I agree that most of the business world continues to see Rossi simply as a paranoid convicted felon con artist.   Even if he completely stopped acting like one he would never shake that image during his lifetime.

May I point out that Rossi has not taken anybody's money (from individuals) but he has only let overly enthusiastic greedy money men try to take him to the cleaners.    3 times now Rossi has given this sort enough rope and enough sharp instruments to go dangle themselves upside down and to skin themselves right properly.

Thus the importance of his current major distributors, the ones who will be making the presentations come November 25.

Rossi needs reminding that he (Rossi) is his own worst enemy when it comes to his distributor partners.

Treat your good distributor partners MUCH MUCH BETTER, Rossi.

If Rossi's distributors come out of the closet, they will take over the Rossi orders and then they will fulfill them according to their own rules.

Think of the pre-orders as simply being "indicators of Market Interest".

Rossi may eventually get dumped on by his fans or by his distributors --- it depends on how real the performance of Rossi's products get to be by then.   Rossi has promised a presentation and he has cleared the deck for his distributor(s) to participate in the presentation.

Rossi has already enhanced his light 3 times now and has it able to run off of battery power instead of wall socket power.   Rossi considers the light portion pretty much a done deal now.

We haven't seen any particulars on his little charger yet, although we know it will be relatively small and light duty (and the Gen 1 of the chargers will likely stay like that forever).

His light may well make enough incidental electric power to charge it's own internal battery once it gets lit off wall socket power for the first time.   This would be a logical extension of the spotlight housing he is working on now.

Rossi cannot control a large scale SKL device yet --- they run away from him just like Mills Brilliant Power stuff so loves to do.

I count half a dozen little Rossi proto-clones out there right now, each with their own spin on the same general theme.  

One of the group will eventually figure it out .......

Here is one of the optimistic sorts, just read it for the buzz it contains .......    

The peanut gallery in general is quoting the old Rossi truism that Rossi will not expose a technology until he has the replacement upgraded tech ready and available to sell to the "deep pockets" military / top secret community / industrial leaders.

Rossi has been asked and Rossi has responded that "his E-Cat charger works, but needs some improvements".    Rossi notes that the LED light is working great, he no issues with the light and considers it "a done product".



So here is Nixter and his read on the current situation.


Nixter • 12 hours ago

I think the minimum pre-orders of one million units is achievable if done correctly, meaning a few test units given to well-known electronics channels of popular internet influencers for reviews, you can bet that immediate claims of fraud would ensue, generating immediate interest. If the units can pass basic electrical tests done properly by an established YouTube Vlogger, huge amounts of free press might be generated as the seemingly "Impossible claims" are verified. If you haven't been following the E-Cat, the sudden appearance of this technology will look like complete fraud to the average person, to legitimize the claims this step would open the door enough to get the ball rolling.

The significance of this development is that Dr. Rossi is now willing to risk having his technology reverse engineered for a specific return of investment. This marks a turning point where the doctor is ready to expose his Intellectual Property to the general public, where the units will immediately be opened and examined by entities wishing to copy the IP.

This leads me to believe that Dr. Rossi' latest collaboration partners are indeed making progress to the point where the doctor feels it safe to release much older versions of his invention for use in devices for sale in the marketplace The premise being that his latest generation of the device is so far advanced that it will certainly succeed in functionality and marketability.

The gap between the SKLed lights older technology and his latest iterations must be enormous for the doctor to risk selling it openly. I am curious as to the identity of his latest partner(s) and how they will be able to leverage this new technology to grab a market share, the partners must have some sort of exclusivity contract that gives them rights to use, market, and sell the technology. Right now we don't have any significant evidence that any of these claims are legitimate, this will change when real world hardware is put into the hands of the free market.

Nixter and the others acknowledge Rossi's repeated pattern of not putting anything out for lease or for sale until he had the next generation of the tech debugged and working well enough to offer to the "deep pockets" military and industrial customers who could buy it now and be guaranteed a reasonable  time of exclusive use.

These folks (like APPLE) really value an exclusive market advantage.  

They value it a lot ........

https://e-catworld.com/2021/06/04/mats-lewans-view-on-current-e-cat-situation/

Mats Lewan’s View on Current E-Cat Situation
Posted on June 4, 2021 • 39 Comments

It’s been a while since Swedish journalist Mats Lewan has commented here about the E-Cat, and I was pleased to read this comment today which I think would be interesting to readers here, since Mats has been following the E-Cat story from the very beginning. Incidentally, a video of Mats’ presentation at the 2019 Global BEM has recently been posted on Youtube, and that prompted Mats to make the post below.

https://youtu.be/-3-2Jc7SvvA   It is a YouTube, just click on it and watch it.

