing something he loves.

      I’d be pumped too.

      We didn’t know about the US$11.5 million either, till the court fillings became public knowledge, and speculated endlessly about how he was going to make ends meet…

  5. Exactly what I have been saying in an earlier post. Rossi needs more iterations to develop a mass market product that can run without constant human surveillance and fingering. His next round will still be prototypes with unforeseen problems that need to be resolved.

    This begins to sound more realistic instead of all the earlier promises of mass market products in near future. I wonder how many years we still need to wait for massive production of his reactors that “just work out of the box”.

  6. Command and control systems for high energy processes have typically been based on a wealth of ‘hands on’ experience if for no other reason than that the vast majority of these processes predate the advent of automation control by decades.

    By way of example some of the processes inside an oil refinery run at Quark like temperatures; the path to being able to run an entire refinery from a centralized control room with a dozen people is built on the practical experience of tens of thousands of petrol-chemical engineers over the course of a century.

    Obviously we don’t want to wait that long so an analysis of the challenges and potential solutions by the assembled intelligences here might help move things along.

    The first thing to recognize is that the bulk of the problems that arose during the year long test were mundane matters like plumbing leaks, no reactors went exponential or failed.

    Secondly, the hours Rossi spent inside the container were mostly devoted to improving performance/COP, inventing Hot-Cats and Quarks and working on a robust theory of LENR.

    Thirdly, there isn’t anyone on the planet better prepared to optimize the plant parameters than Rossi as is acknowledged by the engineers that assisted him daily; he is simply more dialled in and creative than anyone else in LENR so far.

    The mundane issues can, and will, be addressed by professional engineers; the tricky part is replacing Rossi’s sensitivity to the subtle aspects of how well the reactors are functioning with error free automation.

    I’d like to float a proposal that we might be able to helpfully expand upon.

    What E-cat/Quark based systems need are heuristic AI based command and control modules that network link in a distributed intelligence that continuously shares data and system inputs/responses across all the operational installations.

    ABB has amassed a great deal of expertise in this area through the development of their YuMi heuristics based industrial robots and remote monitoring of their worldwide installed power plants.

    And yes, I do expect that this has already crossed Rossi’s mind.

    1. i agree, i have a feeling he is following your advice, i think i would, but what do i know,
      One strategy would be to optimize,by first eliminating as many of the negatives as possible, and this needs some serious thought , as there is usually many negatives, some in plain sight some not, then accunate the positive these are usually far in between, –smile.

  7. Rossi’s heavy exposure to the plant over a long period gives one confidence that there is not some obscure radiation/pollution emissions from the plant. Similar to a medical researcher trying the new medicine on himself first.

    1. “Similar to a medical researcher trying the new medicine on himself first.”

      I know right, how often does that happen anymore? That doesn’t mean that they won’t still wheel it out radiation as an excuse to say it’s unsafe and hype the fears. It would help to have a solid theory for when the scaremongering starts though, as well as thorough documentation as to radiation readings during operation and the times the reactors have been destroyed. The shielding is much more than sufficient to stop any beta or alpha radiation, and gammas have only sporadically been reported and obviously not in deadly levels as Rossi has been around these reactors for a long while now, through successes and failures. The best part is that with the stable isotopes used in cold fusion thus far with the e-cats, no radioactive waste has ever been found. Nuclear remediation still stands as one of the potential benefits which has been researched in Japan and to some degree, by SPAWAR I believe, in the States.

      1. “3) Do you currently have a sufficient theoretical grasp of the E-Cat reaction to be able understand its behavior? -yes.”

        Even if the theory that Rossi has put together is the “real” theory and robust etc., there will be demands by TPTB such as insurance and citizen safety groups, to get peer reviewed papers from Rossi. This will require all details of how his E-Cats work. Even if the theory is not supported by peer review, after that point places like North Korea, Somalia and likely China itself will produce clandestine knock-offs. In this way the poorest will get their power a la E-Cat at even lower prices than Rossi could manage.

  8. Sorry if this has been discussed already, but does anyone understand Rossi’s answer to one of Frank’s question?

    Frank, “Do the E-Cat plants still need your (or your team’s) intervention to maintain stability?

    Rossi answer: it is impossible: I am not ubiquitous ( this too depends on the fact that Fermions can’t reach the speed of the light ).

    PS Good questions Frank.

    1. It’s a joke as the question is much like the ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”. And, it contains a real answer too, that the runaway can be so fast that the lag in response will always, albeit hopefully low probabilities, a bit late.
      The way to deal with measurement lag is to find faster measuring sensors, lower whatever causes that lag (in his case lower the bulk to reduce the thermal lag), or take a very different approach. I believe the quark is that very different approach.

