eCatNews Direct to your MailBox

Enter your email address to follow the ecat story ahead of the crowd

I loathe spam. You can unsubscribe at any time. I will not pass your details to a third party

Rossi eCat To Breed Across USA

October 30, 2011

The 1MW unit has gone and the next phase begins:


  • Luke Mortensen

October 30th, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Dear Andrea,

1. Is the 1MW container gone?
2. Have you started building another 1MW in another container?
3. Any improvements you want in version 2?
4. Will the buyer of the next 1MW container be the same customer or a different customer?
5. What city will you be working (hiring) in the US?

Best wishes,
Luke Mortensen


  • Andrea Rossi

October 30th, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Dear Luke Mortensen:
1- yes
2- yes
3- yes. gaskets
4- different
5- Miami (Fl), Boston (Ma), Manchester (N.H.)
Warm Regards,

Gotta love answer 3.


  • Dear Dr. Rossi,
    We, Turkish cold fusion team – in 1989, are interested in your E-Cat system and specially in the test results of 1 MW E-Cat unit. According to the first evaluation of your results on 28th October 2011, it seems that you are successful even if you get approximately the half of the suggested amount- 1MW- . But at this point, I have some questions to make the matter clear.

    From the viewpoints of engineering and economics, as you know the evaluation of the efficiency of the system should be made overall. I mean,

    1.What is the magnitude of the energy that is consumed for providing Ni/Catalyst system (probably including the supplement of electromagnetic wave) which is used in your process? This energy should be considered in the calculation of overall energy efficiency of the system if the amount of that energy is not negligible compared to energy input -as heat- to the unit at initial. This point can be very important if a special synthetic isotope of Nickel is used or formed in your process at initial and also if the activity life time /stability of Ni- Catalyst is low.

    2.What is production/operation cost of Ni/Catalyst system and also what is it’s activity life time? And specially the cost of this catalyst on the base of it’s active life time (hydrogen cost can be neglected) should be taken into account for unit cost of energy output in your unit.

    Thank you very much for your response in advance.
    Kind regards,
    Prof. Serdar S. Celebi (Ph.D. in Chemical Eng.)

I’m not sure what he means here as the SI units appear mixed…[snip - see ETA below]

[ETA John Dlouhy points out the following in the comments section:
Admin, I don't think Rossi was mixing units. I believe what Celebi was asking for was the embodied energy of the Nickel/catalyst preparation process, which he suspected might be high due to the isotope enrichment.  Rossi answers " About 200 Wh/MW". I take that to mean 200 Wh(watt-hours) which is a measure of energy, is used to prepare one fuel charge  for a 1 MW power reactor (which apparently lasts 6 months). 200 Wh is only 1/5 of a kilowatt-hour, an insignificant amount of energy if his response was correct.

This sounds more likely the true interpretation to me. Thanks, John]

October 30th, 2011 at 3:52 AM

Dear Gianluca:
We have already started the commercialization of the industrial plants. For the household E-Cats we have started the authorization process.
Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

October 30th, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Dear Carlo:
Paradoxically, it’s easier to get authorizations for a 1 MW plant than for a household unit.
There is a difference between experimentation and contractual tests.
The work is going on.
Warm Regards,


This was an assumption I made in an earlier post and hopefully answers some of our more incredulous readers who thought it would be impossible to get permissions. True, this is just a ‘Rossi Says’ but he is experienced in dealing with high energy units and I see no reason to doubt the above.

Posted by on October 30, 2011. Filed under Business,Media & Blogs,products,Rossi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

108 Responses to Rossi eCat To Breed Across USA

  1. H. Hansson Reply

    October 30, 2011 at 10:29 pm

    I wonder how he would deal with the antitrust laws in USA and EU?? His goals seems to be having full control over the core technology (only he should produce and distribute the charges, and he only). Remember what happened in 1911 with Rockefeller’s “Standard oil”.

    And there are also strategic components.. will USA allow that all clean energy in the future will be produced outside USA??.. think: what happens if Italy goes out i generals trike, political turmoil.. etc??

    • CM Edwards Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 1:33 am

      If he gets US patents, he’ll have a monopoly on the patented designs for a period of years. Anti-trust laws should not be an issue during that time.

      As for Standard Oil, they became Esso, which later became Exxon. They may have fared better without the anti-trust breakups, but, considering Exxon-Mobile’s current status as one of the world’s top earning corporations, the suffering was not too terrible.

      I think Rossi’s US operations stand to do quite well if he can get past the import-export paperwork and other licensing issues.

    • Anderson Roger Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 2:06 pm

      I’m waiting for the Chinese to start building “pirate” E-Cats.

      The “China-Cats” will be all over Asia in a few months. They will be smuggled to India, Thailand, Indonesia, and even Russia. After one year, they will be in South Africa, Brazil and Mexico.

      Rossi’s patents will give him a lot of money from the USA, Canada and Western Europe.

      But in Eastern Europe, in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the “China-Cats” will be the law. Meow…

      • Stephen Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 9:53 pm

        And in Vancouver BC Canada as well, it is part of Asia already… The hard part will be to smuggle them through Alberta…

  2. Sojourner Soo Reply

    October 30, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    Here’s a new article at Forbes by Mark Gibbs:

    It’s instructive that he fails to mention that the proceeds from the private sale of the 1MW E-Cat will allow Rossi to pursue the scientific tests at the universities in Uppsala and Bologna, tests that one hopes will provide the proof the skeptics require. I hope this confirmation takes place as soon as possible. Speaking of which, how long will it take before a “respected” physicist comes out and says it’s real and provides incontrovertible proof? And what’s the holdup with Peter Svensson of Associated Press?

    • Jay Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 12:50 pm

      Whats the hold up? There is no hold up. There is nothing to report.

      How embarrassing would it be for the AP to report a story about a test involving a secret black box no scientist is allowed to inspect, done by secret engineers, all the while hooked up to a 500KW diesel generator that was running, then sold to a secret buyer, which then whisked the device away to a secret location, and gave Rossi a secret check for it. Really? The AP does not report mere rumors and speculation, they need some meat. I would NEVER publish this story if I were the AP. There is nothing here to report, just smoke and mirrors.

      • Rockyspoon Reply

        November 1, 2011 at 4:06 am

        And I hope they keep it that way. The AP, along with the current administration, has an agenda—you don’t belive me? Well, Obama says he identifies with the Occupy Wall Street people, so let’s saunter down there and see what those occupants want: They simply want the destruction of the capitalist system, is all. (And the way Obama’s been behaving since he became president, it isn’t surprising in the least that they’re all kindred spirits.) The main stream media agrees and champions their cause, so since the AP and the New York Times are two outspoken entities carrying water for that nefarious agenda, I don’t care one whit that they deep-six the entire story. Even if they did report it, there wouldn’t be anything positive said about it.

