Mio caro Andrea so che sei già 6 o 7 anni che lavori molto ma molto duramente sulla Tua prodigiosa ed immensa versione dell’E-CAT che il grande Sergio immaginava scoperta di tutti i tempi , ci puoi dire a quando i tempi di distribuzione , almeno a coloro che sono stati tra i primi a mettersi nella lista degli ordinativi ?
Grazie per una risposta comprensibile ed auguri solidali ed affettuosissimi a tutta la squadra della quale ahimè io non ne faccio parte !!! Giannino di Udin ;-))
Dear Andrea,
As is well known, one can compose a reliable device out of unreliable components by using component redundancy. For example, consider a 20kW device consisting of 1000 active Quarks, and assume that each Quark has a random failure probability of ten percent per six months, or 0.055 percent per day. Then after one year of operation, the population of active units has decreased from 1000 to 819, plus minus standard deviation sqrt(819)=29, so in the worst case at sigma five there are 819-5*sqrt(819)=675 active units. Thus the device achieves sigma five for one year operation if it contains initially 1000-675=325 spare units which are activated along the way to replace the dead ones. Thus the board needs 1325 units to have enough redundancy to reach sigma five in this case. (One should also take into account the failing of the spare units, but I think it would be a relatively small correction in this case.)
In this example I assumed that each Quark’s failure probability is constant (does not depend on time), in other words, I assumed that the operational time is chosen to be such that none of the units fail because of fuel exhaustion.
We also assumed that there is a reliable way to detect failure of an individual unit and that the failures do not disturb the operation of other (nearby or non-nearby) units. A reliable failure detection method could be, for example: have a temperature sensor for overheating for each unit, plus detection of electric short-circuiting, if either one signals failure, assume that the unit is malfunctioning and invoke the shutdown procedure for it (what such procedure contains, I do not know, of course).
The only drawback of doing this is an economic one: one needs those spare units, and when the device comes back to the factory for servicing, some of the units are unused or underused and thus contain unused fuel. However, it’s quite possible that these economic costs are minimal.
What does it take to verify that component-level performance matches the above (i.e., failure rate 0.055 percent per day or less)? For example, build 10000 Quarks (nominally worth 200kW), run them for 3 months and record the number of failed units. The expected number of failed ones, over 3 months, is 488 and the standard deviation of this number is 1/sqrt(488)=4.5 percent. If one builds more Quarks, the uncertainty of the failure rate becomes smaller. For example if one builds 50000 (again 3 months running time), the failed ones number 2439 whose standard deviation is 2 percent.
regards, /pekka
Daniel G. Zavela:
We have taken in consideration many parameters and calculated the integrals of their operation, so that we got millions of data. Then we calculated the probabilities of error coming from these data. From these calculations we have the Sigma.
Right now ( 10.20 P.M.) I am working with the Quarks and I am sure that my sensation that we are very close to Sigma 5 has good ground.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Readers:
Today has been published on the Journal of Nuclear Physics the paper “The Geometry Intrinsic to Motion, Space and Time”, by Brent Whipple.
JoNP
I am trying to understand how you measure your test results toward the 5- Sigma level?
“When physicists announce that they have a 5-sigma result, that means that there’s a 1 in 3.5 million chance that it was the result of a statistical fluctuation over the spectrum of experiments they performed.”
In the case of the QuarkX cell are you measuring how many successful On/Off results you get with a single cell? Or are you measuring how many cells that you have made show a successful result?
Wishing you continued good luck with your measurements.
“Andrea Rossi
October 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM
Mark Leiber:
Because nobody would invest a single cent in a technology given away for free, therefore this move, apparently gracious ( but actually narcissistic ), would be in reality the killer of this technology….”
Dear Andrea Rossi, replying to a my previous question you said that the “Quarkx isn’t substantially equal to the ‘old’ E-Cat”. Am I wrong telling you never talked about fuel composition? Can you add some more detail without compromise industrial secret?
Marco Serra:
We are a Team, not a single. We are working very hard. We have strong Partners and we have everything necessary to allow a rapid expansion of the industralization once the product is ready. Besides, after that, specific licenses for specific applications to leaders of the specific fields will be allowed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
In a nutshell, 5 Sigma is reached when the probabilities that an event happens the same way are very high ( 99.9999% ).
