Rossi Provides Projected Timeline of E-Cat Development

Andrea Rossi was asked yesterday by a reader on the Journal of Nuclear Physics if he could provide a schedule for upcoming E-Cat deadline.

Rossi’s response was this:

Andrea Rossi
August 30, 2016 at 8:44 AM
Eugenio Mieli:
1- continue the manufacturing of the industrial plants: NOW
2- complete the R&D of the QuarkX to sell the first unit: within 2016
3- presentation of the QuarkX prototype: within 2016
4- start massive production of the E-Cats in the USA and in Sweden: 2017- 2018
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,

There’s apparently a lot going on at the moment with manufacturing and R&D — although not on a mass-production level. We don’t have details on who has made the first orders, but from what Rossi has said, he seems to refer to at least two customers — one being the parent company that used the energy from the Doral plant, and the other being a district heating customer in Sweden.

Interesting that he says there will be a “presentation” of the QuarkX prototype this year — that sounds like a newsworthy event if it happens. I hope we get more details on that. Rossi has always talked about his hope for “massive” production of the E-Cats. If it works as he says, I can understand the excitement, but there will be a lot to do to get mass production set up, especially with the current lawsuit pending. Rossi has said recently that he is spending 40 per cent of his time on the legal case.

75 Replies to “Rossi Provides Projected Timeline of E-Cat Development”

    1. What we hope it means: publication of QX specs, test results, independent validation, vouched for by the new partner. With video demos posted to the web.

      What it will probably mean: an unverifiable Rossi-says that he has successfully delivered the QX prototype to his new partner and they have decided to move ahead with commercializing it.

  1. If what Dr Rossi says is accurate the “Doubting Thomas” proof should be happening within the next 2 years.

    “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

    I look forward to the day I can put my hands on one of his machines!

    1. I agree – we need that better witness and testimony.
      Following this saga?

      I think there is rather good and legitimate engineering in the 1MW plant.

      Rossi has shown a continues “progressing” of his devices from 2009 onwards.

      Most of what he stated and plans to do has occurred.

      However, on the downside?

      Rossi has thwarted open tests and verifications of his plant. So while “some” have occurred, quotes about people walking into the room with a thermal gun and Rossi becoming “nervous” or asking people to leave etc. are red flags.

      And not wanting other engineers to look at and inspect the plant are also red flags. If the plant works as claimed – then Rossi would be full of smiles and WELCOME additional visitors. Another “red flag” is Rossi using and dropping OTHER people’s names in place of HIMSELF
      vouching and taking responsibility for his claims.

      For example anyone with a brain would know after 3 weeks of running he plant that said plant is producing SPECTACULAR results. So why would Rosso not flat out state that the plant is working well and producing a high COP?

      So why would Rossi constantly answer “F8”.

      Now I realize that F9 is a Rossi “slang” Essentiality Rossi is says for better or for worse.

      This is stupid in such answers and contexts. By saying the above “better or for worse” then Rossi can state he constantly DID NOT MISLEAD anyone in regards to how well the plant was working. He can say that he ALWAYS cast doubt on the public! This gives Rossi an out but MORE important means he NOT taking responsibly for his claims.

      However, the instant SOMEONE Else’s name is on a report that says a COP of 50, then Rossi is “all in”. But note CAREFULLY that “all in” is ALWAYS in the context of the other person’s authority – not Rossi’s own!

      When such “agency” is directed towards Rossi? – then he “waffles” like a greased pig.

      The continued “obfuscation” by Rossi is a serious issue. As one who has spent time fighting with people who have committed fraud – and tons of lawyers? You begin to notice certain patterns of behaviors – and Rossi has too many of these behaviors for my comfort level.

      So, how do I see this?

      Rossi has a plant that produces heat. I think this is a given.

      However, HOW much heat the plant produces and the COP for me is still VERY MUCH in question. Are we talking like most LENR devices, or that rather high COP that Rossi does not claim, but says the ERV claims!

      So for every good aspect of Rossi, there are patterns of his behaviors that does not fit anything REMOTE close to my experience when working with people of high integrity and high values of excellence. This kind of “BS” and dancing around the issue is not my experience with smart people – unless they are in fact dancing around facts!