Mats’ comment in full:

Hi Gerard, I am not sure I remember all the details of my presentation at Global BEM (I haven’t watched the video yet), but here’s my view as of today:

I think the SK was potentially commercial, but when Andrea started to do experiments with direct extraction of electric energy, I think he realised the huge advantage of this, and that the SK in that perspective became less relevant to develop further for market introduction. Also, as far as I have understood, the SKL is much less complex and therefore much cheaper to produce and maintain.

From that perspective, continuing to push the SK didn’t make sense, even though heating is a huge market. If you have a better, cheaper, and less complex product that produces electricity in stead of heat, you just use the electricity to produce heat.

As for the SKL, I was involved in some attempts to make an independent and conclusive test happen, but among other things, covid came in between.

Now, my understanding is that SKL has some way to go as an electricity generator. A combination with a battery is the logical set-up, for making it support various types of loads, for serving as a capacity buffer, and for making it self-sustained. I would be surprised if Andrea hasn’t tested this already, but some R&D plus engineering certainly remain.

If you look at the car industry e.g., you could probably use any electric/fuel-cell design—where the battery is used for buffering and for capacity variation, in combination with the fuel-cell with its fairly constant output—and switch the fuel-cell with and SKL as the electricity generator.

With the SKL having some way to go, and also being a more complex product to introduce to the market, the SKLed is in my view an excellent first product. It is simple, low-cost, useful, and easy to understand. If it starts to spread, it will also force businesses in all industries, to relate to its existence, and all discussions on whether the process is possible or not from a physics point of view will then become obsolete.

As for your last questions—I don’t plan for any interview with Andrea at this point. But I might be involved in the presentation on November 25. We will see.

EDITED/ADDED: I should add two things:

– My understanding is that nuclear reactions look less and less as a viable model from a physics point of view for explaining the process in the Ecat and in other similar processes being developed, and that the hypothesis on extraction of energy from the structured vacuum is gaining support.

– The general public and all major industries still don’t consider the possibility of discovering/inventing a new way of producing energy at all, when discussing how we could phase out fossil fuels (for climate reasons, but also for health/pollution reasons, which I often emphasize). I see this particularly in the transportation industry, where I am currently doing work on future analysis, and where such a possibility is completely absent in all discussions. On the other hand, I think it is a good thing that societies and industries have developed an awareness on the importance of energy efficiency, sustainability, circular economy etc, which most probably wouldn’t have happened if a new, abundant, clean, cheap, and carbon-free energy source would have surfaced to common knowledge ten years ago.

https://e-catworld.com/2021/06/02/electric-fusion-systems-describes-its-fusio...

I have mentioned the small crowd of Rossi copycats before, here is the latest one seeking money from investors.    This one looks like a miniature Mills reactor, actually, as it has a gas flow but so did Panetelli's and Rossi's earliest units.   It does have the Rossi style electrical pick up points, so it copies Rossi's ECAT SKL electric also.

Here is how they describe their reactor:

“We have designed and tested a compact aneutronic fusion reactor capable of delivering tens of kilowatts of power, yet scalable to megawatts. It can deliver constant, distributed energy, anywhere, anytime, without generating greenhouse gases or other waste products, or requiring expensive capital infrastructure or exotic materials, or even any oxygen or solar energy to operate”








BROOMFIELD, Colo., May 25, 2021 /PRNewswire/ — Electric Fusion Systems (EFS) announced today that it has successfully demonstrated fusion reactions in a laboratory setting. EFS is pioneering revolutionary energy technology, using novel fusion physics that does not emit dangerous radiation. The inventors and co-founders, Ken E. Kopp and Ryan S. Wood, have found an easier and safer way to generate fusion chain reactions. Their fusion reactor has been physically reduced in size to a small, portable, safe device, suitable for a wide range of applications, unlike traditional approaches to fusion technology. “We have built a series of experiments that show fusion reactions on a laboratory table top. This is confirmed via neutron detection, gamma and optical spectroscopy that substantiate fusion reactions,” said Kopp.