      1. Rossi says the Quark makes residential use practical. In the past, he always talked of E-cat heating as a base load system integrated with a conventional heating system.

        I believe the Quark is all about scaling power to current need.
        Most single family homes need 50KW for peak periods, but most of the time you need only a fraction of that. Even LENR energy is not cheap if you waste 90% of it.

        If the Quarks can be powered up/down in minutes or seconds, it can provide all heating needs regardless of demand. I.E. No longer just a base load system, but a stand alone system.

    2. Maybe AR couldn’t give a yes or no answer without giving the game away before the court case. I find Rene’s reply equally perplexing, as it seems to have no relation to the question that Frank asked.

  9. It was actually a very funny joke. I haven’t seen Rossi this accessible before. I know he’s still upset about the legal matters, but he seems really more open somehow. Admitting the difficulties of being in the setup most of the day, and the challenges of getting them automated, that’s a real comment, and conversely, the fact he’s admitting it’s difficult to do gives a bit more confidence in him.

    1. I agree, he is admitting his E-Cat is very hard to control. Did IH engineers learn how to control the E-Cat while Rossi was gone 8 hours out of 24 day, during the year test? Or, did Rossi just let them try to figure it out themselves? (:

      1. AR posted once that he did get wake-up calls a couple of times when he was sleeping from his team, and had to drive to the plant to attend to something.

  10. Gerard McEk
    July 27, 2016 at 12:02 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    Some months ago the QuarkX was tested for some weeks together with a potential partner who decided to join with you after the test.
    1. Can you tell us if you are now intensively working together with this partner?
    2. If no, does it depend on the ongoing tests on the QuarkX?
    3. If yes, is this partner involved in the industrialization of the QuarkX?
    You are still intensely working on the QuarkX.
    4. Is the work you are doing fundamental: I.e are you discovering new aspects and/or testing theory? or
    5. Are you working on its reliability only? or are you
    6. Improving main aspects like COP, electricity output, light output
    Thank you for answering our questions
    I wish you excellent progress, kind regards, Gerard
    Andrea Rossi
    July 27, 2016 at 3:44 PM
    Gerard MkEk :
    1 yes
    2 no
    3 yes
    4 yes
    5 no
    6 yes
    Warm Regards

    1. I am pleased to read the the QuarkX is already sufficiently reliable for production and I think it is quite promising that AR is still busy to improve the QuarkX and understand its operation! We should soon hear that also the industrial production of QuarkX’s is ready to start (in pilot phase), now the ‘partner’ is working hard on that.

      1. I don’t think you can infer with certainty that basic engineering isn’t still required to take the X to production- a production line for a new product might take several years to implement if the company is already manufacturing a proven one (the eCat).

  11. This was a very valuable discussion, one that we have not had in such depth earlier. One feels Rossi’s anguish, intensity and utter focus as never before. There is a sense that this great enterprise is truly moving forwatd and grappling realistically with its challenges. Great work, Frank!

    1. Interesting Alan. I would say that this machine works better if pistons, crankshaft, and wheels are made extremely light, because the plasma exists so short. However, because we do not understand how it works I may be totally wrong.

        1. PS
          Perhaps the tampering with the running engine in the 1968 demo created a plasma spark at the wrong part of the piston’s cycling. A second spark after the piston had already expanded? So, it couldn’t expand anymore? It could only explode?

  12. What really controls the E-cat thermodynamics in the 1MW plant?
    It turns out to be the evaporator heat exchanger.

    Dial in the desired reactor power and superheat margin and the evaporator takes care of the steam pressure. Slight changes in steam pressure result in large changes of delta T in the evaporator heat exchanger and that changes the heat transfer proportionately [Table 1:]

    How do you determine reactor power? Use thermocouples in the reactors? Measure the condensate flow rate (36m^3/day condensate flow is equivalent to 1MW heat)?

    The control schematic in Italian shows the superheat margin control which controls the water level. In quite a subtle way the water level controls the feed flow into the finned heat exchanger.

    Table 1:
    If the load is an evaporator with an open vent pipe the load is always at 100C
    barA Boiling C Ht Xfer/Condensate Flow/Reactor Power
    0.9 96.71 0
    1 99.63 0
    1.1 102.32 0.48
    1.2 104.81 1 : assumed design value
    1.3 107.13 1.74
    1.4 109.32 1.94
    1.5 111.37 2.36 : 1st safety valve lift pressure

  13. Once you realize that the 1MW plant E-cats have only a very rudimentary control system, you can see why the emphasis on development changes from physics to control engineering, if you want to go commercial.

    The current 1MW plant is effectively a fixed rate heat source dumping its heat into an infinite heat sink. Only the E-cat water level needs active control. The next step is to make the E-cat respond to a finite variable load and that needs control systems for the E-cat reactor. The control systems also need to deal with partially used fuel.