To have a detailed description of the calculus of Sigma 5 I suggest to google “Sigma 5 in Physics”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for taking care to answer to my previous post. Unfortunately my bad english don’t let me explain my point clearly enough. The focus was not who will own the IP. I’m not worried to pay a tiny fee to the inventor (as Rodney N. is suggesting). I will pay 100 times more for taxes they will put on each device, that’s for sure.
I’m worried about the gigantic work that has still to be done to start a REALLY MASSIVE DISTRIBUTION that is what we all need.
With the new 20W size, 50000 cylinders are required for a 1MW plant. A robotized line (that is still only on the paper) will build this amount in few days (your words Andrea). IT’S TOO MUCH TIME FOR 1MW ONLY !!! And the assembling? Testing? Packaging? Maintaining? ….
You are only one man and your team looks to me toooooo small compared to the amount of work still required.
Furthermore according to what I read here in this blog, these are the occupations in which you are involved:
– Getting sigma 5 with QuarkX
– Prepare documents for the litigation (still 50% of your day?)
– Progress with certifications
– Optimize for approval of dozens of patents
– Starting a new plant in Sweden
– Optimize the 1MW plant in order it can be sold not in bundle with an Andrea Rossi
– Study a new case for 1MW plant better than container
– Organize massive distribution
– Cooperate with Prof. Cook
– Study physics
– Kindly answer to our questions
– … and so on
Is your day 24h as mine ?
Going this way I predict that in 5 years there will be not more than 1 plant in each country and a negligible impact over the world energy production. To go faster would require parallel execution of all these tasks, which imply a very very large team to delegate entire sections of the work. But it’s impossible for you to fully delegate if you have to keep secret your formula. This is the reason why, protecting your invention you ends up restraining its availability to the mass.
This is what I’m very worried about.
I’d like to raise your awareness to my 13-month-old discovery of the intermediate state of LENR, which I have presented at ICCF20 for the first time. It has been met with great interest from key experts in the field.
You find this discovery documented at http://www.condensed-plasmoids.com. Please have a look and stay tuned, as this may turn out to be the first quantum mechanical model and computer simulation of what goes on in the E-Cat and other LENR devices.
I am Jed and I am Mark and both names are fake, because I want not to put my real name. What counts is the text and the answer, not my name.
Bye
Jed and/or Mark, as you wish
Patrick:
It is true, I suppose that Jed ( or Mark ) has used his nickname in one place and his real name in the other. I could not correct the name, because I do not know which one is the good one.
Not a big issue, though…
Warm Regards,
Andrea
Marco Serra:
I had decided not to talk again about this issue, but you say you put your heart in your comment and I have not the heart to spam it. Nor I will answer ” Thank you for your insight “, to respect your will.
Therefore, I thank you for your passionate attention to the work of our Team and for the simpathy contained in your suggestion, but I must repeat that nobody invests seriously in technologies without a protection of the IP. This is true also in the example of the pharmaceutical products you cited: also in that field no medicines would exist without a protection of the IP related to them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jed (or Mark):
Some have noticed you have put the signature Mark under your comment, but the name in the head of the comment is Jed: I assume one of the two is a nickname, correct ? No problem at all to me, just to be precise. Maybe you can send a correction !
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
we already know your point of view about not releasing your IP for free. You are maybe right but I disagree in the reasons why you think so, i.e. “Because nobody would invest a single cent in a technology given away for free”.
In my humble opinion a good technology always worth investments especially one that solves big urgent issues like the clean energy production.
In support of my thesis I’d like to consider this example:
Suppose an inventor that, after 20 years of hard work, discover a technique to cure melanoma permanently and release it for free. Do you think nobody would start to produce drugs exploiting his technique ? And the entire world would not start to search a way to extend the technique to other type of cancer ?
What would happen, instead, if he decide to not reveal the technique and protect his own IP ? What if he start a big pharmaceutic enterprise and personally face all the intricacy (authorizations, production lines, supply chain, commercial strategy …) implied in production and commercialization at a worldwide level? And all this while continuing to research for improvements of his technique ?