        • John Dlouhy Reply

          November 1, 2011 at 6:03 pm

          I find your post difficult to follow. Obama has been blamed for PANDERING to Wall Street interests after campaigning on the idea that he supported the little guy. The mass media IGNORED Occupy Wall St. for several weeks until they were practically forced to cover it by alternative online media. And the protesters stand for more fairness and accountability by the greedy, self serving elite of the corporatocracy that is destroying America by making a mockery of democracy, and you call that nefarious?

          Maybe I misunderstood you. I certainly hope so…

      • Hollis Reply

        November 1, 2011 at 6:28 pm

        If the 500kW generator was responsible for running the pumps and heating the water, considering that electric water heaters max out at about 90% efficiency, where did the extra 28kW+ come from (500kW total possible output – 50kW – electric water pump consumption = ~450kW)? And there are any number of reasons a buyer would want to remain anonymous, why the amount paid would be unknown and why the destination of the device remained unknown (mostly because the buyer wouldn’t remain anonymous otherwise). I’ll agree that the experiment does not really “prove” the device to the general public, but you should consider your criticisms more carefully.

  3. Don Witcher Reply

    October 30, 2011 at 11:03 pm

    It looks to me like Rossi has the customers lined up and waiting for all he can produce. Thats not hard for me to understand. There are are places in this world as we speak where taxpayers are essentially subsidizing fuel oil costs of$400 a gallon delivered. The one megawatt ecat can substitute for 200000 gallons a year at full utilization. If the ecat works then it would be criminal not to put it to work now. Let the guys who are in a position to make those decisions make them and cease with the silly criticism.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 8:33 am

      I would imagine that fuel oil imported by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq is primarily intended for vehicle fuel, but power generation usage must comprise a significant proportion of the total. I asked AR if he plans to build an oil-cooled 1MW unit for power generation and he confirms that this is on its way. I wonder though if the military types would be happy with the idea of using what they may consider a strategic invention in areas where a unit might fairly easily end up in the ‘wrong hands’?

  4. H. Visscher Reply

    October 30, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    It seems he sold a second machine
    Andrea Rossi
    October 30th, 2011 at 5:56 PM
    Dear Hampus:
    1- From 30 to 100 for the first year is what we are already ready to make, but we will get exponentially faster in time
    2- done
    3- this is a more complicated issue, because we need complex certifications
    Warm Regards,
    October 30th, 2011 at 3:54 PM
    Great work.
    1. How many 1 megawatt plants can you sell in one year do you think?
    2. When is the next sell?
    3. When will the home plants be available for pursued?
    I know time is of the essence, that’s why my questions are so rash. Thanks for you answers the mean alot for me.
    Hampus Ericsson

    • Peter Roe Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 12:07 pm

      If he is really selling these things as fast as he can make them, then presumably he is not letting his customers buy into the technology as I and others had assumed. That means he must be selling them simply as working heaters, and presumably soon as power sources for electricity generation. I wonder what he is doing to protect himself from anyone who might borrow a module or two from their purchases for reverse engineering purposes? He still has very little in the way of patent protection. It’s hard to believe that purchasers would accept for example, little tamper-proof thermite bombs in each reactor!

  5. Tom Baccei Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 12:31 am

    referring to the discussion on the previous blog page:

    Wow! The flat earth crowd is sure out in force. Must be Halloween. Have any of them ever read a book on logic, or critical analysis. Their dogged determination is truly epic. I suppose it is true that a light bulb burns brightest just before the darkness moves in. I am sorry Soo that you have had to stand up to these senseless bullies alone. Their points are ALL retreads, and have the frantic quality of wishing / hoping / praying that none of this is true because it will shatter their calm, quite fantasy of understanding anything important about either nature or science. AR has not “vanished” with the money. Their claims of fraud are completely unfounded, without a shred of evidence, yet they cling to them like Pope Urban VIII to the geocentric universe. The debate with the skeptics, in this matter is over. LENR is a fact. They, and their employers do NOT like that, and this avenue of discrediting it goes through the sieve of people skeptical of them. Get out of the way if you cannot grasp the fact that empirical evidence has time and again shown that all of your self important rejections are pointless. You are wrong, no, not even wrong (as Hans Bethe would say) in the current debate., You will no longer be able to control reality or our perception of it, so, have a nice day!
    And my comment to Soo, and the rational observers of this remarkable breakthrough, just have a laugh when popeye and MY show up in different guises. It is they who are the wizard of Oz. Ho Ho!

    • John Dlouhy Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 1:35 am

      Tom, that was a very passionate tirade. Don’t you agree, though, that it would be nice to hear the story reported from a major news medium, or to hear a statement from the customer, assuming its a significant entity, or even one scientist officially representing an academic institution who openly gives their unqualified support?

      Unless you are privy to some special information that the rest of us are not, I think your statement that “LENR is a fact” may be a bit premature. I say this bearing in mind the true definition of a fact which is a series of independent observations in close agreement. I do feel that the circumstantial evidence is mounting though, which warrants continued interest in the field.

      You say that the skeptic’s points are all retreads, but so, it would seem, are the tired speculations of the unsubstantiated believers as to the skeptic’s motives. This notion that they are being paid is just plain silly. Who would possibly care what a handful of people on an obscure news blog are writing? These guys are just internet junkies that spend all day online and feel a little more alive when they can get a rise out of people. You’d be surprised how fast they would leave if no one engaged them.

      Also, don’t worry about poor Soo. She’s french, and I’m quite sure she can take care of herself. (judging by the 2 french girls I’ve dated!)

      One last thing, whenever I encounter an anonymous pseudoskeptic, I just assume its a 300 pound male Starbucks employee from Detroit…The free coffee gives them the energy to post like mad, the free wireless to get online, and Detroit’s dismal economy means no one is buying $6 coffees, therefore they have all the time they need to post a thousand times a day. Also they can wager Starbucks coffee cards if anyone bets them!

      • Sojourner Soo Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 3:09 am

        I’m French? News to me.

        • Ted Hoekman Reply

          October 31, 2011 at 3:21 am

          I guess some think all Canadians are French, I am Canadian also but also not French :)

          • Stephen

            October 31, 2011 at 10:00 pm

            People from France are French. People from Canada might or might not be French Speaking. And an English name is no warranty of a primarily English speaker. My name is as Anglo as can be and my first language is French. And no, we do not live in igloos.

      • Peter Roe Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 8:49 am

        Tom’s observations seem completely fair to me. The only question of even faint interest might be what proportion of the rabid skeptics we see ranting away are on some kind of strange personal mission (Starbucks man) and how many are actually paid shills for vested interests (MY, thicket etc).