“What the EFS technology enables is a small, modular, and scalable fusion reactor that is safe and inexpensive to manufacture in a factory, rather than on an installation site. Our patent-pending embodiments create a globally transformative change in energy production, delivering constant, distributed energy, anywhere, anytime, without generating greenhouse gases, other waste products or dangerous radioactivity. This breakthrough technology has the ability to sustainably reduce greenhouse gases and retard climate change,” said Wood.

“We believe we have cracked the code for practical fusion. First, we do not try and contain the sun in a huge reactor as do several other technologies under development, rather, we use a cyclical induction process to harness the energy of fusion chain reactions as an electrical arc, passes through a dense plasma fuel, resulting in direct conversion to electricity. One of the keys is our unique fuel that creates a super dense plasma ten orders of magnitude denser than historically failed approaches,” said Kopp.

“What this means in a practical sense for the global consumer or industry is that EFS technology can lower the cost of electricity by a factor of ten or more for everyone. Currently, our costing models indicate an $8 per megawatt hour (or 0.8 cents per kWh) and we have not yet factored in mass production.” said Wood.

“The billions of dollars invested over the decades into fusion have been for the most part wasted. Our technology will sweep away all of those failed attempts, creating tremendous possibilities along with disruptions. Our climate challenges can be addressed in a truly meaningful way, thereby creating massive improvements in the wellbeing of humanity as a whole. With an aligned investment partner, on a small scale compared to the capital-intensive fusion projects, we can uncork the genie and begin the transformation,” said Wood.

For more information, visit www.electricfusionsystems.com or email: info@electricfusionsystems.com

Greetings,
Thank you for noticing our new release!
In an effort to provide some clarity I will provide information as I can.
Our Light Element Electric Fusion (LEEF) is not similar to the Rossi approach nor is it LENR. Our system is hot plasma and exceeds triple product requirements in every way. We simply have discovered a better and viable way.
Regards
Ken Kopp

From our FAQ:
HOW DOES EFS’S APPROACH ACHIEVE PRACTICAL FUSION?
The standard of fusion system performance is the Lawson Criterion. The Lawson criterion is a figure of merit used in nuclear fusion research. It compares the rate of energy being generated by fusion reactions within the fusion fuel to the rate of energy losses to the environment. The criterion consists of three basic elements: density, temperature, and time. These elements are used to calculate a value known as the “Triple Product”

EFS’s LEEF Triple Product is favorable for the follow reasons:

EFS’s LEEF fuel operates in a supercritical fluid state with a density orders of magnitude higher than any other known approach. LEEF densities are literally off the chart used to document the plethora other approaches.
Ion temperatures orders of magnitude higher and measured in MEV as opposed to KEV seen in other approaches result in significant chain reactions during every fusion cycle. Again, LEEF energies are literally off the chart.
In other approaches stability of magnetic confinement is the primary driver of the confinement & Fusion burn time. This has been a failure point for other approaches. The LEEF process is cyclical and fusion EMF energy is extracted every cycle via magnetic induction at very high efficiencies exceeding 90% as compared to the ~30% seen in “heat” based extraction used in other approaches. Our induction field by nature is not a steady state field nor should it be lest we suffer the same issues plaguing other programs.
In a preignition state our fuel exhibits a modified coulomb barrier by orders of magnitude through a phenomenon known as electron screening.

November 25th is getting closer and closer .......

Today, Rossi Sez .........

He already has over 100 ECat lights on display at the vendor's facility.

He is ready to produce and ship the first million lights within 6 months after orders close.

Certification of the light will be ready before the presentation, this implies some early data will be available concerning life span.    Rossi is already saying he will replace a light if it fails inside three years if it is "not tampered with" by the user.   He expects the light to last "many years of continuous use".

So far life testing simply continues on installed units even after they get improved to a new design, Rossi refers to it as "testing still continuing" because his reactor structure and his charges don't die in X months on his new stuff like they did on his old stuff.

Use as an indoor grow light is already proven out on quick growing leafy crops such as salad greens.    Grow lights look to be a good first market for Rossi as long life and extreme energy efficiency are a good fit there.

"Use as an indoor grow light is already proven out on quick growing leafy crops such as salad greens.    Grow lights look to be a good first market for Rossi as long life and extreme energy efficiency are a good fit there."

 Proven?  Where is this info?


Point is this, folks next year can file patents on slightly different hardware systems that can do the same things Rossi is doing, just quote this dead guy as your inspiration.


 If only Rossi had produced something useable sooner or collaborated in a way that turned out something tangible.  But he didn't.