Don’t you think that the spread of his invention would be relented by this decision ?
I cannot do anything but respect your will to protect YOUR IP, it’s in your rights. But please don’t think that if you don’t push your technique into the market nobody will do. Don’t think that without Leonardo Spa the Rossi Effect will be forgotten. This was maybe true until 3 or 2 years ago, but not now, after the Lugano Report, the 1 year test, the QuarkX.
You are a genius. A great inventor that I thank God to has sent to us. You deserve the Nobel. You will be remember in the time. I’m pretty sure of this.
This would be enough for me to give a sense to my life. Isn’t it for you ?
God bless you
Marco Serra
PS: ti prego non rispondermi “thank you for your insight”. Ci ho messo il cuore in questo post. Ciao
Dear Andrea:
Can you describe better the QuarkX shape? Now we know the module has a power of 20 W and that the power density is 2W/cc, but we do not know the dimensions, I mean the shape.
Cheers,
Roy
“Why don’t you donate to all your IP, for the good of all ?”
= = = = =
Dear Mr. Leiber:
Mr Rossi invented, has been developing on his own time eighteen hours a day for years, and is presently planning the production and sale of, a device that will: A) dramatically reduce energy costs for EVERYONE around the world; B) drastically cut carbon dioxide emissions, as well as other damage associated with extraction of fossil fuels; and C) greatly increase world productivity and living standards, all of this to the benefit of mankind in a magnitude almost certainly unprecedented in world history.
Is this, in your opinion, an inadequate benefit for Mr. Rossi to bestow upon the world? For me this represents (and I believe I can say this without any risk of exaggeration) A POSITIVELY ENORMOUS BENEFIT “for all”, as you put it. Do you simply want to try to avoid having to pay the inventor’s tiny royalty?
I believe it is appropriate that those who are prepared to make a huge investment of personal effort, ingenuity and resources, and are successful in providing the rest of us in the world with benefits, should be rewarded – and be rewarded, very approximately, in proportion to the size of their contribution. There are other economic systems that ‘work’ on different principles, but in every case all they have ever produced is poverty “for all”, other than for a few within their political leadership. As an example, as you may realize, the monthly salary of fully qualified and practising medical doctors in Cuba until very recently was $30. (YES, monthly.) Just lately they have had their salaries doubled to a positively whopping $67 a month: http://www.medicaldaily.com/cuban-doctors-get-salary-raises-67-month-after-government-cuts-100k-redundant-jobs-272310
I am very happy to live in a country which provides serious incentives to encourage its citizens to take risks and be productive, and where, in consequence, EVERYONE – not just doctors or inventors – earns a lot more than $360 – $800 a year. (Servers in coffee shops here earn more than 30 times what a doctor is paid in Cuba). And I will be delighted to pay my share of Mr. Rossi’s small royalty as part of the purchase price, when the time comes to acquire an E-cat. I will be extremely happy to see Mr. Rossi benefit very nicely from the success he is about to achieve after a great deal of very hard work incurring considerable financial risk, on a project that, at the outset, must have seemed much more likely to fail than to succeed.
Pekka Janhunen:
No, for the maintainance and the substitutions of the modules is not necessary move the containers, but the containers can be transfered for many reasons, besides the first delivery.
The issue can be resolved making well designed units that respect the dimensions to remain in standard transportation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Is the idea of using the transportation container that the entire container would be transported periodically (6-12 months) to Leonardo Corporation and back for servicing and fuel replacement?
best regards, /pekka
Caro Andrea
ICCF 20 e’ stato un fallimento. L’unico impianto industriale realizzato e’ il tuo.
“Non ti curar di lor, ma guarda e passa”
English:
After the last ICCF we got confirmation the sole industrial plant in the world is the E-Cat.
“Don’t care them, just keep on yur job”
Pierpaolo
L.:
Point taken. I know our design is not fascinating, nor inspiring. We have to work on it, but the enormous advantage of the containers is their easy transportability. You are right, though.
