Dear Andrea
I’m still very excited about the expectations of the ECat-X. You said that you can adjust her behaviour in order to select how the output is fractioned between heat and electricity. May I ask you some question about that?
I will assume yes 😉
1 – How fine the adjustment of that fraction can be done ? (I don’t need numbers that you probably not yet know. It’s enough if you can say that theoretically you can reach a high fine tuning or only a raw approximative adjustment of the fraction heat/electricity)
2 – When the output is switched to full electricity does it still require a heat dissipation system ?
3 – Is the light emission you reported due to the incandescence of the core ?
4 – You said that ECat-X SSM is in the order of hours. Is the SSM also present when she’s producing electricity ? This would mean it’s a device that produce hours of electricity without any input and any storage. It sound too good to be true.
5 – Please please please hurry up with the processing of the results of the 1 year test. My wait muscle is its end 🙂
Kevin Evans:
You asked me, by a comment I have not been able to recover, if the fact that the charges of the 1 MW E-Cat had a lifespan of almost one year now makes our expectation of charges lifespan of one year also for the next E-Cats we’ll produce, either industrial or domestic.
The answer is yes, probably, F9.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Can multiple E-Cat X’s be configured such that the electrical output from one E-Cat X can ‘drive’ (via thermal heating) one or more second-level E-Cat X’s? That is, if you can generate enough electricity from one E-Cat X to drive two (or more) second-level E-Cat X’s, could this concept be extended so that enough electricity can be generated from two second-level E-Cat X’s to drive four (or more) third level E-Cat X’s. Et cetera?
I am NOT suggesting a 64-level system!
If possible, could there be a multiple-level system design (in which E-Cat X systems can be “switched-into or out-from”) that is both productive and robust to outages/down time?
For example, first-level systems could be changed in/out as required since a first level system/systems would be the major input(s) to this entire concept.
( Maybe systems in SSM could be switched into the first level systems, to minimize total input power demand. )
The idea is that with limited external electrical power, a multi-level system could reliably and flexibly produce electricity and/or heat as required.
Sandy:
Time: 09.50 a.m. of Saturday January 30 2016
1 MW E-Cat: stable
E-Cat X: 2 in operation, 1 under destructive test. All very promising.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi, can you tell us what type of intervention did your team to solve the problem?
1 – replacement of parts of the plant
2 – change in operating conditions
3 – both
4 – other
Tom Conover:
Not so.
The count is different.
Thank you anyway from the sympathy that perspires from your comment.
The real test started in February, when we thought we were ready to start to count the days of the official test.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
It would appear that you have been operational at least 353 days, and possibly up to 386 days out of the 396 (today is #396) day test! Thank you for your hard work!
Optimistically yours,
Tom
ps: the due diligence is below:
Based on blog entries dated 12/31/14, 9/19/15, and 1/29/16 it would appear that the duration of the test lasted 394 days to date. As of 9/19/15 you had experienced less than or equal to 28 days of down time, or 0.106464 days per day of down time. Extrapolating the above, you may have experienced an additional 14 days of downtime from 9/19/15 through 1/29/2016, for a total of 42 down days. The time range from 12/31/14 through 1/29/2016 is 395 days of operation, of which approximately 42 days of time the plant may have been down, meaning that you experienced operational status for 353 days out of 400 days during the testing period.
The 28 days is a maximum number per your blog, with a possible reality of as little as 8 actual days down, which would dramatically change this estimated time of operational status. Also the period from 9/19/15 through 1/29/2016 had almost daily operational status reports, NONE of which indicated an operational status that required flagging as a “non operational” day …
So, unless the worst case was experienced, and your blog reporting was severely biased in the positive, may I congratulate you on achieving the 350 of 400 days of operation that the contract with the customer required?
I think you and your team might want to throw your hats in the air and shout hurrah! It really shouldn’t matter if you had some troubles during the test period, the bugs can be worked out and like you said, the redesign process will correct most if not all of them.
Gerard MkEk:
I never said the 1MW E-Cat has been stopped !!!
She is continuing her operation.
Please read better the related comments.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
In your response to Annmarie: about the specialization of the Expert Responsible for Validation certification agency, you answered “Nuclear power plants, nuclear engineering” which would include a vast overall range of expertise, e.g. electronics, boilers, heat exchangers.
Correct?
Dan C.
Dear Andrea,
With you I am very disappointed with the early stop of the plant. I can understand that the fuel did last less long as expected, but that should not be a criterium for disqualification. 1. Do you agree?
I am sure that when the efficiency is high more fuel (and less energy) is used.