      For example, you don’t say my instrument readings “match” that of the ERV. You say I measured a high COP of 50, and the readings of the ERV match what I measured and claim. Rossi ALWAYS puts things in the reverse context and forces the responsibility and agency on the ERV or other parties – not himself. So Rossi will say I put meters “beside” the ERV’s
      and I saw the same readings as the ERV. Note how the agency and responsibly of
      this statement really simply rests on the actions of the ERV and not Rossi.

      This is a “constant” theme of Rossi – using agency of others in any solid
      claim. And this is ALSO my experience with people who are hiding things.

      If Rossi was taking agency for his measuring, he would have stated that my measuring and results resulted in a COP of 50, and independent measurement by the ERV agreed with my measurements. Rossi ONLY saying he measured things the SAME way as the ERV and thus I am agreeing with the ERV (but nowhere is Rossi saying that there is a COP that he measured –
      only that the he is seeing the same as the ERV!!!).

      This lack of agency on Rossi’s part is a serious shortcoming.

      If not for the IH lawsuit, then I could perhaps ignore these warning flag behaviors – but now Rossi is on far more of a short leash so to speak.

      I can only hope to see a new plant working soon and hopefully the lawsuit with IH sheds light on IH’s perplexing position. As I stated many time, IH’s position does not make sense. If the
      plant has a COP of 50+ then LOTS OF WIGGLE room would exist in terms of the
      test being to the “letter” of the test or who cares one hoot about some company!
      If you have a machine with a COP 50? It is GAME OVER – you don’t care about anything!
      . Call a press conference, invite popular science and some news media, and you have people lined up around the block. Bring in some more testers!

      And for those that need some reading on a 25 year “energy” fraud, then this story about Neely motors is an enjoyable read:

      I have “little” doubt that Rossi has LENR. The evidence piled up suggests this reasonable concluding.

      However, what output Rossi been achieving is not at this point in time supported with high quality evidence. And when we reached a point in which high quality verification can and should occur – it has not and “something” occurs which prevents this high quality verification from occurring. It again is a pattern.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      1. It’s not rocket science really.

        Either there’s an inexplicable 4+ person conspiracy that has been active for many years putting in a lot of hard engineering work and hours that has already netted $11M — but is risking freedom and financial calamity for a long-shot at $89M more…


        There’s inexplicable obstruction/destruction by a company that had the world wrapped around its little finger, staring at hundreds of billions in future revenue with a black swan technology — either because they are greedy, are pursuing other options, are at the mercy of larger forces which now direct them, or outsiders derailed their confidence at the 11th hour.

        Either way it’s ridiculous, captivating, frustrating, important, confusing and astoundingly complex.

        1. Well, actually, Penon was not part or involved in the Lugano report. From that report, it likely heat was produced, but not as much due to measuring errors.

          So, I think the Lugano testers did their job, but the testing methods “given” to them or “adopted” was less than ideal. The result was a poor test. And thus by most accounts a poor COP was the result. So heat, sure, but it looks to be a low COP.

          I think we only have to worry about two people – Penon and Rossi.

          Most interesting about the Neely Motor fraud I linked to. They hired an “independent” engineer to poke and look around. After about one month of going to the facility this engineer agreed and accepted the Neely motor was an amazing new technology.

          Of course one month is a nice amount of time to “hang” around with the builder who no doubt could offer him a job. Lo and behold – a month later that supposed independent engineer declared the Neely Motor works and was an amazing technology!

          I am surprised that no one asked Penon directly – do you stand by your measuring methodology – do you agree and think the plant has this high COP of 50?

          I mean, 90 million is a “big” incentive to measure things in a “less” than ideal way or the “preferred” way depending on which side of the paycheck you are on. Hey, if you do a really good job, I will give you a 10 million dollar bonus for such good measuring after a successful year long test!

          So, really, there not a “long” list of people here that I see that mislead or committed fraud, or would even be required to commit fraud. We at about two people – and that’s not a lot or a long list.

          However, when the chips are laid down, and time to show the poker hand? – That’s the instant the results are elusive and that is as I stated a warning flag.

          I don’t see this situation as much complex. That 1MW plant produced large amounts of heat or it did not. And as noted while a million watts would not heat up the room where the container is – dumping that heat out or using that heat is significant. So there is some “wishy” washy in regards to the use of that output heat.

          The fact that “details” are still wishy washy in this regards is a red flag.