We are working also on this side of the product, see for example the design proposed in the artistic representation of the industrial plants on our website http://www.leonardocorporation.com
Thank you for raising the issue, I understand it is a very important one.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr Rossi:
For the 1 MW plants working with the QuarkX, will you continue to use standard containers, or you will make something with more cure for the design ?
Cheers,
L.
Mark Leiber:
Because nobody would invest a single cent in a technology given away for free, therefore this move, apparently gracious ( but actually narcissistic ), would be in reality the killer of this technology, leaving it in the hands of inconclusive amateurs, or gangs of speculators ready to sell toilet papers by means of some IPO of companies destined to remain for ever in the R&D limbo ( guess whom am I thinking about…), stealing the money of the investors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Domenico Canino:
Replications of the so called Rossi Effect have been made by many. Again, replications made in laboratory for scientifical purpose are not a steal of IP: on the contrary, they are in the spirit of an IP.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
let me know a fundamental thing: did someone stole something (maybe a secret formula) from you?
I think they believe they managed to do it. But i’m not so sure.
Mio caro Andrea so che sei già 6 o 7 anni che lavori molto ma molto duramente sulla Tua prodigiosa ed immensa versione dell’E-CAT che il grande Sergio immaginava scoperta di tutti i tempi , ci puoi dire a quando i tempi di distribuzione , almeno a coloro che sono stati tra i primi a mettersi nella lista degli ordinativi ?
Grazie per una risposta comprensibile ed auguri solidali ed affettuosissimi a tutta la squadra della quale ahimè io non ne faccio parte !!! Giannino di Udin ;-))
Dr Andrea Rossi
Update?
Dear Andrea,
As is well known, one can compose a reliable device out of unreliable components by using component redundancy. For example, consider a 20kW device consisting of 1000 active Quarks, and assume that each Quark has a random failure probability of ten percent per six months, or 0.055 percent per day. Then after one year of operation, the population of active units has decreased from 1000 to 819, plus minus standard deviation sqrt(819)=29, so in the worst case at sigma five there are 819-5*sqrt(819)=675 active units. Thus the device achieves sigma five for one year operation if it contains initially 1000-675=325 spare units which are activated along the way to replace the dead ones. Thus the board needs 1325 units to have enough redundancy to reach sigma five in this case. (One should also take into account the failing of the spare units, but I think it would be a relatively small correction in this case.)
In this example I assumed that each Quark’s failure probability is constant (does not depend on time), in other words, I assumed that the operational time is chosen to be such that none of the units fail because of fuel exhaustion.
We also assumed that there is a reliable way to detect failure of an individual unit and that the failures do not disturb the operation of other (nearby or non-nearby) units. A reliable failure detection method could be, for example: have a temperature sensor for overheating for each unit, plus detection of electric short-circuiting, if either one signals failure, assume that the unit is malfunctioning and invoke the shutdown procedure for it (what such procedure contains, I do not know, of course).
The only drawback of doing this is an economic one: one needs those spare units, and when the device comes back to the factory for servicing, some of the units are unused or underused and thus contain unused fuel. However, it’s quite possible that these economic costs are minimal.
What does it take to verify that component-level performance matches the above (i.e., failure rate 0.055 percent per day or less)? For example, build 10000 Quarks (nominally worth 200kW), run them for 3 months and record the number of failed units. The expected number of failed ones, over 3 months, is 488 and the standard deviation of this number is 1/sqrt(488)=4.5 percent. If one builds more Quarks, the uncertainty of the failure rate becomes smaller. For example if one builds 50000 (again 3 months running time), the failed ones number 2439 whose standard deviation is 2 percent.
regards, /pekka
I think that within one year we will have an industrial QuarkX in operation and the industrialization started.
Ronald
Daniel G. Zavela:
We have taken in consideration many parameters and calculated the integrals of their operation, so that we got millions of data. Then we calculated the probabilities of error coming from these data. From these calculations we have the Sigma.
Right now ( 10.20 P.M.) I am working with the Quarks and I am sure that my sensation that we are very close to Sigma 5 has good ground.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr Rossi:
Is the shape of the QuarkX cylinder more like a botton or more like a fuse?