        “it would be nice to hear the story reported from a major news medium”. Wouldn’t it indeed. It’s 3 days since Peter Svenson and his photographer attended the 1MW test for Associated Press on an exclusive basis. So where is the story?

        If the media had to wait for 3 days for the news that the US president had been assassinated, or that a meteor had obliterated Belgium, they might start to look elsewhere for their information.

      • Rockyspoon Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 1:11 pm

        My bet is you’ll NEVER see anything about the E-Cat coming from the AP–at least not for the near term UNTIL it becomes so pervasive that they’ll do a huge centerfold and provocative cover claiming one of their writers should receive the Pulitizer Prize for breaking the story. They’ll be in cahoots with the New York Times on this (since they both run in the gutter together), and any Nobel prizes in the future will NOT go to Rossi, but to some obscure AP-annointed researcher nobody ever heard of and that never did one ounce of effort to get this thing off and going.

        But to go on an adhominen attack on somebody just because they ask a completely embarrassing question of brainless skeptics is way out of line. I could start going after your level of mentality, where you live, what you do for a profession, and it wouldn’t further the conversation one whit, now would it? So stop it.

      • RERT Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 1:41 pm

        My take is that Mr.Svensson is calculating whether he should risk his career, and AP’s reputation, on breaking news on something which hasn’t been validated independently and might – just – turn out to be false. The Curse of Fleishmann & Pons (good topic for Halloween!) is alive and well.

        If anybody is left who doesn’t believe that social pressures are a factor in research, watch the guy from Rowan University in the Blacklight video recently linked to here, who manages to avoid uttering the term ‘Cold Fusion’ or even LENR despite that being the topic of his project.

        • Peter Roe Reply

          October 31, 2011 at 8:25 pm

          You’re probably right. Rather begs the question of why Svensson attended at all though, if he had no intention of reporting what he saw.

    • Spyros Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 9:30 am

      I think, a percentage of denying is mere “mind inertia”. At the other hand AR’s experiment is not enough documented. A quantity of “wishfull thinking” is n0t so bad, we live in very degenerated epochs with the collapse of capitalism and free market. Let’s hope AR’s effect will come to the people.

  6. John Dlouhy Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 12:53 am

    Admin, I don’t think Rossi was mixing units. I believe what Celebi was asking for was the embodied energy of the Nickel/catalyst preparation process, which he suspected might be high due to the isotope enrichment. Rossi answers ” About 200 Wh/MW”. I take that to mean 200 Wh(watt-hours) which is a measure of energy, is used to prepare one fuel charge for a 1 MW power reactor (which apparently lasts 6 months). 200 Wh is only 1/5 of a kilowatt-hour, an insignificant amount of energy if his response was correct.

    • Don Witcher Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 1:29 am


      I agree with your number although it seems too good to be true.
      EROEI(energy return on energy invested) is a big concern in the green energy business because it can often be less than one when a proper analysis is done. The debate still rages about a proper number for ethanol.

      • John Dlouhy Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 1:50 am

        Yes, the EROEI is a big deal in alternative energy economics. It tends to be overlooked by most greeners, but to the people actually in the industry its central. My understanding is that most of the commonly touted alternatives don’t return more energy than they take to make or to build. One problem I see is that classical economics underestimates the energy content of goods and services. This yields a better EROEI than actually exists.

        You’re right about ethanol, in fact, photovoltaics are still being debated too. They are always getting cheaper, but still, when you consider that they age, have a high cost, and include necessary ancillary costs (in energy terms) they are still marginal.

        EROEI is a fascinating subject when applied to petroleum. It explains why the world is getting poorer even as we pump larger and larger amounts of oil. The problem is when you subtract from the total production, the amount used by the oil industry itself to recover that oil, the NET amount being produced is actually in decline. Net oil is what creates wealth, along with other forms of net energy.

        • Don Witcher Reply

          October 31, 2011 at 3:16 am

          Right on. The oil industry understands this and I personally think that they will start to embrace LENR in a big way soon. At least the enlightened part will. A good analogy is probably Old Hollywood vs TV. A part of the industry will fight it and perish of course. Known as “survival of the fittest” I think.

          Soo will probably find this interesting since I sense she has a thing about the oil sands.

        • Peter Roe Reply

          October 31, 2011 at 9:14 am

          Soo is concerned about tar sands exploitation on her doorstep, I am concerned about a vast new nuclear development on mine. The sooner both are history, the better.

          I wonder what the embedded energy cost of nuclear fission is, when ALL factors including mining, refining, construction, maintenance, reprocessing, decommissioning, disposal and storage are taken into consideration? It seems surprisingly difficult to obtain reasonably reliable figures for anything except cost of construction and running costs, and I am reasonably sure that none of the politicians who (for whatever reasons) continue to support this energy source can be aware of the real numbers, or would understand them if they were.

          • John Dlouhy

            October 31, 2011 at 3:07 pm

            Actually Peter, I believe cost is all you need to evaluate the embodied energy. There’s a school of thought that the ENTIRE cost of a good or service is ultimately due to its embodied energy. Its a radical idea but is gaining acceptance. Search thermoeconomics or biophysical economics. The high cost of nuclear power and its subsidization tells us its very energy intensive. It still produces net energy, I believe, or it wouldn’t be commercially viable on the scale that it is used. If we applied true cost accounting though, and included the management of and elimination of nuclear waste through neutron processing, I suspect it would not be viable at all. Thank goodness there’s no law against poisoning future generations, otherwise we’d have to pay a bit more for our stuff…

          • Peter Roe

            October 31, 2011 at 8:58 pm

            “If we applied true cost accounting though, …., I suspect it would not be viable at all.”

            Exactly. The idea that cost is proportionate to embedded energy is probably a good guide where the situation is relatively straightforward. However with the nuclear industry there are a number of complications connected with the construction of nuclear weapons and more recently with the disposal of embarrassingly large piles of plutonium-rich waste. The current proposed new-build generation of stations here in the UK and Europe for instance just happen to be optimised for burning MOX (mixed oxides, up to 50% plutonium oxide) – the stuff that caused so many brown trousers at Fukushima Daitchi 3. The initial licenses are for uranium, but it only takes a minor ‘technical amendment’ to the license to change from merely dangerously unsafe to terminally stupid.

            The reason? Here in the UK a hoodwinked or otherwise influenced minister was gulled into spending £billions (no-one knows how many) of taxpayer’s money on a very large ‘reprocessing’ plant in the north of England, which now has plutonium piled so high they have no idea what to do with the stuff (and now leaking profusely into the Irish sea and the local groundwater). Just storing the garbage costs huge piles of money, they can’t sell it, and for some reason no-one wants it stored anywhere near *their* back yard. So enter a new generation of potentially plutonium burning reactors… problem solved.