    A comprehensive protection system is also required. I would have thought that ABB are ideally placed to help with this sort of technology.

    1. A fixed-rate generator wouldn’t require any infinite heat sink, it only requires good load-matching, matching an appropriate heat sink to the process- but most likely (and according to many hints from Rossi over the 1-year test) even under the best operational conditions the eCat isn’t constant output, otherwise, why would any specific experience with it be required by attending techs? Very rudimentary steam, plumbing, and electronics are what currently surrounds it.

      1. Infinite in two ways :-
        1: it does not matter how much heat you put into the heat sink; it just stays at 100C. Over a year it boils off about 36*356m^3 of water but it could be a lot more or a lot less. There are no limits within reason.
        2: it does not matter how fast you put the heat into the heat sink within reason; it just stays at 100C. Reduced or increased output not a problem; still done at 100C.

        ‘why would any specific experience with it be required by attending techs?’
        With the infinite heat sink controlling the steam pressure and the active control system controlling the water level, there is only one thing left: the power output of the fifty odd reactors themselves.

  14. Frank’s question: Do you have any of the “new” 1 MW plants completely constructed yet?
    Rossi answer: Not Yet.

    Could we have a discussion on what makes this low temperature reactor so hard to replicate? Lack of money? Lack of engineers/workers Rossi trusts? Complicated construction? Lack of materials?

    1. Why so you think it is hard to replicate construction? That is, what is a reasonable time for making one if these plants by which to judge if it is taking longer than expect, and thus “hard” to do, or not?

      We have the images of the plant, including the control systems being worked on by the techs and so forth; so looking at the size, materials, plumbing, wiring, and reactor construction and number of reactors, you tell me what a reasonable time frame form making one of those plants is.

      Perhaps enough time has simply not passed yet and we’re jumping the gun here, particularly if Rossi is making three at once as claimed.

      1. If everything else is conventional construction besides the reactor, six people can put one together in less than a month of serious effort. The reactor/fuel is the sticking point.

        1. Sadly, at least to my knowledge, no one has reported how long it took to make the 1 year test plant. It is our best benchmark.

        1. Factual numbers, not rhetoric, please.

          It takes many months to do a few floor extensions on a hospital despite how vitally important the extra space is.

          1. You are comparing building a hospital to building this small power plant!? I was in the construction industry, it is much more complicated to build a hospital than a small power plant like this one. I am asking the question, why so long, what “factual numbers” do you want from me?

          2. I order a low volume “off the shelf” item, I have to wait 4 to 5 months for them to build it.

            What Rossi is building does not yet even have a validated design.

          3. How long -should- it take for a realistic given unit of labor and manufacturing capability? I asked for a factual estimate so we have a basis for evaluation. All things take time, so we need reference. Surely since you were in construction you can answer this.

          4. Start here with cost estimates for utility scale power plants (various capacities):


            Then go here to see construction times of a thermal solar plant. Now this kind of construction is far more involved than a self contained box car so it gives an outer edge estimate, hint 6-12 months to build MW scale solar:

          5. What’s the lead time on inventing, designing, engineering and manufacturing that entire PV system right up to the grid hook-up point from the ground up?

            Oh yeah, that part will only take few decades, the efforts of thousands of highly trained and educated professionals and a few hundred billion dollars.

            Elapsed time from Rossi’s first solid COP >1 design to commercially viable tested industrial product?

            Eight years.

            Less if you really wanna get all picky about it, which it seems like you wanna do, get picky that is, while somehow ignoring the enormous elephant in the room…

            Budget so far?

            A few million bucks and counting.

          6. I think you didn’t read the docs because the costs and time estimates are there. Go read them. The docs show the estimates of building known art. The engineering is done, so the 6-12 month build time is a solid number. My point is that the known art of build steam pipes and electrical controls is also known art, not that different that the boxcar build. Rossi says he has his R&D ducks in order, so that’s not an issue, hence a 1MW build should at most take a year.
            Alibaba will drop ship a ready to go 1MW power plant in three months.
            And finally if you ask other to do a rock fetch, as you did, and get an answer, you don’t get to play the whine-whine card. Go fetch your own rocks.
            Friggin true believers.

          7. The re-engineering is still underway based on the timeline Rossi originally gave for this task when he announced that the process had begun when units were ordered after the year log test was concluded, there’s at least 2 months to go just for that part.

            When that’s done the final parts still have to be custom manufactured in limited runs, tested, integrated into a final assembly and then tested some more.

            Treating this as though it is ‘known art’ is specious at best and comparing these challenges to installing a system that’s been built thousands of times already is nonsense to anyone who’s ever done something new.