          I don’t think the issue here is does the ecat work, or does LENR work. There are clearly real world engineering choices and designs and even “progress” shown by Rossi.

          However the above does not NOT override nagging questions that remain. My experience in life and business shows that this type of obfuscation is not how thigs tend to move forward unless something is wrong.

          As others stated, either IH is way off base, or Rossi/Penon are.

          I in no way in some position to know or state which party is at fault there, and we can only hope soon that these doubts are resolved.

          So LITTLE question in my mind that the 1MW is built to do what it is supposed to do. The question really centers on performance, and specifically that HIGH COP – that’s where my doubts are – I hope to be shown wrong, with egg on my face – but my mind and instincts are really good.
          If I a wrong, I will take full agency for this position I taken in public.

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          1. Nope. If there is fraud, logic dictates that Rossi, Penon, Johnson and Fabiani must be active participants.

            One could also make a strong argument for Levi and Fioravanti being on the team. And possibly West. And the actor currently known as John Doe.

      2. Rossi only went public in January 2011. No one entered the room with a thermal gun. It was a detector of some type(It’s been a while, Gamma possibly) that could give clues as to the process taking place inside the reactor during startup.

        As to the statement- “F8”. The result of the 1 year test may be positive, but could also be negative. Any other statement would be just plain wrong. You can’t give a result that hasn’t yet been concluded. Even should you have a clear idea of said results.

        The Lugano test. Rossi has given no opinion other then read the report. Of the 1 year test, Rossi has said nothing about COP>50. In fact, on Leonardo’s ecat website, it still reads of guaranteed COP>6. Nothing more. Much of the confusion comes from speculation on the blogs. Rossi just doesn’t correct what others say. Seriously. That would be a full time task that he doesn’t need to waste time on.

        Average COP>50. What I read said the 1MW system spent a substantial period of time at COP 50 or above. Substantial is a very subjective word. If the 1MW operated in SSM for 9 hours out of 10, that would be very substantial. It would also only be COP>10. Quite simply- Pick your time frame and pick your COP.

        From what Rossi said, the 1MW plant sometimes required as little as 8.5KW input during SSM. I could pick a 1 hour period of SSM and claim a COP=100. However, that would be meaningless as to the average COP.

        Note: COP=6 is of economic use for some tasks. COP=10 makes it economical for nearly all uses. COP>20 provides diminishing returns as 95% of energy cost has already been eliminated. i.e., going from COP=20 to 100 only saves an additional 4% of the original input.

        1. I disagree with the F8 – a simple statement that a high COP and the plant been running well for a month is MORE then enough – the fact that Rossi did not do this is a red flag.

          No, Johnson is only the lawyer – he will simply do in most cases as the client asks.

          I am only pointing out “worrisome” behaviors.

          And I do not think a “long list” of people involved in some fraud exists. In near every successful deception there are VERY VERY few people involved. The famous Canadian Bree-X fraud comes to time. An amazing tale and a short video on that fraud can be seen here:

          Note again in the above the use of OTHER people’s authority.

          I can say that for as many “red flags” we see from Rossi, we have an EQUAL number of POSITIVE things in Rossi’s favor.

          The sound engineering, and Rossi also charging forward is a positive sign. Charging forward as Rossi is doing suggests he in the good and in the pink so to speak. However like any train, until it falls off the tracks or reaches its destination is how these events pan out.

          However, a public demo of a working reactor would help much in terms of promoting LENR and destroying the negativity that the IH debacle has brought to the LENR community.

          I mean, look at what Telsa did against Edison. Edison had cronies paying children to steal dogs and pets for weekly public “electrocution” of those pets in public. Frankly, this kind of behaviors makes me feel that Thomas Edison was scum.

          However, Telsa was also a great showman, and he responded with a SPECULAR public demo showing huge bolts of lighting and electricity flow right through his body in public – after that demo is was “game over” for those silly Edison supports telling everyone that AC was some kind of death electricity.

          Key in above is HOW Telsa responded – so lack of a strong response from Rossi such as a demo is “strange”.

          So Rossi not taking the public bull by the horns and doing some demos is NOT typical of highly intelligent people full of legitimate pride and accomplishments. Perhaps Rossi feels any more demos are a waste of time and public opinion does not matter, but clearly Rossi does care about public opinion due to his engagement with the public on a constant basis.