            The main would-be builder of these monstrosities is on the verge of bankruptcy in France, the prototype reactor there has been declared unsafe by experts, yet magically when they want to build several of the same unsafe design in the UK, objections (even ones from government watchdogs) are ignored, planning consents are no problem at all and they seem to have almost unlimited resources to build their new stations. The ongoing stupidity (if we are being charitable) of politicians is seemingly boundless.

    • admin Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 8:20 am

      Thanks, John. Sorted.


  7. pedrone Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 1:48 am

    raul heining
    October 30, 2011 – 8:35 pm | Permalink

    If you knew a little bit of physics, not much, you would read a lot of nonsense in that article.
    It is like making a model full of speculation and imprecision. All publications refused to publish his paper because of the nonsenses written in it. It does not predict anything.
    I could even accept some ideas but when he starts to talk about antigravity, zitterbewegung, particles loosing spin when close to light speed, trajectories like in classic mechanics in quantum domain, I have to talk against. I have exchanged some words with him in an other article but is like talking about a landscape with a blind and even in Brasil, his country, he had a lot of troubles talking to people who know what they say.

    October 31, 2011 – 1:32 am | Permalink

    Raul, probably you are speaking about speculations like this one, used by a reviewer of a journal of physics so that to reject Guglinski’s paper, as he mentioned in his article:

    ”It is hard for me to believe those dificulties raised in this manuscript will have escaped the scrutinity of all those proeminent particle theorists. For instance, the author proposes a new Planck constant for the uncertainty principle in the femtometer scale. Had this been true, the string theorists should have encountered the difficulty long time ago and even have proposed their own third different Planck constant”.

    In his comment in Rossi’s blog in October 2nd, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Guglinski tells that his speculation was corroborated by an astronomical observation in July 2011.

    Look what Guglinski worte:

    First of all, we have to consider that obviously the fundamental quantum energy in nature must be connected to the underlying quantum ‘graininess’ of space, since the space [quantum vaccuum] is filled with energy, according to Quantum Mechanics.

    A new astronomical observation has shown that any underlying quantum ‘graininess’ of space must be at much smaller scales than previously predicted:
    Constraints on Lorentz Invariance Violation using integral/IBIS observations of GRB041219A
    Phys. Rev. D 83, 121301(R) (2011) [5 pages]

    Dr. Laurent, leader of the astronomical observation, said:
    ”Some theories suggest that the quantum nature of space should manifest itself at the ‘Planck scale’: the minuscule 10^-35 of a metre, where a millimetre is 10^-3 m.

    However, Integral’s observations are about 10 000 times more accurate than any previous and show that any quantum graininess must be at a level of 10^-48 m or smaller.

    “This is a very important result in fundamental physics and will rule out some string theories and quantum loop gravity theories”

    So, this new astronomical observation is suggesting that current theories are wrong, and Quantum Ring Theory is correct.

    Therefore, dear Raul, while you and the most physicists consider unacceptable some Guglinski’s speculations (because in contrast with the dogmas of quantum mechanics), the experiments are suggesting that Guglinski’s speculation is correct, and you and the most physicists (together with your beloved quantum mechanics) are wrong.

    But you are right, Raul.
    Guglinski is not a scientist. He is an engineer. If he should be a scientist, probably he could never make the discoveries he did, because he would be one more closed-mind theorist among the scientists.

    • pedrone Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 2:05 am

      I also dont understand what you have against antigravity.

      Look what Guglinski wrote in Rossi’s blog, about an experiment suggesting that gravity is stronger than the physicists believed:

      There is only one possible hypothesis: the space is filled with attractive and repulsive gravitons, and they interact with the same force of the electromagnetism.
      But such “soup” of attractive and repulsive gravitons works with a resultant atrraction force 10^40 times weaker than electromagnetism.

      Such hypothesis is corroborated by an experiment made in 2006 at the European Space Agancy, by Martin Tajmar and Clovis de Matos:
      The First Test That Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong
      The experiments detected a gravity force no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein’s General Relativity predicts.

      Why are not the physicists interested to repeat the experiment made by Martin Tajmar and Clovis de Matos ? (in order to verify if gravity indeed can be very stronger than the physicists believe).

      Therefore, I dont understand you, dear Raul.
      Are you suggesting that we have to reject that experiment?

      Are you encouraging us to betray the scientific method?

      Why do you hate experiments that deny the prevailing theories you love?

    • raul heining Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 9:21 am

      Results like that are not new. You only need to see the result of neutrinos being quicker than light and the scientists asking for a replication to find the experimental fault.
      I even know one that said that light was quicker in the beginning of the universe.
      The problem is that many people tend to see quantum mechanics as a reality when it is only a tool to work in microscale systems and a very good one indeed, with a very elegant formalism. Planck constant is specially usefull because tells us our inability to look inside some places due to experimental intrisique error made by our interaction with those systems. A smaller “planck constant” for a system would mean we could look much further inside that system. I see a lot of people mixing general realativity with quantum mechanics, two things which don’t mix well. Guglinski is like a lot of speculators taking here and there some possible explanations of phenomena probably caused by experimental error or wrong interpretation and trying to build a building of mixed speculations without looking at the consequences of what they say.

      • georgehants Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 9:37 am

        raul heining, you said
        “The problem is that many people tend to see quantum mechanics as a reality when it is only a tool to work in microscale systems and a very good one indeed,”
        You have moved wonderfully into the esoteric in that by your reasoning, correct of course, their is no” reality” in anything known.
        QM as you say is based on theory and measurement the same as SR and GR and every other law of Physics.
        QM describes reality to a degree of accuracy matched only by SR, Quantum has never been wrong, SR if the FTL results are confirmed will need updating immediately, as always we open-mindedly wait and see.
        It is wonderful to see you excepting that we know nothing of the fundamental origins of anything and that clearly an open-minded approach, tolerant of all propositions and hypothesises is the only way forward.

  8. Francesco CH Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 3:04 am

    TG2 (State-owned news programme, very important in Italy) reports on the E-Cat during today’s national edition (in Italian, of course):

    • AB Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 7:22 am

      They ask an expert what he thinks about the e-cat:

      Q: Can be believe in this experiment?
      It is too early to decide whether to believe it or not, as reliable data is missing; as such a scientist can not make a statement. There is certainly experimental evidence in the last 20 years of research showing that phenomenons that have been labeled cold fusion are occurring, and these are not quite part of orthodox theories.