            By the way, I’m really impressed with the way you turn to personal invective, as a further demonstration of character, when your arguments flounder for the most obvious reasons.

            I’m wounded.

          8. Whatever dude.
            But, seriously, get real. Almost all of that box car is plain ole steam engineering aka known art. Another big chunk is relays, microcontrollers, Ethernet switches and computers – also known art. Even most of the magic boxes are also known art. That known art can be fairly straightforward estimated. Look it up, it is not difficult to determine. You can answer your own question to your own satisfaction. I’m certain you have the skills to do that on your very own!
            The only part that is presumably tricky is the magic pixie dust: the reactor and fuel. That’s the only piece that is running into problems, problems that Rossi himself says he’s having problems getting right. And yes, the completion time for that part is indeed difficult to determine given it is cloaked in secrecy. We do know that for five years it’s been only a few months before robots and mega sales.
            Now understand, I do believe (as do others) that he has discovered and possibly demonstrated strong LENR. But history shows he hasn’t gotten it under control reliably. Let us hope sooner than later.

          9. I think TVulgaris, has it about right (his comment below), six men about 1 month. Ged, that is why I am asking the question, am I missing something? The control issue with the reactor might be a reason, but Rossi controlled it for a year.

          10. The problem I have is the lack of a basis for the core assumption of your question, that it is taking an unespected amount of time. This is a classic Begs the Question logical fallacy, like the old “have you stopped beating your wife?” example, that uses unsupported assumption to create a negative narrative.

            To accurately judge, rather than assume, we need a basis for comparison. So far, we see from 1 to 6 months being referenced here–then we would need to know when construction likely started, and on how many, and only then can we begin to guess at the variables you asked in your original post. Sadly, we do not know how long the current plant took to make or with how much labor, as that would give us the best estimate to go on.

          11. Ged, don’t get your shorts all twisted up. I have been a fan of Rossi for over five years. I have communicated directly with him suggesting his first goal should be getting a plant into the market place. That is about the only criticism I have of his work, it seems he cannot turn over a successful reactor to a production team while he continues research. I hope he has done that with his latest reactor, the improved reactor used in the year long test.

          12. I simply have no foundation from which to evaluate the time it is taking for supposed construction. You asked good questions in your original post, but it was from an assumption that was impossible to evaluate. It would be awesome to get some ideas for you questions, to get a sense of what may or may not be going on.

            All I wanted was a general idea, and I thank you for seconding the 1 month lower bound for six dedicated workers. If we take a one to six month window, then we should expect production to complete on the claimed three plants within a month or so of now assuming they started when ordered at the end of the 1 year test, if Rossi has a 6 to 10 person work force as has generally been the idea? That gives us something to look for. If you believe it should be sooner and already happened based on the same assumptions, that is totally fine, and we can start looking at the potential impacts of your original questions and which ones are most likely so far.

            The idea is just to get our bearings so we can factually evaluate what is going on in as much as is possible.

          13. So, you invented all the construction techniques, methods, materials and tools to go from erecting a Civil War battle-field hospital to building the MAYO Clinic all by your self; I’m seriously impressed, your mother must be immensely proud.

          14. We have a serious communication problem, how do you get “So, you invented all the construction techniques, methods,…………to building the MAYO Clinic all by your self” from what I told you, “I was in the construction industry”. Good bye and good luck.

          15. Rossi is doing the equivalent of all these things in LENR and you have used the cumulative knowledge of millions of humans to do something that’s been done millions of times before you; building a building is not at all like inventing an entire new branch of physics and all the methods, mechanics and means to fully realize something that never existed before.

            So yes, we have a serious communication problem at multiple levels, including your apparent inability to recognize sarcasm.

          16. Keep in mind, everything is hand built. Including the computers from the circut board up. The reactors are to be redesigned for quick fuel recharge. They are starting from near scratch while allowing the design to be mass production friendly at a latter time. While also incorporating all the fixes.

            ->”it is much more complicated to build a hospital than a small power plant like this one.”

            Building a hospital isn’t that complicated.

            You have zero knowledge of how complex a LENR power device is. What we do know is it must be very complex. Otherwise, They would have been reality decades ago.

          17. Hi Omega, you said, “Building a hospital isn’t that complicated” Compared to other buildings a hospital is a complicated build. Have you been involved in building one? I agree I have little knowledge about how a LENR reactor works. I am simply asking the question. What makes Rossi’s low temp improved reactor hard to replicate? So far, “the reactor is hard to control” and “Rossi is short of money”, are real possibilities, do you agree?