          And I also MUCH agree that is Rossi’s SSM mode is as he claims, then a COP of 50 makes much sense.

          As noted, the position of IH does not make sense unless they are confident of their position, or they are outright trying to hold back and destroy LENR.

          I will say that I find the current situation rather exciting since when the chips fall – the claim(s) of both parties cannot be correct and the ramifications of which party is correct will result in some spectacular conclusions about human nature.

          LENR is a new great hope for mankind, and I am still rooting and betting on Rossi.

          Coming to a theater near you is the epic conclusion of the Rossi saga – and I for one will keep the bowels of popcorn full.

          I simply do not like the “list” of red flags and some of Rossi’s behaviors (but so what!). These behaviors in my life experience have more often than not have pointed to less than ideal outcomes.

          I also want to state in public that it is “difficult” to take a position that we are being outright hoodwinked by Rossi – and I apologize in public for suggesting as such. We owe Rossi a gratitude of debt for his LENR work and how he promoted LENR for the masses.

          It is fair to say that we (I) am NOT yet in a position to determine how this story will end.

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          1. “F8″ applies to the 1MW E-cat test.

            F8=”The test could be positive, but also, the test could be negative”
            Rossi used “F8” as shorthand in place of this statement.

            The 1MW test had to meet certain criteria/milestones. It had to operate a total of 350 days excluding downtime without exceeding 400 days in total(ie- allowed upto 50 days downtime). It also needed to meet minimal average COP levels during those 350 operational days to determine the amount of payment if any.

            At what point should Rossi declare F8=Positive or F8=Negative.
            1 Month?… 6 Months?… Or when the test is concluded?

            Or perhaps when the “ERV” determines that “F8” is Positive or Negative as it is his job and not Rossi’s to do so…

            What some claim as red flags, I call normal progression. If everything went exactly as planned, then I would call that a red flag. Nothing ever goes as planned in real life…

  2. Within hours would be my guess (a few days for fuel and isotope analysis). Even if potting was used. So, patents and prior art would be the only defense.

    1. Ged
      What do you mean if potting
      was used.
      Why is this Reverse engineering so easy?
      Will the Ecat be easy to reverse
      engineer also?

      1. As we found out with the Orbo, potting is a good way to conceal electronics from the casual observer. Of course, it can still be removed. Anyone with metal working tools could cut their way into an Ecat and dissect it, see how the electronics and circuits are built, cut open the core and reverse engineer its dimensions, geometry, and materials. Electronic equipment could allow people to dissect out the activity and programming of any electronic chips or processors, as is done when building emulators of electronic devices.

        The only part that is hard to reverse engineer is the fuel, as the processing done to it is not easily discernable. But isotope analysis and EM microscopy would help crack that. The physical device and electronics are a piece of cake in comparison.

          1. The potting epoxy proved a serious challenge as Frank and most observers didn’t want to risk damaging anything while trying to remove it. We could still see some features, and despite the potting, some amazing electronics folks here were able to diagram the circuit using the terminals available for testing with.

            The end consensus is that the Orbo does Not work as advertised. Either the OCube not Ophone core properly functioned. However, there was some very odd behavior that is hard to explain, and both devices are not simple batteries as we discovered by the shorting and charging tests.

            Still, we found no way to draw from it at a rate that would allow firm conclusions about the under laying technology (i.e. if the principle behind it works and if it really is generating energy),and it will take… quite a number of months still of constantly drawing energy at equilibrium (as fast as it “recharges” itself) from it to prove the energy density is to high to be a battery, or not. A frustrating inconclusive conclusion for the time being.

          2. Thanks.

            So at best it sounds like trickle recharge from ambient energy that was hyped into much more to bilk early adopters.

            I wonder how much they made.

          3. That seems the most likely case, for sure. The Ophone core’s recharge rate appeared consistant with the high end of energy harvesters, as Pekka pointed out. Still, far below the hype, or usable rates.

          4. But really quite mysterious even then because it had no characteristics of an energy harvester, and the metal-enclosed packaging would block all EM fields. Heat and vibration were still candidates, but didn’t seem too plausible. It was all quite inconclusive though, as Ged pointed out, and did not work as claimed.

          5. It may simply be that lab prototypes work, but production models don’t stand up to the claims. Thus, if each unit needs to be lab built, they will never be an economical product. Frankly, this happens often in the real world. Batteries are a big case in point.