      Q: What is cold fusion?
      Cold fusion is a process in which two nuclei of atoms, which are the central part of an atom, combine into a bigger nucleus while releasing energy. This is nuclear fusion. It is generally believed, that this can only occur at high temperatures because there is a certain repulsion between nuclei when they come close to each other. Rossi and Focardi instead, along with others, maintain that this can occur at lower temperatures as well.

      Q: And if it was true?
      If it was true, it would be the mother of all energy revolutions as we would have cheap energy in almost unlimited amounts.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 9:26 am

      Thanks for the translation AB. Weren’t TG2 the people who were sent away from the test because AP had the exclusive rights for the day? You’d think that might p**s them off, but no sign of that it seems.

      So where is the AP story I wonder?

      • Daniel de França MTd2 Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 9:57 am

        The reporter twitted on October 26 that he would be back from travel on Monday, that is, today… I don’t know if that means anything.

      • Sojourner Soo Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 1:57 pm

        He Twittered this just under an hour ago:
        “petersvensson I’m back in the office to find a cobweb with a spider on my monitor. Hey! It was only four days!
        42 minutes ago by Peter Svensson, Technology Writer, Associated Press”

  9. Roger Barker Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 3:39 am

    I don’t understand what is going on. For starters I can’t believe any reasonable company would sign off based on the evidence of the October 28th demonstration. Then again we do not know exactly what was signed off. It could just be a “yes, we are interested in what you have to offer” instead of “this is incredible, I’ll take ten!”.

    Secondly there are once again so many flaws in the demonstration that I don’t even know where to begin. Has anyone come up with a reasonable explanation as to why a 500KW diesel generator ran for the entire duration of the test? Also if the eSabreTiger was indeed putting out 470KW of power for 5 1/2 hours then I am sure the factory would have been bloody hot. Was this the case?

    • Don Witcher Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 4:13 am

      It was not a demonstration. It was an acceptance test run by the customer for the customer. He accepted the results, paid for and took delivery of the product. The product is now somewhere in another part of the world presumably.

      • raul heining Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 9:28 am

        They will be now reverse engineering the product and Rossi will know it.
        He will be sending the device to the universities also because from now
        the secret will stop being a secret.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 9:31 am

      What a silly billy customer. Fancy buying a power unit without even checking to see if the big diesel generator was doing all the work. Lets hope they have a guarantee so they can get all their money back and buy a sensible diesel power generator.

    • AH Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 12:40 pm

      1. AFAIK there was no 500 kW generator. Allan Sterling’s *guess* was 500 kW, but his video shows 450 KVA model which yields 360 kW max at full load (just like Rossi said: 350 kW). See yellow label in the video.

      2. No one reported that the generator was running at full load. Why would we assume that? Why would we try to explain things that probably never happened?

      3. During the warm-up period the generator probably yielded less than 160 kW — about 140 kW for heating (Rossi says) and something for pumps, fans and other equipment.

      4. After the warm-up period the generator probably yielded less than 40 kW for pumps, fans and a bunch of frequency generators.

      This assuming that the engineers were not actually actors etc.

  10. H. Visscher Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 6:55 am

    More mainstream news, this time from American Reporter,321/1.html

    • Sebastian Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 1:25 pm

      I’m sorry, this is not mainstream. Joe Shea (the man behind American Reporter) seems a little esoteric…

    • John Dlouhy Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 3:31 pm

      Man, look at that picture of Fioravanti in the article! Does he look sinister or what? Do you think skinny little Andrea would dare try to cross this guy? His name should be FEARavanti! He looks like a “cleaner”, a professional hitman. Has anyone seen Rossi since the test? Spoooky. And just in time for Halloween…

    • Peter Roe Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 9:36 am

      It would be really nice if we could have a small LENR boilers on our walls first.

  11. georgehants Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 7:25 am

    Morning, like to thank “pedrone” for open-minded knowledgeable assessment of science and Guglinski.
    Rossi says “From 30 to 100 for the first year is what we are already ready to make” now allowing for a slow start up period, 52 weeks divided by 30 is approx 1 every 2 weeks.
    This means that we surly do not have long to wait for another delivery.
    This is very strong commitment by Rossi that if he does not reasonably live up to will be hard for him to justify.
    For a man with a scam he has put his neck in the noose and the trapdoor is ready to drop.
    This in my opinion is the path of a man with something to sell.

  12. georgehants Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 7:55 am

    • arian Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 8:15 am

      Thanks george

      I followed D-wave story for 4 years,this is very promising news.

  13. Renzo Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 9:12 am

    As it was to be expected the skeptics now say that eng. Domenico Fioravanti who has run the demo for the customer is incompetent, some even say he was an actor paid by Rossi or in cahoots with him. It is true we still don’t know who is the customer and we don’t have any easy way to contact Fioravanti or to verify his credentials. Howewer among the comments in Passerini’s blog there are many clues 1) he was italian 2) he probably was in the army (colonel) 3) from conversations with Lewan he seemed very competent with steam, turbines and calorimetry 4) he was in good speaking terms with the consultants of Ansaldo and Oto-Melara, it seems they knew him very well.
    Expecially this last point makes it hard to take seriously the idea that he could be fake or incompetent!

  14. Brad Arnold Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 10:42 am

    First, probably the best thing that can happen is Rossi flies under the radar until his e-cats are in the hands of multiple consumers. One very effective tactic of the oligarchy is bribing (upps, I mean “campaign donations”) and influence peddling (upps, I mean “lobbying”) to get politicians and government officials to legislate against LENR (scary “nuclear” even though no nuclear material goes in or out, and the amount of radiation is about like a TV tube or microwave).

    Second, I am personally taking steps to inform Chinese and Indian scientists and their governments using (ironically) a US government commissioned report: Ni+H+K2CO3(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. Here is a detailed description of the device and formula from a US government contract:

    There is literally no way the US and it’s ossified and corrupt government can prevent LENR from competing against it – and it will give such a competitive advantage that our “leaders” will be forced to relent. Furthermore, with the internet the main stream media can not suppress this story, they can only blockade it from their own pages, which are becoming more and more meaningless by the day anyway.

    We’ve won, and the forces of inertia and enemies of change have lost: here is a current survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization:

  15. Jit Uppal Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 11:42 am

    I am from India and wanted to contact if some one from India has contacted Mr.Rossi regrading his ecat reactor. If not I want to be the first one, can anyone give me his email? or any other contact details?

    Thank you.

    • AB Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 12:18 pm

      Rossi’s email is
      info @leonardocorp1996 .com
      (without the spaces)

      • Jit Uppal Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 1:46 pm

        Thank you sir.