2. Do you agree?
3. Is there another reason than exhaustion of the fuel that has stopped the plant?
4. Have you already taken the plant apart to examine what has gone wrong?
5. Have all four E-cats failed, or were supporting system failing?
I am sure you will find a way out and I will keep on supporting you!
Thanks and kind regards, Gerard
Elise:
Please, understand that to put in the markes an immature product in our case could be devastating.
There is nobody in the world that more than me desires to put massively the E-Cat in the market, but we are not ready. Too bad about sceptics.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
In http://www.leonardocorporation.com I saw the artistic reproductions of the 1 MW E-Cats as they should be when they will be industrialized. Are these conceptual designs still valid or you changed idea?
Cheers,
Jane
Buongiorno Andrea.
A friend of mine wrote (we all are very curious…):
“I think the type of destruction will provide us with answers. Past destructions were explosive and indicated perhaps a runaway nuclear reaction. If the destruction is relatively slow (melt down or arcing) it would indicate thermal or electrical effects.”
How is the E-Cat X dead?
Respectful greetings
Giuliano Bettini.
Dear Dr. Rossi, some assumptions. On the end of the test (as it will be positive, I am sure), the Plant will remain in operation for the Customer, but I do not think that you will still be 18 hours a day inside the container. I think that the Plant will be managed by some of your team and you will use most of your efforts and time to continue the research and development especially on the E-Cat X.
Am I far from reality?
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Which is the professional specialization of the expert responsible for validation (ERV) that is directing the measurements of the 1 MW E-Cat in operation in the factory of the customer?
Regards,
Ann
I understand the demands on your time, so I try not to clutter your blog too often. I appreciate the courtesy and patience with which you answer questions (some of them over and over again), and I find I generally agree with your actions and with what I understand is your path forward.
I have worked on products (both in R&D and Manufacturing) that were produced in high volume. The products were complex and required precision, but the technology was fairly well understood. Even so, I remember being told that it took a tool maker a full year to make a certain mold for a single plastic gear. Well understood technology is not necessarily easy, and moving to production can be a very slow process! In our products, after testing a few hundred
units for almost a year, final design decisions were made. From that point, it took about another year before the product could be introduced to the public. Manufacturing lines (which are almost always prototype in nature) had to be tested, channels stocked, worldwide marketing efforts started, etc. I am proud to say that our products were best in class and dominant in market share.
The point I would like to raise with you is simply whether you feel the size of your team and the resources being brought to bear are well matched to the magnitude of the problems you face. For example, to test reliability, a rudimentary Weibull plot requires at least five units be tested to first failure. This seems to require 5 containers of E-cats instead of one. Since the product must be very reliable for industrial use, the first failure must not occur for many months, if not years (assuming burn-in is not required and the shape factor, usually called Beta, is not << 1).
In short, it would seem many more units and probably two or more years of work are needed before the 1MW E-Cat can go on the market in volume. That could create competitive openings.
There are strategies that can shorten the timing of the process a bit, but they require even more resources. As important as this product could be, I would think massive resources should be brought to bear. Market windows can close quickly and unexpectedly. You need to be best in class and first to market to establish brand awareness. The press won’t care about who is number two!
Dear Andrea
I’m still very excited about the expectations of the ECat-X. You said that you can adjust her behaviour in order to select how the output is fractioned between heat and electricity. May I ask you some question about that?
I will assume yes 😉
1 – How fine the adjustment of that fraction can be done ? (I don’t need numbers that you probably not yet know. It’s enough if you can say that theoretically you can reach a high fine tuning or only a raw approximative adjustment of the fraction heat/electricity)
2 – When the output is switched to full electricity does it still require a heat dissipation system ?
3 – Is the light emission you reported due to the incandescence of the core ?
4 – You said that ECat-X SSM is in the order of hours. Is the SSM also present when she’s producing electricity ? This would mean it’s a device that produce hours of electricity without any input and any storage. It sound too good to be true.
5 – Please please please hurry up with the processing of the results of the 1 year test. My wait muscle is its end 🙂
God bless you
Marco Serra
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Can we have an update?
Thanks,
Xax
Kevin Evans:
You asked me, by a comment I have not been able to recover, if the fact that the charges of the 1 MW E-Cat had a lifespan of almost one year now makes our expectation of charges lifespan of one year also for the next E-Cats we’ll produce, either industrial or domestic.
The answer is yes, probably, F9.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Joseph Fine:
I hope that what you are proposing will be possible. Theoretically it could be, but we have to experiment it. F9.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea:
Can multiple E-Cat X’s be configured such that the electrical output from one E-Cat X can ‘drive’ (via thermal heating) one or more second-level E-Cat X’s? That is, if you can generate enough electricity from one E-Cat X to drive two (or more) second-level E-Cat X’s, could this concept be extended so that enough electricity can be generated from two second-level E-Cat X’s to drive four (or more) third level E-Cat X’s. Et cetera?