        1. From the Internet!
          Apple has sued a lot of companies for allegedly copying or stealing its intellectual property over the past three decades. In 1988, Apple sued Microsoft and HP for copyright infringement over similarities of Windows and NewWave to the graphical interface of the Macintosh and Lisa. More recently, the late Jobs had declared war against Google’s Android mobile operating system, resulting in a flurry of suits against Samsung, Motorola, HTC, and others who dared to copy ideas expressed in the iPhone and iPad.

          “I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong,” Jobs told his biographer Walter Isaacson. “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”

          This from the same Steve Jobs who famously said in 1996: “Picasso had a saying — ‘good artists copy; great artists steal’ — and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”

      2. Hi, guys,
        Let’s, analyze , this a bit, Dr. Rossi has spoke to this, back when the robo factories were first brought up, by using robot factories, he can build them so cheap no one, will be able to match his price even if reverse engineered.
        Besides he will be so far ahead no one can catch his production.
        e-cats can be built by robots, as EASY as the chinese, or others .
        Secondary, is this very sobering insight, how many machines has humanity seen, that can do what the E-CAT does, answer’ none.
        Now, let’s say someone, reverse engineers, his cat, what would he hope to do with it, if he tries to market such a device, he will have to get Leonardo corp. to ok is sale.

    2. GED,
      Rossi must realize this, no?
      Maybe that is why he insists on selling MW sized reactors, at least this way he’ll get $1M out of you before you reverse engineer it.

  3. We should press for this, seriously. We have a good track record giving Steorn a fair shake with the Ocube, and reporting as we found it. Few people would question the conclusions from this community. We could all pitch in to purchase the QuarkX just as we did with the Ocube. I’d be one of the first (if not the first) to contribute. Although I can’t speak for Frank (obviously), I bet you he would be willing to coordinate the effort, run the test in accordance with community input, and openly share the results. I would be supportive of this effort even if we agreed to test it as a “black box” as it were, with an agreement not to dismantle / reverse engineer.

    What do you all think? How can we persuade Mr. Rossi to let the ECW community do this? After all, we as a community have been extremely open and patient, if not his most ardent supporter on the Internet. I almost (almost) feel like Mr. Rossi owes it to this community.

    1. I imagine Rossi appreciates the community support, but I doubt Rossi feels he owes what you propose to this community or any other.

      In addition, If ECW found the E-cat didn’t live up to expectations, you would be applauded. However, if the ECW community found it to be all it is said to be, then you’re all a bunch of uneducated crackpots.

      You Know I’m Right….

    2. It was a heck of a lot of fun playing with the Orbo together, theorizing, and experimenting. I would love to see this done with the QuarkX, and utterly agree with you.

      Rossi could even request a two month or other generous time limit to play with it, after which the device has to be sent back to show no tampering or reverse engineering. More control than he would have over any industrial customers. If he’s got the goods, this could only be a win for him.

  4. First, Why does Rossi repeat the mass production statement?

    Because people continuously repeat similar questions. That’s it in a nutshell.

    Keep the above Rossi timeline in context. By reading the Q&A on JONP over time, this is merely Rossi’s hope. It is not written in stone. One of the big issues of the internet, and life in general actually, things can easily be misconstrued even with the best intentions.

    Here’s what mass production will look like if one has followed on JONP for some time. Initially hand built units sold in small numbers to 1st adapters who fully understand there will be problems. Over time as issues are resolved, the numbers will increase. Mass production will be arrived at over several years should all go well.

    1. Don´t blame the people for listen to Rossi and expect that what he says become true. Words are words and facts are facts. It is better that Rossi just doesn´t tell any date than what he does.
      Up to know the things he said, have become true, however, he has always been too optimist about dates. That must be acknowledged and corrected if you want to be predictable and accountable so that future investors trust you.

      1. You can blame the people for hearing what they want to hear.

        Average COP=50, Average COP=50 all over the blogs. Rossi never said that. Rossi still stands by COP>6. What was revealed in the court papers was a claim of substantial periods of time of COP>50. Pick your SSM time frame and you can claim any COP you want. However, Average can be substantially different.

        Even Rossi has pointed out he’s sometimes overly optimistic, but should Rossi say something “may” happen in 3 to 6 months, people’s expectations focus on 3 to 6 weeks. I really like the– It’s been a month already. How long can a 1 year test take anyway???