Cheers,
Ronald
Dear Readers:
Today has been published on the Journal of Nuclear Physics the paper “The Geometry Intrinsic to Motion, Space and Time”, by Brent Whipple.
JoNP
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I am trying to understand how you measure your test results toward the 5- Sigma level?
“When physicists announce that they have a 5-sigma result, that means that there’s a 1 in 3.5 million chance that it was the result of a statistical fluctuation over the spectrum of experiments they performed.”
In the case of the QuarkX cell are you measuring how many successful On/Off results you get with a single cell? Or are you measuring how many cells that you have made show a successful result?
Wishing you continued good luck with your measurements.
Best Regards,
Daniel G. Zavela
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi,
concerning your answer:
“Andrea Rossi
October 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM
Mark Leiber:
Because nobody would invest a single cent in a technology given away for free, therefore this move, apparently gracious ( but actually narcissistic ), would be in reality the killer of this technology….”
Maybe you are right.
Wavy regards.
Koen
Dear Andrea,
Today this is the link to my daily issue of EGO OUT:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/10/oct-10-2016-shortest-interview-with.html
Wishing you and readers all the best for today and for all the following days…
peter
Angelo V.:
No.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi, replying to a my previous question you said that the “Quarkx isn’t substantially equal to the ‘old’ E-Cat”. Am I wrong telling you never talked about fuel composition? Can you add some more detail without compromise industrial secret?
Marco Serra:
We are a Team, not a single. We are working very hard. We have strong Partners and we have everything necessary to allow a rapid expansion of the industralization once the product is ready. Besides, after that, specific licenses for specific applications to leaders of the specific fields will be allowed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
In a nutshell, 5 Sigma is reached when the probabilities that an event happens the same way are very high ( 99.9999% ).
To have a detailed description of the calculus of Sigma 5 I suggest to google “Sigma 5 in Physics”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for taking care to answer to my previous post. Unfortunately my bad english don’t let me explain my point clearly enough. The focus was not who will own the IP. I’m not worried to pay a tiny fee to the inventor (as Rodney N. is suggesting). I will pay 100 times more for taxes they will put on each device, that’s for sure.
I’m worried about the gigantic work that has still to be done to start a REALLY MASSIVE DISTRIBUTION that is what we all need.
With the new 20W size, 50000 cylinders are required for a 1MW plant. A robotized line (that is still only on the paper) will build this amount in few days (your words Andrea). IT’S TOO MUCH TIME FOR 1MW ONLY !!! And the assembling? Testing? Packaging? Maintaining? ….
You are only one man and your team looks to me toooooo small compared to the amount of work still required.
Furthermore according to what I read here in this blog, these are the occupations in which you are involved:
– Getting sigma 5 with QuarkX
– Prepare documents for the litigation (still 50% of your day?)
– Progress with certifications
– Optimize for approval of dozens of patents
– Starting a new plant in Sweden
– Optimize the 1MW plant in order it can be sold not in bundle with an Andrea Rossi
– Study a new case for 1MW plant better than container
– Organize massive distribution
– Cooperate with Prof. Cook
– Study physics
– Kindly answer to our questions
– … and so on
Is your day 24h as mine ?
Going this way I predict that in 5 years there will be not more than 1 plant in each country and a negligible impact over the world energy production. To go faster would require parallel execution of all these tasks, which imply a very very large team to delegate entire sections of the work. But it’s impossible for you to fully delegate if you have to keep secret your formula. This is the reason why, protecting your invention you ends up restraining its availability to the mass.
This is what I’m very worried about.
With unchange estimates
Marco Serra
PS: and may God bless you and your work.
Lutz Jaitner:
Thank you for the link.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Can you explain what Sigma 5 is, and why it is important in connection with your work on the QuarkX?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dear Andrea, dear commentators,
I’d like to raise your awareness to my 13-month-old discovery of the intermediate state of LENR, which I have presented at ICCF20 for the first time. It has been met with great interest from key experts in the field.
You find this discovery documented at http://www.condensed-plasmoids.com. Please have a look and stay tuned, as this may turn out to be the first quantum mechanical model and computer simulation of what goes on in the E-Cat and other LENR devices.