I am NOT suggesting a 64-level system!
If possible, could there be a multiple-level system design (in which E-Cat X systems can be “switched-into or out-from”) that is both productive and robust to outages/down time?
For example, first-level systems could be changed in/out as required since a first level system/systems would be the major input(s) to this entire concept.
( Maybe systems in SSM could be switched into the first level systems, to minimize total input power demand. )
The idea is that with limited external electrical power, a multi-level system could reliably and flexibly produce electricity and/or heat as required.
Powerful regards,
Joseph Fine
Umbi:
Obviously, if we will realize a domestic E-Cat it will be distributed also in Europe. F9.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Domestic E-CAT I mean
No E-CAT for European Market ?
Sandy:
Time: 09.50 a.m. of Saturday January 30 2016
1 MW E-Cat: stable
E-Cat X: 2 in operation, 1 under destructive test. All very promising.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
Can we have an update of today?
Thank you!
Sandy
Italo R.:
3
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi, can you tell us what type of intervention did your team to solve the problem?
1 – replacement of parts of the plant
2 – change in operating conditions
3 – both
4 – other
Kind Regards,
Italo R.
Tom Conover:
Not so.
The count is different.
Thank you anyway from the sympathy that perspires from your comment.
The real test started in February, when we thought we were ready to start to count the days of the official test.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Koen Vandewalle:
No, it is not so: domestic E-Cat are a target for us and a very important one too.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Annmarie:
Nuclear power plants, nuclear engineering.
Does this mean: “no domestic E-Cats. Never!” ?
Kind Regards,
Koen
Dear Andrea,
It would appear that you have been operational at least 353 days, and possibly up to 386 days out of the 396 (today is #396) day test! Thank you for your hard work!
Optimistically yours,
Tom
ps: the due diligence is below:
Based on blog entries dated 12/31/14, 9/19/15, and 1/29/16 it would appear that the duration of the test lasted 394 days to date. As of 9/19/15 you had experienced less than or equal to 28 days of down time, or 0.106464 days per day of down time. Extrapolating the above, you may have experienced an additional 14 days of downtime from 9/19/15 through 1/29/2016, for a total of 42 down days. The time range from 12/31/14 through 1/29/2016 is 395 days of operation, of which approximately 42 days of time the plant may have been down, meaning that you experienced operational status for 353 days out of 400 days during the testing period.
The 28 days is a maximum number per your blog, with a possible reality of as little as 8 actual days down, which would dramatically change this estimated time of operational status. Also the period from 9/19/15 through 1/29/2016 had almost daily operational status reports, NONE of which indicated an operational status that required flagging as a “non operational” day …
So, unless the worst case was experienced, and your blog reporting was severely biased in the positive, may I congratulate you on achieving the 350 of 400 days of operation that the contract with the customer required?
I think you and your team might want to throw your hats in the air and shout hurrah! It really shouldn’t matter if you had some troubles during the test period, the bugs can be worked out and like you said, the redesign process will correct most if not all of them.
Jim:
Thanks to you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mario Peters:
No, I just wanted to joke about the fact that the requested information is confidential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dan C.:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dan C.:
Sure!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gerard MkEk:
I never said the 1MW E-Cat has been stopped !!!
She is continuing her operation.
Please read better the related comments.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
In your response to Annmarie: about the specialization of the Expert Responsible for Validation certification agency, you answered “Nuclear power plants, nuclear engineering” which would include a vast overall range of expertise, e.g. electronics, boilers, heat exchangers.
Correct?
Dan C.
Dear Andrea,
“Pneumonia”
You mean, you don’t know how to destroy your Ecat-X 🙂
She is stuttering and you do not know the drug to help her to her end?
anyway this is intresting news.
Just keep on the info. 🙂
Greetings,
Mario Peters
Dr Andrea Rossi
Thank you for your magnificent website http://www.ecat.com and for your US Patent. Both impressive.
Cheers,
Jim
Dear Andrea,
“It is over. Trouble resolved thanks to our great Team!”
Thank god for rubber mallets…
Regards,
Dan C.
Dear Andrea,
With you I am very disappointed with the early stop of the plant. I can understand that the fuel did last less long as expected, but that should not be a criterium for disqualification. 1. Do you agree?
I am sure that when the efficiency is high more fuel (and less energy) is used.