        Also, Should Rossi decide to say nothing, People will still read more into that then is said… This will be followed by what others speculate such as the imaginary Rossi saids that would make the rounds.

        Note many people jump into the comments without reading the topic. This takes place on every blog on the internet regardless of topic and some read but don’t comprehend what they’ve read.

        1. Hi, Omega man.
          Oh, so correct,here is a few quotes,

          “How you think about a problem is more important than the problem itself.

          So always think positively.” – Norman Vincent Peale.

          Many people swing into action only to make things worse. They’re not coming from love, they’re coming from negative feelings. They’re coming from guilt, anger, hate; from a sense of injustice or whatever. You’ve got to make sure of your “being” before you swing into action. You have to make sure of who you are before you act.”

          -Anthony de Mello, Jesuit Priest and Psychotherapist (1931-1987)

          (And one more for good measure,)

          John Michell took this idea one step further, describing what he saw as the universe’s habit “of reflecting back ideas projected onto it, of seeming to provide positive evidence for any theory that can possibly be formulated.” He claimed you could test it for yourself. “Take the wildest idea imaginable, commit yourself to believing it, become obsessed with it, and you’ll soon find all kinds of evidence turning up as confirmation of it.

          1. For a period of a few days, I believed in flying monkeys. Sadly, I saw no evidence of flying monkeys. I so wanted to have a flying monkey.

      2. Thats exactly what I ment. There is no reason at all for him to deliver a date for the supposed mass production if he already knows that it is not going to happen. To be completly honest, what I dont like about this and what scares me is that there are people that after reading this statment are now seriously beliving that now they have to wait another 2 years to see the “historical breaktrough”. I dont like this prospective because it gives me the feeling that he is in some way cheating on people. And I also think this is an issue that should be pointed out in order to not mislead people and in order to keep all of us with feet on the ground

  5. Off topic,
    Frank what do you think about having a photo/video gallery of the different ecat products/main topics. Maybe including PDF too. It would be good to collect all the pictures posted here. Having a centralized place is good and we can always have a place where we can recall some documentation.
    Just a suggestion.

  6. It seems interesting that Mr. Rossi is apparently going into a
    multi-million dollar court case where it has been mentioned here many
    times, that, trial by jury can never be relied upon in either direction.
    Of course it would not be logical or intelligent for Mr. Rossi to
    turn-up in court with a piece of paper, from a third party respected
    source, that the court would undoubtedly treat as expert witnesses,
    reporting that the basic E-cat produces an unexplained Cop above 1
    reliably, repeatably and openly.
    Far better to fight the case without these untainted, fully independent reports.
    I wonder if his lawyers have suggested such a silly idea.
    Allowing that it is possible that Mr. Rossi is acting with the above reasoning and just not telling anybody.

    1. All he needs is one satisfied customer. The rest is a matter of contractual obligations.

      The customer is Heisenberg’s cat. It both exists and does not exist until the Judge looks inside the box. Then it either is in the box or it is not. Interestingly the cat can be in multiple state if it is inside the box at all, it can be alive and well, sick, or dead.

      1. Rossis cat is in custody . And there is no question whether it exists or not , there is only one question is this cat alive or dead ?

    2. Unfortunately this wouldn’t help secure the money, a test would have to be carried out on the actually plant mentioned in the LA and this is currently impounded. Even if AR wins his case it may be that IH as a LLC will just declare bankruptcy and AR will still be chasing redress for years. Exactly why IH was set up as a shell company in the first place. It’s a modern day shell game on both sides.

      1. However, Rossi doesn’t depend on IH alone, but other players as well as individuals named. Anyway, Rossi’s primary goal is likely that all IP rights of the defendent are legally termed relinguished/forfeited and Leonardo retains sole ownership of that IP.

        It’s been stated that Rossi offered to return the $11.5 million back to Darden inc if they relinguished all claims to any of Rossi’s IP before filling suit. If true and I think it is, then Darden inc apparently see value in Rossi’s IP.

  7. You are now producing industrial plants; will they also be delivered this year (2016)? Rossi’s answer to this question was “maybe”. Rossi’s inability to get his reactors to market is becoming a very serious issue.