Warm regards,
Lutz Jaitner
I am Jed and I am Mark and both names are fake, because I want not to put my real name. What counts is the text and the answer, not my name.
Bye
Jed and/or Mark, as you wish
Iliana:
Very.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Patrick:
It is true, I suppose that Jed ( or Mark ) has used his nickname in one place and his real name in the other. I could not correct the name, because I do not know which one is the good one.
Not a big issue, though…
Warm Regards,
Andrea
Roy:
It is a cylinder. Precise description will be given when the QuarkX will be officially presented.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Marco Serra:
I had decided not to talk again about this issue, but you say you put your heart in your comment and I have not the heart to spam it. Nor I will answer ” Thank you for your insight “, to respect your will.
Therefore, I thank you for your passionate attention to the work of our Team and for the simpathy contained in your suggestion, but I must repeat that nobody invests seriously in technologies without a protection of the IP. This is true also in the example of the pharmaceutical products you cited: also in that field no medicines would exist without a protection of the IP related to them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jed (or Mark):
Some have noticed you have put the signature Mark under your comment, but the name in the head of the comment is Jed: I assume one of the two is a nickname, correct ? No problem at all to me, just to be precise. Maybe you can send a correction !
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
we already know your point of view about not releasing your IP for free. You are maybe right but I disagree in the reasons why you think so, i.e. “Because nobody would invest a single cent in a technology given away for free”.
In my humble opinion a good technology always worth investments especially one that solves big urgent issues like the clean energy production.
In support of my thesis I’d like to consider this example:
Suppose an inventor that, after 20 years of hard work, discover a technique to cure melanoma permanently and release it for free. Do you think nobody would start to produce drugs exploiting his technique ? And the entire world would not start to search a way to extend the technique to other type of cancer ?
What would happen, instead, if he decide to not reveal the technique and protect his own IP ? What if he start a big pharmaceutic enterprise and personally face all the intricacy (authorizations, production lines, supply chain, commercial strategy …) implied in production and commercialization at a worldwide level? And all this while continuing to research for improvements of his technique ?
Don’t you think that the spread of his invention would be relented by this decision ?
I cannot do anything but respect your will to protect YOUR IP, it’s in your rights. But please don’t think that if you don’t push your technique into the market nobody will do. Don’t think that without Leonardo Spa the Rossi Effect will be forgotten. This was maybe true until 3 or 2 years ago, but not now, after the Lugano Report, the 1 year test, the QuarkX.
You are a genius. A great inventor that I thank God to has sent to us. You deserve the Nobel. You will be remember in the time. I’m pretty sure of this.
This would be enough for me to give a sense to my life. Isn’t it for you ?
God bless you
Marco Serra
PS: ti prego non rispondermi “thank you for your insight”. Ci ho messo il cuore in questo post. Ciao
Dear Andrea:
Can you describe better the QuarkX shape? Now we know the module has a power of 20 W and that the power density is 2W/cc, but we do not know the dimensions, I mean the shape.
Cheers,
Roy
Regarding:
“Mark Leiber
“October 8, 2016 at 2:08 PM
“Why don’t you donate to all your IP, for the good of all ?”
= = = = =
Dear Mr. Leiber:
Mr Rossi invented, has been developing on his own time eighteen hours a day for years, and is presently planning the production and sale of, a device that will: A) dramatically reduce energy costs for EVERYONE around the world; B) drastically cut carbon dioxide emissions, as well as other damage associated with extraction of fossil fuels; and C) greatly increase world productivity and living standards, all of this to the benefit of mankind in a magnitude almost certainly unprecedented in world history.
Is this, in your opinion, an inadequate benefit for Mr. Rossi to bestow upon the world? For me this represents (and I believe I can say this without any risk of exaggeration) A POSITIVELY ENORMOUS BENEFIT “for all”, as you put it. Do you simply want to try to avoid having to pay the inventor’s tiny royalty?