    2. There are still control issues for remote operations. For phase one the first commercialized plants are near prototype configurations with much thought involved. The process will pick up as time goes on. Phase two when robotics are involved will require another set of thought processes until seamless

      1. Rossi also likes to tinker and change his designs, which slows things down a lot. We’ve seen a vast improvement in the current plant compared to the previous two first generation 1 MW plants (with the really blocky silver reactors with some stacked on the roof of the conatiner). At some point, “good enough” must be proclaimed and a product released. We don’t -need- remote control systems, as the energy cost savings already more than covers for required labor. It would be nice, but not necessary, but Rossi is bent on getting that improvement going.

        1. Slows down.

          That is a curious phrase to use to describe the methods of the first man to do this successfully. You say his approach slows it down.

          What do you think has sped up all his competitors to be so far behind?

          This phrase I do not think it means what you think it means.

          1. Fair enough! I just have personally seen how while tinkering improves the final product, it naturally slows release as redesign means production has to start from an earlier basis again. Not always, but often.

    3. I believe ,contracry to what Rossi says , he is tight on money. I think he was really counting on that 88.5 million to assist develoment.

      1. ABB budgets US$1.5 billion, yes billion, a year for R&D and have an entire division solely structured to foster startups that come to them with intriguing technologies; they, both as separate companies and now as partners, have been doing business this way since the 1880s.

        It has also, obviously, escaped your attention that Rossi has been preparing to crush IH for at least a couple of years now and was not expecting a payday with the presentation of the ERV Report.

        In due course we’ll learn about the current financial arrangements and, again obviously, learn what kind of leverage proving, in the course of rigorously documented year long test, a fully functioning industrial scale COP>50 LENR device gets you.

        Perhaps you’re just thinking really, really small…

        1. Perhaps it has escaped your attention that approximatly one month after the one year test, someone on this site asked Rossi the number of personell that was working on the one meg plant now that the test had completed. His repy- two. If he had all these funds it dosent make sence to put a skeleton squad on the urther developement.

        2. And in what capacity does Rossi has use of ABB capital and resources?

          If ABB is to fork out resources, then they will want part ownership and returns on the ecat. Rossi not likely to give away part of his company simply to obtain equipment from ABB unless no other choice exists.

          Any kind of public partnership being mentioned here is limited to ABB selling equipment – nothing more, nothing less. ABB not investing in Rossi company nor is Rossi giving away rights of the ecat to ABB.

          This is no different than some mining company announcing a partnership with Caterpillar. That partnership is really only Caterpillar providing some financing for the mining company to purchase equipment. One would not conclude Caterpillar selling equipment to some coal mine means Caterpillar is in the coal business.

          Few companies would give Caterpillar a “share” of profits from the amount of coal extracted from that mine.

          So the idea here ABBis looking to fund LENR is as silly as thinking Caterpillar is getting into the coal business when they sell equipment to a coal mine. However, if Rossi willing to give up some rights to the ecat? Well, of course ABB would jump on that idea – as you noted, ABB is eager to work with companies – but those companies have to give something up to ABB.

          A mining company could certainly offer a deal in that Caterpillar provides equipment in return for a share in mining profits. However, the mine would be giving up future revenue to Caterpillar – few if any will enter into such a deal – but if that’s the last choice, then sure, ABB or Caterpillar will go for such deals.

          Many a start-up business will say to say the trucking company, how about you provide us with trucks and we share delivery profits? Or how about you supply us with computers, photocopiers and we give you a share of the profits?

          We see such silly offers made all the time, and such offers are near always from those who never run a business or don’t have money. Rossi falls into neither of these categories.

          If the said company has profits and money – then what company on the planet going to give away % of profits to someone else when they can borrow the funds to purchase trucks, photo-copiers or in this case manufacturing and production equipment?

          This not a question of thinking big or small – it is a question of this imaginary planet in which people will give you large capital outlays for not having ownership and returns for such investments?

          So ABB is interested in selling production equipment, and they likely eager to provide financing for such equipment. However, anything beyond equipment sales in that partnership means Rossi would be giving up % ownership of the ecat to ABB. And again, I sure ABB would be happy to get ownership in the ecat.
          However, Rossi or any business not going to give up rights unless no other choice exists.

          Most inventors are VERY hesitant to give away rights to their inventions unless they going to be paid for that act.

          So it not a question of thinking small – ABB not going to fund production unless they get something in return. ABB may be willing to risk some financing of manufacturing equipment. For anything more, then ABB going to want in on rights to the ecat.

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    4. The beta version is not being replicated, the beta version is being completely re-engineered to eliminate known issues. This process was expected to take six months subsequent to the end of the year long test of the beta version.

      If you’ve ever tried to manage a similar process you’d understand the challenges that almost always arise when attempting something new. As Rossi acknowledges, for completely practical reasons, the next generation 1megawatt low temperature steam plant is not expected to be perfect either; just a lot better than the beta version.