  16. Daniel de França MTd2 Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 11:43 am

    “The following message was posted (waiting for moderation) in Journal of Nuclear Physics:

    Our congratulations to Andrea Rossi.
    Defkalion Green Technologies SA”

  17. Peter Roe Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 11:52 am

    We shouldn’t forget that the establishment seems to have managed to keep the Thermacore device out of the public eye and out of development for 12 years, irrespective of the internet. The developers were all made offers of early retirement, which they accepted, and the whole thing disappeared without trace immediately after that.

    The non-publication by AP is probably indicative of an intention to try to do the same with Rossi. However I agree that in Rossi’s case, wider internet use for news delivery, and the momentum he has apparently built up behind the scenes cannot now prevent the advent of cheap, clean power.

    I think that the likely scenario in the US and its puppet the UK, and most likely most of N. Europe, follows logically from your first paragraph. Politicians responding to corrupt influence, and assisted by an equally corrupt and controlled mass media, will classify LENR as a dangerous ‘nuclear’ technology and will assume control of the technology through a licensing system that effectively restricts it to corporate use, as nuclear fission is now.

    We may ‘win’ in the sense that within the next year or so, LENR will possibly begin to slowly displace oil, gas, coal and nuclear generation, but I suspect we will not see much in the way of individual benefit, or even noticeable benefit to society, at least not soon.

    • georgehants Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 11:59 am

      China may be the saviour, Any Country using Cold Fusion will economically destroy any Country not using it.

      • Peter Roe Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 12:23 pm

        Hope you’re right George. That doesn’t mean there will be no government attempt to take complete control of LENR through scare tactics though, then hand control to their friends.

      • Peter Roe Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 4:56 pm

        Correction: Thermacore successfully suppressed for 17 years, not 12.

  18. arian Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    interesting comment

    Francis on October 31, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Rossi told me directly, that he sold already 13 E-Cats.
    The price is increasing and the last customer was Tepco in Japan. Tepco will earn much money with the E-Cat and pay for the impact of the terrible crisis in Japan.

    • Tony Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 12:37 pm

      Where please?

      • Tony Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 12:42 pm

        It’s on e-catworld.

        • Sebastian Reply

          October 31, 2011 at 1:39 pm

          It was revealed as a joke…

    • georgehants Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 1:39 pm

      arian, that is (unbelievable) well done.

      • arian Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 1:58 pm

        This comment was a prank joke by a demon.

  19. Tom Baccei Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    I have an idea that might be crazy, and might possibly lead to a phenomenal project: I’d like to get interested people to consider starting an open source LENR research movement. Here are a few points that led me to think this just might work.
    * LENR should belong to everyone. AR, while brilliant (?) is still a capitalist.
    * Basic LENR devices are neither expensive not complex in design.
    * Many groups of college / high school students would love to be involved, would learn a good deal of science and engineering and produce ideas far beyond what we can imagine.
    * Basic LENR research appears to be safe.
    * Open source software provides a model of how a large number of motivated individuals can produce awesome results outside of the capitalistic model.
    * High net worth people (Branson, Gates, Pickins, Buffett etc. etc.) might well be motivated to contribute funds to help create basic start up research kits.
    * Competent R&D experts might be convinced to provide a research matrix to help insure as thorough a search as possible for catalysts, variables and design parameters.
    * MAKE magazine (a personal favorite) might well run an article, or series on basic LENR test beds, and publish some form of result matrix.
    * Perhaps Dr. Miley could provide some bare bones concepts for simple and inexpensive test beds as a starting point.
    * This would be an answer to the skeptics. We refuse to reach a conclusion on LENR based on pointless debate alone. It might begin to counteract the fatalistic sense that too many young people are coming to accept as inevitable.
    * The internet provides the communication system which would make such a project feasible for the first time in history.

    I have enjoyed this blog immensely and have tried my best to turn it to a positive note. Even the skeptics must be convinced to spend their intelligence in the unbearably pressing need we have to achieve a breakthrough, somehow in meeting energy needs and at the same time beginning to really find a way to preserve Gaia. If this is as crazy is I know it might be, I’ll change my meds. If anyone thinks it has any chance of being useful, respond here, and we can begin with an email group to further explore how to go about getting it started.
    Tom B.

    • darshan Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 1:53 pm

      Tom, Admin,

      As a start, somebody please set-up a clearinghouse wiki for Rossi’s ecat device where people can contribute on what worked and what didn’t on the lines of following.!=NP_paper
      When Deolalikar’s P-NP solution(?) came, this wiki helped all to understand what’s happening. (Though the solution is considered incomplete in this case)
      The wiki will help us to also understand point of view of people like Maryyugo, popeye and thicket also, without reading them again and again in every post

    • AB Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 1:58 pm

      I was actually thinking, that there is no sort of wiki that simply collects information (wikipedia is too conservative). Instead, the information is scattered out and mixed with discussion.

      A simple wiki not subject to dogmatic censorship might be a good start.

    • CM Edwards Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 2:35 pm

      I admire the thirst for hands on work, but I must request: Take care that you don’t let your thirst blind you.

      Unless his invention is ultimately proven fraudulent – and to some extent even if it is – Rossi has a right not to have his invention stolen just because you don’t agree with him about how to develop it. Building a working test bed reactor to see LENR for yourself is a demonstration of skill that you could be proud of. Building E-cat knockoffs to distribute them yourself in competition with the recognized inventor is unethical, and I’d be ashamed to even post it anonymously much less participate in a project dedicated to it.

      Now, having said that, a working LENR reactor is bound to have uses beyond the simple HVAC and power boiler segments being staked out by Rossi. Propulsion, process heat, and thermoelectric power are just a few of the ideas I’ve seen posted. The field would be wide open. If you can round up enough skill to get a working reactor design, you could come up with all kinds of things to do with it.

      It might be fun to be part of a project like that.

      • Tom Baccei Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 3:59 pm


        I understand your point and do appreciate the point of view.

        Rossi’s work builds upon a string of research going back over 20 years. So perhaps this should not be entirely viewed as an effort to reverse engineer it, and thus steal from AR. An important point to me is that IF Rossi has the “secret sauce” and is coveting that secret like Gollum and the ring, it is good to remember that every day, every minute of delay in further perfecting it, and putting it into wide spread use is allowing untold tons of pollutants to foul the atmosphere. I do not think that his interests trump that.
        Also it seems to me that his is only one of the many possible “secret sauces” and a widespread coordinated search would be the best way to either home in on the best techniques needed to exploit LENR energy, or, at the end justify the skeptics fears that it is all a fantasy.

        • CM Edwards Reply

          November 1, 2011 at 1:39 am

          Not entirely. Hmm…

          I’m in agreement with your last paragraph. Rossi doesn’t own LENR.

          Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s logical to cut out Rossi in the fashion you are describing. All those as yet uninterested researchers and inventors you want to bring in are not going to be deeply motivated by having an entire decade’s work knocked out from under them when their first prototype has barely left the shipping dock.