I believe it is appropriate that those who are prepared to make a huge investment of personal effort, ingenuity and resources, and are successful in providing the rest of us in the world with benefits, should be rewarded – and be rewarded, very approximately, in proportion to the size of their contribution. There are other economic systems that ‘work’ on different principles, but in every case all they have ever produced is poverty “for all”, other than for a few within their political leadership. As an example, as you may realize, the monthly salary of fully qualified and practising medical doctors in Cuba until very recently was $30. (YES, monthly.) Just lately they have had their salaries doubled to a positively whopping $67 a month: http://www.medicaldaily.com/cuban-doctors-get-salary-raises-67-month-after-government-cuts-100k-redundant-jobs-272310
I am very happy to live in a country which provides serious incentives to encourage its citizens to take risks and be productive, and where, in consequence, EVERYONE – not just doctors or inventors – earns a lot more than $360 – $800 a year. (Servers in coffee shops here earn more than 30 times what a doctor is paid in Cuba). And I will be delighted to pay my share of Mr. Rossi’s small royalty as part of the purchase price, when the time comes to acquire an E-cat. I will be extremely happy to see Mr. Rossi benefit very nicely from the success he is about to achieve after a great deal of very hard work incurring considerable financial risk, on a project that, at the outset, must have seemed much more likely to fail than to succeed.
Sincerely,
Rodney Nicholson.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
I agree with your answer to Jed, but please note that he signed the comment as “Mark”: ???
Dr Andrea Rossi:
How close are you today to the famous 5 Sigma (F8)?
Godspeed,
Iliana
Pierpaolo:
Thank you for your attention to our work.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Pekka Janhunen:
No, for the maintainance and the substitutions of the modules is not necessary move the containers, but the containers can be transfered for many reasons, besides the first delivery.
The issue can be resolved making well designed units that respect the dimensions to remain in standard transportation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
The link for this busy Sunday’s issue is here:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/10/oct-09-2016-visit-of-robert-cook-1.html
Best autumn greetings,
peter
Dear Andrea,
Is the idea of using the transportation container that the entire container would be transported periodically (6-12 months) to Leonardo Corporation and back for servicing and fuel replacement?
best regards, /pekka
Caro Andrea
ICCF 20 e’ stato un fallimento. L’unico impianto industriale realizzato e’ il tuo.
“Non ti curar di lor, ma guarda e passa”
English:
After the last ICCF we got confirmation the sole industrial plant in the world is the E-Cat.
“Don’t care them, just keep on yur job”
Pierpaolo
L.:
Point taken. I know our design is not fascinating, nor inspiring. We have to work on it, but the enormous advantage of the containers is their easy transportability. You are right, though.
We are working also on this side of the product, see for example the design proposed in the artistic representation of the industrial plants on our website http://www.leonardocorporation.com
Thank you for raising the issue, I understand it is a very important one.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Cop:
Of course ! This is part of the fundamental safety pattern.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jed:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
I totally approve your answer to Mark Leiber.
Godspeed,
Mark
Attention, Dr Rossi: it is important that the E-Cat for sale does not imply any risk of explosion.
This having been sais, continue the good job.
Mr Rossi:
For the 1 MW plants working with the QuarkX, will you continue to use standard containers, or you will make something with more cure for the design ?
Cheers,
L.
Mark Leiber:
Because nobody would invest a single cent in a technology given away for free, therefore this move, apparently gracious ( but actually narcissistic ), would be in reality the killer of this technology, leaving it in the hands of inconclusive amateurs, or gangs of speculators ready to sell toilet papers by means of some IPO of companies destined to remain for ever in the R&D limbo ( guess whom am I thinking about…), stealing the money of the investors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Why don’t you donate to all your IP, for the good of all ?
Dear Andrea,,
‘just sent the link for my EGO OUT of today:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/10/oct-08-2016-only-lenr-info-today.html
Cheers,
Peter
Domenico Canino:
Replications of the so called Rossi Effect have been made by many. Again, replications made in laboratory for scientifical purpose are not a steal of IP: on the contrary, they are in the spirit of an IP.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Henrik Lundqvist:
I want not to comment about measurements made by an Independent Third Party,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
let me know a fundamental thing: did someone stole something (maybe a secret formula) from you?
I think they believe they managed to do it. But i’m not so sure.
Mr Andrea Rossi,
I like and sustain the comment of JP Renoir.
Keep on making your good work,
Henrik