      If this seems odd to you think about the car biz for a few minutes; it’s now 136 years old.

      How many perfect cars have been built so far? Why do we still see recalls in the millions of units every year?

      Just maybe this engineering stuff is harder than it looks on top of which nothing is harder than doing something genuinely new that has a bunch of mysteries attached to it that all need sorting out.

      If the next version’s engineering issues are all addressed in six short months Rossi will be doing very well indeed so keep your shirt on…

      Oh, and in case you’re wondering, yes I have (with the benefit of an entire engineering department to lean on).

  15. AR answered to me that his main goal for being there was to achieve a high COP, (and I am sure also to treat failures that also occurred). He also said it was possible to construct a control system to replace him.
    If it is an acoustical feed-back system with multiple microphones than I would try a self learning system.

  16. Those tells for runaway operation can’t be that sophisticated that they can’t be described, or they can’t be communicated to other techs to train them. If they can be described to that level, I can guarantee any good control engineer can design a sensor system to detect such behavior, and feedback controls for at least a safety shut-down to be MUCH faster than human reaction time.
    Rossi’s micromanagement I can well understand in light of events, but perhaps he also wasn’t concerned with automating the control system sufficiently early enough in the test to work on that aspect (or at all). Reliability engineering has a raft of foci frequently not central to design and prototyping until final production prototyping, which many discover to their chagrin has detrimental effect on overall project management. (RE and PM are actually “things” these days, with cert programs, uni degrees, etc., when they were sidelines 25 and 30 years ago. My email gets flooded with offers for such every day, and I haven’t done any outside engineering work for 25 years.)

    1. Hi TVulgaris,

      Would suggest the lack of reported reactor meltdowns, during the 350 day trial, suggest the control system to prevent such events occuring is working well.

  17. I think that reasons 2) and 3) above are the primary reasons why Rossi spent a lot of time at the plant. I know from personal experience “tuning” control systems that you can spend a lot of time looking for better control algorithms. With systems with large time constants (as likely the e-cat thermal system) you can spend hours collecting data before you can even assess whether the control parameter you changed had any effect.

    There also seems to be some stochastic process associated with the e-cat as has been witnessed by other researchers where things seem stable and a “runaway” takes place, causing catastrophic failure. Those events likely mean that you have to observe the system for a long time to find the event and try to control it quickly before it becomes a melt-down. Each observation gives you some more data to ponder. You ask “can I identify the conditions that led to the event in the previous data?” If so, you make changes to the algorithm and collect more data. Still, you must be vigilant and catch the control failures before they damage the system. This likely requires human intervention.

    I suspect that, with time, the system will be characterized enough to have a robust control algorithm. Also with time and more plants, the reliability of the overall process will improve. As a rule, I never buy the first generation of a new product (an auto, for example). There are too many possibilities for engineering design flaws and poor component reliability. Give me a stable, well-characterized older product over the first generation of a new product.

  18. “What seems clear to me is there may be more need for human intervention as the COP climbs, which means as the reactor thermal gain increases, there is less and less margin for error.”-E48
    No need to guess that. Rossi has said that for years, words like “COP6, higher COP is less stable.” And for 5 years he has been working on that vexing reaction control issue. He also realized along that path that low temperature steam, while nice for steam cleaning, jar sterilization, and maybe mysterious ‘customer production’ purposes, is not how one generates electricity efficiently if at all. Hence: hot cats and quark cats.

  19. Ok Guys,

    To further reveal my intentions & objectives.

    Andrea has agreed to work with my team & myself as a nonexclusive ECat agent, where we find the customer, introduce them to Leonardo, assist them through the sales process & assist Leonardo with or do the installation, then provide warranty labour & longer term support services. We will also be trained by Leonardo to gain the necessary install & maintenance skills as Australia is a long way from Miami.

    We have located 2 potential customers & have had initial discussions & site inspections. No mention was made about ECats, just we are working on a simple, bolt onto their existing system, way to very significantly reduce their gas account costs.

    As Andrea has revealed, there is a new version of the low temp 1MW ECat in development. He also shared the 1st few installs will be done by Leonardo as they need these systems under tight control before releasing this new build to licensees and agents, like myself.

    So it is happening and in a way that I totally support.

    Well done team Rossi

    1. That is awesome Egineer48. Will Leonardo allow you to keep us abreast of your ongoing progress? Congratulations!

      1. Hi Brokeeper.

        For sure I’ll post updates.

        Please note no web site, no sales adverts. Just selling by word of mouth from happy customers.

      1. Hi GiveADogABone,

        If I can exceed my customer’s expectation in cost saving, plant reliability and support service, then may be it will be a winner.