          Well, at least I wouldn’t be, and I’ve been quietly pricing materials for a month.

  20. Tony Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    • Peter Roe Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 1:57 pm

      He witnessed the world change …and the most important thing on his mind is cobwebs!

      • darshan Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 2:03 pm

        He tweeted that he is not planning to write anything anytime soon.
        Quoting: “Sorry, there’s nothing I can say at this point”

        • Peter Roe Reply

          October 31, 2011 at 5:10 pm

          There only seem to be two possibilities: 1) he saw the test but decided there was no story there, or 2) he has been told to keep his mouth shut. As he is a professional science writer and apparently made positive comments at the time, that sort of narrows the options. It seems that the world at large will not learn at this stage that we finally have a source of cheap, clean, more or less inexhaustible energy that has the potential to solve most of humanity’s current problems. This confirms for anyone needing confirmation, just how deep the rot goes.

      • Sojourner Soo Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 2:42 pm

        He needs to shake the cobwebs out of his brain and start thinking and writing that market-shattering article about the E-Cat right now. And file it once he’s gotten approval from his media masters. Assuming he even gets approval from the gatekeepers. I’m well beyond the “antsy” stage with the waiting. GRRRrrrrRRRR!

  21. arian Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    New video from 28 oct test taken by Mats Lewan

  22. Peter Roe Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    Hi Tom – There is a ‘replication’ thread over at Vortex, starting at, and more people at who seem to be trying to crack Rossi’s recipe. If you haven’t already com across these, they may be a good place to look at what is happening in this area. The thread starter at Vortex is B H Lowe (ecatbuilder) who also posts on and may own it.

    Edit: Oops – I meant to post as a reply to Tom Baccei but obviously hit the wrong ‘reply’ button.

  23. arian Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 2:30 pm

  24. darshan Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    “Occupy Wall Street” Movement can have synergy with “Don’t suppress LENR” movement.

  25. SH Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    Hey guys, i see the discussion is still going strong. Thats good.

    Just read on AR’s blog he comments on the mysterious engineer conducting the 28th oct test:

    James Bowery
    October 31st, 2011 at 8:48 AM
    Mr. Rossi, If you are liberty to disclose, what was the model of heat dissipator you used?

    Andrea Rossi
    October 31st, 2011 at 9:12 AM
    Dear James Bowery:
    The dissipator has been designed by me and the person who leaded the test, an engineer of NATO ( a Colonel) who has 30 years of experience in thermopower plants and thermodynamical systems.
    It has been designed to dissipate 4 times the necessary energy. All in the tested plant was redundant: we had 2 power generators, so that if one should fail the second would automatically had been put in operation, we had 4 pumps instead of 2, so that each pump would have a reserve, we had 2 control panels, so that ant electronic shortcoming would have been overcome by a reserve, etc: I simply could not fail, so we foresaw any possibility of failure and prepared a back up for any of it. The day before I wrote in this blog “we are ready”: when we say a thing you can bet on it.
    Warm Regards,

    • Sojourner Soo Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 3:07 pm

      Bloody military industrial complex! I thought Rossi promised he’d keep his technology out of their hands?

  26. Thicket Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    I quite enjoyed the latest Forbes article by Mark Gibbs. I especially liked his term ‘suppresists’ for a sub-group of Rossi believers. Suppresists state that if you disagree with them you must be either ignorant or in the pay of “The Man”. Government and oil companies are the prime suspects for suppressing breakthrough technology like cold fusion. Gibbs opines that suppresists wear tin foil hats.

    We have a number of suppresists on this forum. They’re easy to pick out. Look for key phrases such as ‘big oil”, “big government” and “in the pay of”. Posters here are not the first in believing that I’m in the pay of ‘someone’. I really wish that were true. I could always use more money.

    Someone on these forums actually thought I was Krivit! There’s a tin-foil hat wearer for sure. Actually I’m Bill Gates on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Tuesday and Thursday I’m Captain Kirk. On weekends I’m Napoleon. I have no time to be Krivit.

    I like the term ‘suppresists’ so much that I’ll be using it.

    A bigger Gibbs mouthful is the “it has already been solved” subgroup of believers. These are the ones that provide links to LENR/cold fusion work apparently demonstrating that the world’s energy problems have been solved. There are a number on this forum. I personally don’t bother much with this group. I prefer to focus on Rossi’s bogus cold fusion ECat. I will note that after more than 20 years of cold fusion work, I see no products at my local Wal-Mart. Of course, the same is true of hot fusion products. Nevertheless the trusty ol’ hot fusion sun still shines brightly.

    • georgehants Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 3:00 pm

      Thicket, you may be trying to disguise it but you are melting, well done,

    • Sojourner Soo Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 3:05 pm

      I’m disappointed that Gibbs neglected to mention that pathological skeptics, like yourself, are called “dementors” by some of us “suppressists.” Actually, “suppressists” is a more appropriate moniker for skeptics than it is for those who think this is real. He also neglected to point out that some of us have different criteria for determining the social validity and probability that LENR and the E-Cat is real. And it has nothing to do with a belief in a higher power, either. A little knowledge of the history of social change goes a long way towards paving the path for developing an open mind. And my mind is wide open to the possibilities, because history tells me the time is ripe for an energy revolution. Fossil fuels are fast approaching the end of their usefulness, in other words. Something’s gotta give.

  27. Thicket Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    Sofourner Soo

    I agree with much of what you’ve said. You clearly have different criteria for determining that the ECat is real. (Note: I’ll stay focussed and avoid the wider LENR discussion.) Whatever your criteria are, they are not founded in science and physics. I confess to not understanding the relevance of social validity and probability to Ecat. To me, Ecat is a technical, scientific claim, not a social one.

    I also agree that your mind is wide open to possibilities. When you know little, anything is possible. Experience, knowledge and education trains us to be more discerning, to differentiate between gold nuggets and manure. I’m not saying that you’re not trained. I don’t know your background. I think you’re not trained in the relevant scientific areas.

    I agree, without any barbs, that fossil fuels are on their way out. It may take longer than you wish, but it’s madness to use high value fossil fuels for low energy fuel needs.

    I’m glad you like the term “suppresists”. It’s quite fitting I think.

    • Sojourner Soo Reply

      October 31, 2011 at 4:06 pm

      Is nine years of university enough for you, Thicket? Try not to be so condescending. There was even some first year physics and chemistry in there somewhere. I admit that is not nearly enough for me to address all the theoretical physicists’ concerns about this, but I’m no dunce. I know enough to know that physics is still a very young science and that paradigm shifts are par for the course in that field. You’re right about one thing though: I like the “suppresists” term for people like yourself, since you all work so hard to suppress this news employing your silly retread arguments, combined with an unhealthy dose of ad hominems to drive your points home. I’m going to go out on a limb and categorically assert that LENR is real. My own training is all I require to draw that conclusion. Prove me wrong, why doncha?