    1. A serious issue for whom? I suspect that any corporate/industrial client will understand perfectly the problems with new technology and will have factored that into doing any business with Leonardo.

      Of course, if you have bought and paid for one of those ecats personally and it has not turned up on the delivery date agreed by yourself and leonardo I can understand why it would be a serious issue to you and your company.

      Have you bought and paid for an ecat that has not been delivered?

  8. Rossi’s proposed 2016 schedule is aggressive for Rossi.

    I would like to see a working Rossi Quark-X machine in 2016 sold to a third party to regain his credibility with independent observers like myself.

    Quark-X has the advantage it small so more easily subject to test compared to the test logistics for a very large shipping container units.

  9. What disappoints me about all this is a lack of urgency, this leads me to believe that if AR does have what he says, that it is currently unreliable or even worse maybe even uneconomical. The evidence I have note(regarding the 50+ days of partial downtime during the 1 year test ) is clearly indicative of serious reliability issues. To be generous, you could say AR’s deceptions regarding Customers, factories, ERV could all be put down to his attempts at getting cash to fund development, others probably think differently.

    Most of the current LENR research has AR as it’s catalyst. Isn’t it conceivable that one of these other groups will crack the problems and scoop the prize? Otherwise you have to conceive of the whole thing as a big scam and will undoubtedly see LENR fade back into obscurity.

    If AR wants to get some recognition(in his own lifetime) then he better get moving or it will be too late, 2 years more is too long, for sure.

    1. Well, well….

      You are disappointed, apparently about many things, but foremost about the lack of urgency.

      “The evidence I have note(regarding the 50+ days of partial downtime
      during the 1 year test ) is clearly indicative of serious reliability

      Wow. You have evidence of what?

      ” Isn’t it conceivable that one of these other groups will crack the problems and scoop the prize?”

      They can crack whatever. I hope they do. I have tried myself. But AR has a patent, and the point from the “crack” to the “scoop” means to be able to make a viable product. Developing products, especially on groundbreaking new technology does take time.

      “… he better get moving or it will be too late, 2 years more is too long, for sure”
      🙂 Too late? Too late for what? For sure? How do you know? Who have claimed to have real customer test yet on the same scale as AR?

      No sir. I think you troll.

      1. Court case documentation and downtime recorded by AR himself and recorded here. With only an incomplete record of monthly bill requests submitted by JM’s representative it shows at least 50 days when the the plant ran at only 750KW/h
        Unless of course the billing requests were false or contested, or there were no customer.

        A patent is useless if you can’t explain how your system works whereas someone else can. It doesn’t stop someone submitting a more detailed and less ambiguous patent.

        Too late to be announcing things that might happen in the future after the last test that was supposed to precede full production after a year’s testing came to nothing, or worse a legal battle……too late indeed in so many more ways.

        1. ->”A patent is useless if you can’t explain how your system works whereas someone else can.”

          Total NONSENSE.

          Next you’ll claim a Theory is necessary before a patent is even valid.

          As to “monthly bill requests”, I’m only aware of a single month of billing. Not for the duration of the test. I believe Freethinker hit the nail on the head.

          No sir. I think you troll.

          1. Your awareness is lacking, see exhibit 18 of IH’s August submission which show 5 requests for billing from JM’s representative and a total of 50 days where the plant was running at 75% capacity,

            If anything a patent is used to protect innovation and accrue financial advantage from licensing that innovation, it’s not a lock on improvement or further innovations. It’s up to a patent office to decide based on previous patents and applicability whether some is genuinely innovative.

            Ask AR how much money he has made from his current patent and you’ll see how much it is worth so far.

            There was no next claim…

  10. Dang It, Clovis,

    I think it was a GREAT idea, and an opportunity for some friendly banter and camaraderie. As such I would LOVE to back you up and participate… But I can’t beat “HELCat”!!!

    ChrisC had to go and score a perfect 10,10,10,10,10 in the first round, so what are the REST of us supposed to do??? I mean, come on. It fits the family name, it is an effective and functional acronym, and it is just basically Bad Ass. I am not sure weather to congratulate the guy or call him a know-it-all smart-ass! All I know is I wish I had thought of it!

  11. Don’t get discouraged, friend. It was a great idea.

    Blame ChrisC. Because you just can’t top “HELCat”… It ended the contest before the other contestants had even finished their stretches and warm up routines… 🙂

    (and I really DO wish to God I had thought that one up!)