        My team and I need to do the training before I link MY customers to Leonardo. This is not about making a quick buck, it is about being there for the customer, whose business and income depends on the heat being delivered, for the long haul and that means for 20 years.

    2. E48, you said, “No mention was made about ECats” You are going to tell the owners the energy source, right?

      Good luck with your project, working with Rossi should be an interesting experience.

    3. Congratulations E48, it sounds like a very fruitful approach.
      Any idea of the time frame i.e when do you think to deliver the first plant?
      What size (MW) do you think to deliver (I assume a customer may want is a bit smaller or bigger)?
      Can you share any details of the properties of the new version plant?
      ….I guess it’s going to be delivered without ‘AR included’ 😉

      1. Hi Gerald,

        Both sites have multi MW gas boilers.

        Our approach is to install a 1MW ECat in parallel with and throttle down the existing boiler, so the ECat takes up the load. Then the customer sees the energy savings of 22kWh/hr versus 4.2GJ of gas per hour.

        Additionally the customer’s full plant is there, ready to take up the full load if the ECat is down.

        This is about saving the customer money and not putting his business at risk. It is NOT about selling ECats or saving the planet.

        Do expect “saving the planet” to happen.

        1. Yes, in the end, if production companies confirm lenr, it will get to the public explosively. 3-5 years and the world would begin to change rapidly. These facilities you talk about E., are key in facilitating safety verification for the general public.

        2. May it happen because this is about the only way, part of an actual day-to-day facility instead of a shell demo, to demonstrate it works given all the trade secrecy.

    4. Hi Engineer48, congratulations to you & your team and Rossi, also!!.
      But, if I may ask, what about Roger Green? Is he involved?

    5. Hi E48. I have for some time been involved with opposing a new fission reactor build at Hinkley Point in the UK. This has recently been given the go-ahead by the contractor, EDF, but last night a further delay of 3 months before contract finalisation was announced by the UK govt. If the project does eventually go ahead it could be as long as 10 years before the reactor is fueled, making the whole thing irreversible.

      I wonder if in your opinion, and having rather more inside knowledge than many observers, that open and public commercial development of LT CF reactors is likely to come in time to de-rail this and similar new nuclear follies?

      1. Hi Agaricus,

        There would seem to be a shortfall in generation capacity, thus prompting a new generator to be brought on line to supply demand.

        That generator is spun by a steam powered turbine.

        The source of the steam could be altered from a fission reactor to a LENR reactor, well into the build process. Why? Because the long term fuel costs are lower for the LENR reactor than the fission reactor.

        So while the radioactive issue may be a biggie to the public, to the plant owners, it is about the cost to generate each MWh and their profit margin.

        I suspect that any power plant owner, once it is shown reliable GWh class 600C steam can be delivered will be switching their thermal source to LENR because it will lower their cost per MWh generated.

        It is like my potential clients, who would rather pay for 22kWh/hr of electricity than to pay for 4.2GJ/hr of natural gas.

        This is why the world’s thermal and electricity plant generator owners will happily adopt LENR as their heat source.

        1. Might be great for the advancement of the technology (hopefully), but is again feeding the megopoly ….we need the “home” LENR reactors to succeed soon

    6. Congrats Eng48 on joining the pantheon of Rossi business partners and licensees! May you find prosperity and contentment.

    7. This is wonderful news. You definitely should be on the Rossi team. Congratulations to you and Andrea. Go get ’em!

    8. Hi Engineer48 – Can you offer any advice about potentially doing something similar in Canada? I am near Toronto and have worked in HVAC for several years/have connections with several companies that service residential and commercial facilities. Can you recommend how to start any process? Many thanks, and congratulations on being able to lend a hand getting the LENR train moving…

  20. Hi Steve,

    I’m a consulting engineer and not a salesman.

    Started out working with a client that was ready to order 10 x ECats to build an evaluation system. The lawsuit caused them to delay. As part of this process Rossi told me Leonardo had bought back the license for Australia. Did confirm that.

    Then I designed a QuarkX based Remote Area / Disaster Relief system, which Rossi is interested to assist me with.

    As, per the above, I was already moving into business with Rossi, I enquired if I could ack as a non exclusive agent, which he agreed to support.

    I’m not a salesman, will not have a web site, nor will I be selling ECats.

    What I will be doing is finding businesses that my team believes are positioned to benefit from switching from buying 4.2GJ of gas to generate 1MWh of heat, to buying 22kWh/hr of electricity to generate the 1MWh of heat.

    If we achieve 1 install per month & our customers are experiencing more benefit & support than they expected, then I’m happy and they will do the selling.

    It is about delivering real benefit to my customers and not about making sales.

  21. I actually think the plant does need an operator and I think we may well be talking about hourly attendance.

    And I not convinced the “operator” is worried about ecat meltdowns. From many a statement, once a LENR devices starts to overheat, then all you can do is cut the power and watch it melt.