      • Tony Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 4:11 pm

        Andrea Rossi
        October 31st, 2011 at 9:12 AM

        Dear James Bowery:
        The dissipator has been designed by me and the person who leaded the test, an engineer of NATO ( a Colonel) who has 30 years of experience in thermopower plants and thermodynamical systems.
        It has been designed to dissipate 4 times the necessary energy. All in the tested plant was redundant: we had 2 power generators, so that if one should fail the second would automatically had been put in operation, we had 4 pumps instead of 2, so that each pump would have a reserve, we had 2 control panels, so that ant electronic shortcoming would have been overcome by a reserve, etc: I simply could not fail, so we foresaw any possibility of failure and prepared a back up for any of it. The day before I wrote in this blog “we are ready”: when we say a thing you can bet on it.
        Warm Regards,

      • Thicket Reply

        October 31, 2011 at 4:57 pm

        Sojourner Soo

        I’ll say it a third time, since you seem to fail in reading comprehension despite extensive unversity training. I have no quarrel with LENR. I’m focussed on Rossi’s claims. Try and stay awake.

        It seems that you’re a person who doesn’t actually read posts. You skim them while busily composing your response in your mind. If you’re going to challenge me on something, make sure it’s a real issue instead of some fluff you conjure up in your mind.

        Also, your training should have told you that extraordinary claims are meant to be proven, not disproven. You can’t disprove that I have invisible pink unicorns in my closet. Why do you expect me to disprove something to you?

        • John Dlouhy Reply

          October 31, 2011 at 5:15 pm

          Lol, Thicket! You have to remember that Soo is speaking English as a second language, that is why she is confusing “suppressor” and “suppressist” How well could you debate en francais?

          As to your last point about proving vs disproving a claim, the French still subscribe to Napoleonic law in which you are “guilty until proven innocent”. That may help to explain the different points of view.

          I hope this helps a bit to smooth over the cultural gap between the french and english who have historically been at odds…

          • Thicket

            October 31, 2011 at 6:23 pm


            Thanks for the laugh. (:->) When it comes to the French, I’m doubly cursed. I’m an English speaking Canadian to the core, but I was born and am fluent in German.

            I recall that sans souci SoSoo say (that has a ring to it) that she wasn’t French.

            To have a chance debating in French it would have to be a weekend. You may recall from an earlier post that I’m Napoleon on weekends.

          • Sojourner Soo

            October 31, 2011 at 6:35 pm

            John: On the basis of my use of the word “merde” on one occasion, you draw the erroneous conclusion that I’m French. I’m not. I don’t speak French. English is my mother tongue. I’m uni-lingual, in fact. If I were to use a Latin word, would that mean I’m using English as a second language and that Latin was my mother tongue? Faulty logic annoys me. Furthermore, the etymology of the words “suppressor” and “suppresist” (the latter is not even a word, to my knowledge), would be the same, i.e. “suppress, late 14c., “to put down by force or authority,” from L. suppressus, pp. of supprimere “press down, stop, check, stifle,” from sub “down, under” (see sub-) + premere “push against” (see press (v.1)). Sense of “prevent or prohibit the circulation of” is from 1550s. Related: Suppressed; suppressing.” So, I don’t understand what you mean, quite frankly. It’s just more idiocy piled atop your previous idiocies.

            As for you, Thicket, I read your post in its entirety, twice in fact, before I responded. What you wrote, amongst all of your drivel about the Forbes piece and “suppresists,” was the claim that you “prefer to focus on Rossi’s bogus cold fusion ECat.”

            You have provided zero proof that it’s “bogus.” It’s merely an assertion based upon what you think you know about physics. It is just an educated opinion, no better or worse than my educated opinion, based upon what I know about social evolution.

            However, because what I know about social change is far more historically reliable than what you know about physics, which is, as I said, a relatively young science prone to paradigm shifts, I have far more confidence in what I “know” than in what you only think you know. In other words and in my opinion, my theories are “better than” your theories for divining the plausibility and probabilities of truth.

            And, just in case you are so long out of graduate studies that you have no idea what a paradigm shift is, I would suggest you read Thomas Kuhn’s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Or at least Google it and find out what I’m talking about. Here’s Wiki’s page:

            Have a nice day, fellas.

          • John Dlouhy

            November 1, 2011 at 12:34 am

            I am Soo sorry! I’m just trying to lighten the mood and have a few laughs. Its not my intention to offend anyone. I would apologize for calling you French but that might offend the French (the implication that its an insult to be called French!) I just received a call from my girlfriend who is French. I wanted to ask her feelings about this thread but as she is also black, I didn’t want her to find out that I might be a “white suppresist” Not sure how she might react to that!(TIC)

        • Rockyspoon Reply

          November 1, 2011 at 4:33 am

          All it takes is a more expansive view about the theory of physics and the reality of the E-Cat would put you on the wrong side of reality. Surely, you’re not saying you know everything there is to know and will ever be known about physics, are you? If you are, then you should write an all-encompassing book about the subject and eliminate the need for $billions currently being spent on research. Otherwise, be satisfied with your current level of knowledge and learn nothing new. But please, don’t evaluate what others are doing based on a partial understanding; some of us are open minded.

        • Rockyspoon Reply

          November 1, 2011 at 4:37 am

          You are maryyugo… You’re not Napoleon, or any of the other characters you claim to be.

        • Spyros Reply

          November 1, 2011 at 8:59 am

          It’s not bad to have “meta-thoughts”, that is thoughts about thoughts. I think it’s time to think about ethics, politics, economics apart from Physics. We all have an idea of how this system works, a picture not so bright and angelic.

  28. arian Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    Article about e-cat in Corante daily news a academic and scientific blog.

  29. arian Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    Andrea rossi in italian popular science magazine.

  30. georgehants Reply

    October 31, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    Rossi says that second customer within 3 months , this guy is totally genuine.

  31. Mike Edmonds Reply

    November 1, 2011 at 12:47 am

    Andrea Rossi for President! Certainly he can do more for this country (or any other) than our poletitions!

  32. Mark Dansie Reply

    November 1, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    To quote the Forbes coverage
    “until a verifiably objective analysis is conducted by an independent third party that confirms the results match the claims there’s no real news, which is utterly disappointing.

  33. Kirk Reply

    November 2, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    All the skeptics are either atheists (after all how could they not believe in the E-cat and yet believe in a superior being /beings i.e. the supernatural) or hypocrites

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>