  12. From goax via LENR Forum with thanks
    LENR Cities is bankrupt!

  13. Correct; it would have been wise for him to update things when it all changed with IH, but I don’t think that he really believed that things would be delayed so long.

  14. No wonder you are disappointed. Somehow you thought this blog was a religion of Rossi says real believers. I couldn’t disagree more. My experience is that the people who participate on this blog are thinking, rational and intelligent individuals who like to follow and comment on the progress of the Ecat from invention to pre-production and hopefully to market. In fact in my opinion some of the comments by the engineers on this blog have elevated the conversation and taken it to another level, especially in retaliation to the accusations by IH. Surely this is more interesting than anything on TV.

    In typical ‘Rossi says’ you want to make a wager on something Rossi never said. Rossi gets asked ‘Obviously without obligation …make a schedule of upcoming major deadlines in the long road of E-Cat …that reflects your feelings today,’ and this gets interpreted as Rossi said the quarks would be presented to the public in 2016. Any other time Rossi mentions the quarks and 2016 he uses the words I hope. This actually happens a lot. People take Rossi’s comments out of context all the time.

    I am sorry you won’t be entering the Ecat energy field as you hoped, but do you really feel the readers on this blog owe you $5000.00 for your vigilance and participation? If so please let us know, considering how many comments you made in those 5 years, how much does that come out to per comment?

    Eugenio Mieli
    August 30, 2016 at 7:32 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    considering the many variables we must consider (technical, legal, political) and consequently the difficulty in being precise in predictions, may you now make a schedule of upcoming major deadlines in the long road of E-Cat?
    I’m sure that on certain issues you will be forced to repeat yourself, but I think it is interesting to have an overall timing pattern that reflects your feelings today. Obviously without obligation . . .
    Thanks so much,
    Andrea Rossi
    August 30, 2016 at 8:44 AM
    Eugenio Mieli:

    1- continue the manufacturing of the industrial plants: NOW

    2- complete the R&D of the QuarkX to sell the first unit: within 2016

    3- presentation of the QuarkX prototype: within 2016

    4- start massive production of the E-Cats in the USA and in Sweden: 2017- 2018
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,

    1. Guru Khalsa, Thank You

      ->”Obviously without obligation”

      I wonder how many missed that 1 little phrase. MANY. Happens far to often. I actually think many don’t even read the threads but go straight to comments. Especially the trolls as many of them seem to be the least informed.

    1. Must be some source of funds. but is it investors or something else. He has several properties in Florida. Mortgages? If he is betting his properties against success of E-CATs then he is following the purely private VERY limited company business model where the proprietor is king. He actions indicate this to be more probable than any other business model. Also remember he does not accept money until he has delivered a successful machine. That is what I call integrity.

  15. Hehe I agree with everyone that name is unbeatable. I just hope it doesn’t come in kit form and Levitate and Oscillate too 😉

  16. Err… we the community did a lot of reverse engineering with limited access and testing. It isn’t hard, and it doesn’t take unlimited money. Here is an example of reverse engineering an entire computing device and making a hardware emulator for people to use: . To create the emulation of the hardware, they had to reverse engineer the computing behavior of each chip and circuit that composed that hardware. Read their logs on that, it’s really interesting stuff (if they still have it up; some of the chips were very hard to decipher the behavior of).

    If you start delving into the world of reverse engineering, it may open your eyes to whole new horizons.

  17. Pietro F.
    September 18, 2016 at 11:58 PM
    Mr Andrea Rossi:
    What is the situation of the industrialization of the 1 MW E-Cats?

    Buon lavoro

    Pietro F.

    Andrea Rossi
    September 19, 2016 at 6:37 AM
    Pietro F.:
    Small scale industrialization is on course. Large scale industrialization needs longer times, but not too long I hope.
    Warm Regards,

  18. HIi guys
    Thank you,Frank and to you Dr.R for keeping us so well informed about your invention,
    i for one, await with baited breath,on your demonstration of the new power plant that will free the world of the disease of pollution. your name will go down in history and people will remember your name through the ages, i know the gift was God given, and you were just his conduit , but you alone knew how to build and refine it to the standards that he demands,
    And i personally thank you from the bottom of my being, for being such a good worker.–C.R.

Leave a Reply

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