2. Do you agree?
3. Is there another reason than exhaustion of the fuel that has stopped the plant?
4. Have you already taken the plant apart to examine what has gone wrong?
5. Have all four E-cats failed, or were supporting system failing?
I am sure you will find a way out and I will keep on supporting you!
Thanks and kind regards, Gerard
Oeystein Lande:
Not yet.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Frank Acland:
It is over. Trouble resolved thanks to our great Team!
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
What do these troubles mean for the test in progress? Is it over, or will you need to bring in new reactors?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dear mr. Rossi,
Can you say something of what criteria Will be used to decide If test is a success?
Guiliano Bettini:
Pneumonia.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Elise:
Please, understand that to put in the markes an immature product in our case could be devastating.
There is nobody in the world that more than me desires to put massively the E-Cat in the market, but we are not ready. Too bad about sceptics.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
René Bergeron:
at 10.10 a.m. of Friday Jan 29 2016:
1 MW E-Cat : troublesome, lowest efficiency, working on it. Not a good night, honestly.
E-Cat X: remade another to continue destructive tests
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jane:
I like those designs (made in Sweden by a specialist) and they will be the final design, F9.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
In http://www.leonardocorporation.com I saw the artistic reproductions of the 1 MW E-Cats as they should be when they will be industrialized. Are these conceptual designs still valid or you changed idea?
Cheers,
Jane
Dr Andrea Rossi
Can we have an update also today?
René
Dr Rossi,
Do you understand that the fact that you did not put in the market diffusely the E-Cats is food for the sceptics?
Elise
Buongiorno Andrea.
A friend of mine wrote (we all are very curious…):
“I think the type of destruction will provide us with answers. Past destructions were explosive and indicated perhaps a runaway nuclear reaction. If the destruction is relatively slow (melt down or arcing) it would indicate thermal or electrical effects.”
How is the E-Cat X dead?
Respectful greetings
Giuliano Bettini.
Italo R.:
If things will go well, there will be a transition to the industrialization.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi, some assumptions. On the end of the test (as it will be positive, I am sure), the Plant will remain in operation for the Customer, but I do not think that you will still be 18 hours a day inside the container. I think that the Plant will be managed by some of your team and you will use most of your efforts and time to continue the research and development especially on the E-Cat X.
Am I far from reality?
Kind Regards,
Italo R.
Annmarie:
Nuclear power plants, nuclear engineering.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Myesha Chamber:
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Carrol Macksey:
At 04.50 p.m. of Thursday January 2016
1 MW E-Cat: stable
E-Cat X: in operation 2, one in examination.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Sebastian:
I do not know, but I do not think so.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Which is the professional specialization of the expert responsible for validation (ERV) that is directing the measurements of the 1 MW E-Cat in operation in the factory of the customer?
Regards,
Ann
Dear Andrea,
At this point is it still a possibility for the test to be completed in February with positive results?
Warm Regards
Dr Rossi:
Can we have an update today?
Carrol
Dr Andrea Rossi
Fantastic website http://www.leonardocorporation.com
Thank you,
Myesha
Dave K:
Thank you for your insight, with which I fundamentally agree.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I understand the demands on your time, so I try not to clutter your blog too often. I appreciate the courtesy and patience with which you answer questions (some of them over and over again), and I find I generally agree with your actions and with what I understand is your path forward.
I have worked on products (both in R&D and Manufacturing) that were produced in high volume. The products were complex and required precision, but the technology was fairly well understood. Even so, I remember being told that it took a tool maker a full year to make a certain mold for a single plastic gear. Well understood technology is not necessarily easy, and moving to production can be a very slow process! In our products, after testing a few hundred
units for almost a year, final design decisions were made. From that point, it took about another year before the product could be introduced to the public. Manufacturing lines (which are almost always prototype in nature) had to be tested, channels stocked, worldwide marketing efforts started, etc. I am proud to say that our products were best in class and dominant in market share.
The point I would like to raise with you is simply whether you feel the size of your team and the resources being brought to bear are well matched to the magnitude of the problems you face. For example, to test reliability, a rudimentary Weibull plot requires at least five units be tested to first failure. This seems to require 5 containers of E-cats instead of one. Since the product must be very reliable for industrial use, the first failure must not occur for many months, if not years (assuming burn-in is not required and the shape factor, usually called Beta, is not << 1).
In short, it would seem many more units and probably two or more years of work are needed before the 1MW E-Cat can go on the market in volume. That could create competitive openings.
There are strategies that can shorten the timing of the process a bit, but they require even more resources. As important as this product could be, I would think massive resources should be brought to bear. Market windows can close quickly and unexpectedly. You need to be best in class and first to market to establish brand awareness. The press won’t care about who is number two!
Buona fortuna!
Dave