    I don’t believe the issues are about core meltdowns. The temp sensors and shutdown likely occurs automated and faster than any human if core temperature spike.

    I think the issues are more throttling the plant and plant load.

    I mean, plant demand goes from 400,000 watts to 800,000. If you increase water flow too fast, then the cores could fall below their working temperature – the LENR cores would in fact drop below operating temperatures since one is taking heat too fast away. And the max input energy s 250,000 watts of energy. So as water flow increases, you watch the temp gauges and the input power gauge. You might be now at full 250,000 input power, but the ecats are not yet producing the 800,000 output. While such a system is likely automated, I suspect that demand changes can go “outside” of the regular operation. Once that “balance” is achieved, then the automated systems likly can cope again.

    So you might keep the input power at full 250,000 watts until such time the heat output raises “above” the required output production (and even longer then what the automated system wants to do). Once that heat output is then balanced, the 250,000 watts input power starts to automatic throttle down to say 16,000 watts automatic (that would be a COP of 50). And the throttling down likely is automated, but the part about “holding” the input power for somewhat longer then what the automated system wants is the type of intervention I am talking about.

    I mean most have driven a car with an automatic. One may well often manually select a gear while going up a long hill, or even going down a hill to achieve some engine breaking. Or driving my SLK, you can “hold” the automatic shift lever to the left during a corner – and no automatic shift will occur until I let go of the shift lever. This is done since one does not want a gear shift right in the middle of a corner – especially at high speed. It’s better to just let the engine climb some RPM’s. It also means as I squeeze the throttle on the corner exit then again applying more throttle does not result in a downshift since I never allowed the up-shift to occur.

    So the issue really remains how much and what kind of operator invention is required here.

    I mean, you can have a thermostat controlling the heat of your house, but with a rapid drop in temperature, you might crank up the heat in anticipation of the cold weather, and THEN you put the system back into automated mode. For larger commercial buildings – especially stone, brick etc., then the building can absorb huge amounts of heat and thus reacts rather slow to outside temperature changes.

    So I don’t think the operator there pulling levers to prevent a meltdown every minute.

    However, keeping the plant output within the power demands? The automation system likely does the job “most” of the time, but I suspect with changing
    loads, water flow etc., then those changes required a operator – and that’s want Rossi wants to get rid of.

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  22. Andrea is making progress on COP, electrical output and theoretical understanding due to the QuarkX:

    Dear Andrea,
    You are now saying that the QuarkX is now ‘very, very promising’, so one ‘very’ more than before. I conclude you are making progress. Can you reveal to us in what area, is it:
    1. Higher COP….. ‘YES’ (Remember COP was 200)
    2. More light ……..’NO’. (Remember max light output was 50%)
    3. More electricity ‘YES’ (Remember max electricity power output was 20%)
    4. Better theoretical understanding? ‘I THINK OUR THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING IS VERY ADVANCED’
    In comparison to the situation in beginning of this year.
    As always, thank you for answering our questions.
    Kind regards, Gerard

    When will he tell/show/reveal more about this?

      1. True, I mixed 20W output with 20%. A few weeks later AR was positive about the increase of electrical output he already achieved.

  23. Scott Kevin
    August 1, 2016 at 3:29 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Are you confirming that the production of the industrial E-Cat is already started, or you had to stop it for some reason ?

    Andrea Rossi
    August 1, 2016 at 6:42 AM
    Scott Kevin:
    I confirm the production is started.
    Warm Regards,

      1. I believe it was about 2-3 months. They are custom “hand built” and fabricated devices. On the other hand, the pictures and design of the last 1MW plant were substantially nicer and refined compared to the first 1MW plant.


        Albert D. Kallal

        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    1. Frank Acland
      August 1, 2016 at 6:50 PM
      Dear Andrea,

      You say that ‘production has started’ on the 1 MW E-Cat Plants. Congratulations! Some questions if you don’t mind.
      1. These are low-temperature E-Cat plants?
      2. The design has been finalized for these plants?
      3. How many plants are currently ordered?
      4. Can you build more than one at a time?
      5. When do you expect the first of these plants will be completed?
      6. When do you expect the frist of these plants will be installed?
      7. How many workers are involved in building these plants?
      8. Are you personally involved in production process, or have you delegated this task to others?

      Thank you,

      Frank Acland

      Andrea Rossi
      August 1, 2016 at 7:42 PM
      Frank Acland:
      1- yes, so far
      2- not exclusively
      3- confidential
      4- yes
      5- I prefer to reserve the answer
      6- I will give information of it when it will be working
      7- enough
      8- I am personally involved
      Warm Regards,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *