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

Next eCat Customer Not So Secret

October 31, 2011

Although, we don’t know its identity.

Still, if the following is true, the nature of the first sale will not constitute a pattern. We know (or think we do) that there are more than two in the bag and more customers in the queue. With perhaps three months until eCat2 ships, I do hope we do not have to wait that long until independent verification (by the market or otherwise) comes our way. With each day, the number of players involved continues to grow. Spread over a number of different organisations, secrecy on this scale is unlikely to remain tight for long. Let us hope not.


  • G P

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I have followed for some time with passion and hope your endeavours, and hope you will be able to change things for the better.
    If you have time could you let me know:

    1- How will you be able to build between 30 to 100 plants in 2012 if it is going to take 3 months to deliver the second one.

    2- Is the second customer requiring the same level of secrecy as the first one? I am asking you this because all the skeptics/snakes will argue that you are just buying more time here (without any real buyer in sight), so if you don’t have a nondisclosure agreement as strict as the one with the first customer, you would be doing yourself and all people that are supporting you a great favour giving a little more detail.

    Thank you in advance for the consideration.

    G P

Posted by on October 31, 2011. Filed under Business,Media & Blogs,products. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

128 Responses to Next eCat Customer Not So Secret

  1. charles sistovaris

    October 31, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    – Can you give me the time please ?
    – Yes.

    …. GOD is he annoying!

    • Dan

      November 1, 2011 at 5:51 pm

      The Italian distre Genius

  2. Rick Meisinger

    October 31, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    AR has been consistent in his philosophy of spreading the technology through market acceptance vs. testing/pier review. We should be encouraged that this process has begun but need to understand that it may not be swift.

    • daniel maris

      November 1, 2011 at 2:15 am

      Yes – I think we should give him some leeway on that. I’d say a year. If there really are buyers then news about their experiences should percolate through over the next year.

      • Rick Meisinger

        November 1, 2011 at 2:03 pm


  3. Az

    October 31, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    Andrea Rossi
    October 31st, 2011 at 12:37 PM
    Dear Strat: we sell the 1 MW plants at 2000Euro/kW.
    Warm Regards,

    • LCD

      October 31, 2011 at 6:17 pm

      so 2 million a pop, Out of my pricerange lol.

  4. LCD

    October 31, 2011 at 6:16 pm

    Raul I have to agree with you. If we believe that this whole thing is indeed real (and I must admit I find it increasingly hard to fathom it being a hoax or massive mistake) then Rossi’s actions sort of do make sense.

    Nickel + (really)Water and electricity with some “common easy to manufacture” chemical and whala Mr. Fusion.

    Just how the heck are you going to stop anybody from figuring out what that catalyzer is, specially if you are selling it in the open market.

    In light of that assumption Rossi’s only play is this,

    sell alot and sellem quick before competitors figure it out. If they come out with a copy he can fight them in court but he cannot fight them if it is slightly different and for that they have to do research, which takes time and time is money.


    …he cannot do anything about the local techie making one for himself at home or selling them to his friends, no-one can.

    • raul heining

      October 31, 2011 at 9:21 pm

      Probably Rossi won’t get “very rich”. He will sell some to people interested in reverse engineering and, after that, he will be happy being famous.

  5. Shane D.

    October 31, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    I wonder if the 1 MW plants are going straight to factories to be used “as is” to satisfy their energy needs?

    Or, are they going to be taken apart, studied, improved, and then packaged a little more nicely than the raw product we see now, then used for their needs?

    It just doesn’t seem fully understood, nor trustworthy, enough to be ready for industrial applications right now.

    • daniel maris

      November 1, 2011 at 2:17 am

      It’s got to be reverse engineering – surely. No one is going to pay large amounts simply to replicate existing performance.

    • daniel maris

      November 1, 2011 at 2:17 am

      I’d love to see Rossi encourage democratic India over dictatorial China in getting this technology.

  6. arian

    October 31, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    Andrea rossi in canada media

  7. Tony

    October 31, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    Someone has nominated it for deletion:

    Please add a keep comment

    • AB

      October 31, 2011 at 7:08 pm

      I do have a wikipedia account but I’m not sure how to add a comment. Just by editing that article?

      • LCD

        October 31, 2011 at 7:17 pm


    • LCD

      October 31, 2011 at 7:17 pm


    • AB

      October 31, 2011 at 7:41 pm


    • Tom Baccei

      October 31, 2011 at 8:07 pm


    • daniel maris

      November 1, 2011 at 2:19 am

      Well Rossi has said the market will decide. Let them pull it. They will look very stupid in a year if Rossi is right. I think energy should be directed more to getting the MSM to take an interest.

  8. arian

    October 31, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    Andrea rossi in (american popular science magazine)

  9. Thicket

    October 31, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    For my last post of the day (administrator limits me to five per day) here is the latest from the Piantelli camp through the Cold Fusion Now website. It seems that cold fusion supporters will be able to buy shares to support Piantelli’s research.

    Roy Virgilio releases more details on Piantelli’s research. To summarize:

    * Experiments are being performed in a lab near Siena, Italy.

    * Older units worked continuously for months and produced 2× to 4× energy gain, but the actual energy balance was higher, as the cells reached self-sustaining mode.

    * Several unnamed third parties have confirmed that the older units worked in self-sustaining mode for long periods of time.

    * Several of these older units were recently reactivated. After some maintenance they turned on easily and produced 2× to 3× energy gain, but they haven’t yet been pushed to high excess energy levels.

    * New units with new fuel should be completed in about two months, and are expected to produce 200× energy gain.

    * The new units will be tested gradually in several steps of increasing power, beginning from a few hundred watts up to high levels of power on the order of kilowatts.

    * The scale-up will take as long as is necessary. Smaller devices will be ready for sale first.

    * No catalyst is necessary. The trick is in the preparation of the nickel.

    * Piantelli has a theory that doesn’t require exotic reactions, but can be explained using known physics and mathematics. A semi-complete theory has been provided to the University of Siena and will be published shortly. The complete theory will probably be disclosed after the first commercial units have been sold.

    * No Italian public institutions are involved in the current research, but a US government agency that has had the opportunity to review the research will probably validate and certify the reactor, as well as contribute to its development.

    * Piantelli’s group is also in talks with several large industrial corporations to develop generators operating at certain power levels.

    * The research is protected by three pending patents, the latest of which was filed last week.

    * Piantelli’s group will create a supporters’ trust. In two to four months the public will be able to buy shares in the trust to support the research, to prevent the technology from suddenly disappearing, and to share in any future revenues. Piantelli’s group doesn’t need money: the aim is protect the technology by putting it under the control of a multitude of stakeholders and enthusiasts, but there is no guarantee the shares will make a profit.

    With Rossi, Piantelli and Defkalion all in the game, this should be lots of fun 🙂

    • Tony

      October 31, 2011 at 7:38 pm

      Ah, so this does explain Krivit’s hostility to Rossi.

    • Roger Barker

      October 31, 2011 at 8:35 pm

      This is old news. Been around since June or something.

    • Sojourner Soo

      October 31, 2011 at 8:40 pm

      A link would have been a nice courtesy, Thicket. I can’t find this article over at Cold Fusion Now. Arian?

      • admin

        October 31, 2011 at 8:48 pm

        The gist of this was reported here, in July, So Soo. There are links there…


        • Sojourner Soo

          November 1, 2011 at 12:21 am

          Thanks Paul.

    • daniel maris

      November 1, 2011 at 2:21 am

      Wow! That’s really exciting news…it does give you that “threshold of a new era” feeling.

    • Ivy Matt

      November 3, 2011 at 1:40 pm

      If I understand correctly, the latest news is that the supporters’ trust scheme has fallen through, largely due to certain legal requirements for offering shares in a private venture. I believe you have to have a certain amount of capital available in order to risk investing it in a private venture. The organization has been created, but investment will be limited to those who have a certain amount of capital. Nevertheless, the Piantelli team is looking at other options to involve the general public in the development of their reactors. I can’t say that I’m terribly disappointed by this development. The supporters’ trust scheme was the one thing about the Piantelli group’s plan that seemed the most scam-like to me anyway, even if it offered no guarantees of a return on one’s investment.

      Also, Roy Virgilio says that the testing process is long, but is going well. Piantelli wants to have “incontrovertible evidence, a result that is unassailable” (as Google Translate’s translation puts it), before he publishes his results, which it is hoped will arrive within a month (from October 14th). Also, the Piantelli group aims to produce reactors at a variety of power levels, including a 3 kW residential generator. Of course, they will have to go through the regulatory process.

  10. Casey

    October 31, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    I bet the first several companies that buy these 1MW plants are manufacturers that plan on partnering with Rossi. Kind of what Defkalion was supposed to be.

  11. Tony

    October 31, 2011 at 8:56 pm–Report_and_Q-A_with_Rossi/

    I do urge you to read this, it answers a few questions.

    • Shane D.

      October 31, 2011 at 10:07 pm

      Thanks Tony,

      Reading the transcript answered my question about whether these 1 MW units were working protoptypes, or just for research. Sounds like they’ll be for both:

      “We do not have yet the experience and the skill necessary to allow us to make longer series to arrive at temperatures of 550 C, which are necessary to make a Carnot cycle. We need experience with this, because the stability of the reactors is of course directly proportional to temperature. We have found a very stable system a very stable way to produce heat for air conditioning, heating, desalinization, etc… For the application of the Carnot cycle we will need at least a couple of years, we need much more experience for such an application.

      Mr. Mats Lewan who is a scientific journalist of the magazine NyTeknik he asked to me what will happen now with this plant. The plant has been sold and after this first test which was the test in our factory it will go to the customer. It will work. And the work of this plant will be extremely important because it goes to work in place where we will have all the possibility to have, to work with it for a long time everyday, 24 hours a day, so we can collect all that experience that I answered that we need to complete all the cycle of experience necessary to go to higher temperatures.”

  12. arian

    October 31, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    Interesting article from someone that recently find out
    about e-cat and lenr.

    • LCD

      November 1, 2011 at 3:17 am


  13. Burt

    October 31, 2011 at 9:11 pm

    With the announced 2000 Euro/kW and an energy price of 0.1 Euro/kWh this means that break-even is 2.2 years. But 0.1 is the price for electricity, isn’t it? What’s the price for oil – is it somewhere like 0.06 Euro/kWh ?? In that case break-even would be (2000/0.06)/(24*365) = 3.8 years.

    Am I correct with this??

  14. raul heining

    October 31, 2011 at 10:47 pm

    It looks that most of fundamentalist skeptics are now posting in Krivits blog.
    I am asking myself if he is only accepitng comments of this kind and refusing others
    to comment.
    I am, maybe because of my university education, a moderate skeptic hopping that this will
    come to a happy end, but I cannot understand the attention given to someone so intelectually dishonest as Krivit. It is too bad to be true.

    • LCD

      November 1, 2011 at 3:26 am

      I’m with you raul

    • Tom Blakeslee

      November 1, 2011 at 3:40 am

      I posted a very reasonable factual correction on Kiivit’s blog and it got deleted. He seems to be closed to reason. It really hurt him when Rossi dismissed Widom-Larson. I wonder if he invested?

    • D R Lunsford

      November 1, 2011 at 6:27 am

      Let the snakes all collect in one pit 🙂 Rossi’s career was not the only one in jeopardy from the hissing ones. Many careers have been destroyed – ask Halton Arp what HE thinks of pathological herpatology! Ask Fred Cooperstock! Tony Smith! Brian Josephson!

      Though not in their league, my own attempt at a career was ended before it began because I got out of school right when the string theory insanity was getting started. I looked at it for 10 minutes in 1985 and basically concluded it was complete bullshit, mostly because it was based on Kaluza-Klein theory, which Pauli had already refuted as early as the 1920s after working on it himself. Einstein abandoned all interest in the idea some time later. This taught me a profound lesson – the “system” produces researchers who neither know nor respect history. In any case, I asked my adviser what he thought about it and he said “I think it’s complete horseshit”. It did neither of us any good to be right – there have been now 27 years of string theory to absolutely no end – Witten was declared the greatest physicist since Einstein when in fact he had not written a single line of physics (he IS a great mathematician). I’ve seen my chosen field utterly corrupted and made a laughing stock, with people like Greene and Cox and Kaku constantly on TV like the priests of some weird cult talking about every conceivable sort of nonsense but no real physics. None of these people knows anything about statistical mechanics, continuum mechanics, condensed matter physics – these things are beneath them.

      My sincerest wish is to see this snake pit exposed, the posers ejected from academic life, and a return to the great culture of science we inherited from Einstein, Pauli, Dirac, Kelvin, Maxwell, Klein, Newton – you will search in vain for snakes from the past – pathological herpatology is a modern phenomenon, like LENR! 🙂


      • Tony

        November 1, 2011 at 7:01 am

        And Max Planck! Bohr, Rutherford 🙂

      • georgehants

        November 1, 2011 at 8:37 am

        D R Lunsford, you clearly feel very strongly for your position, may I ask—
        How was your career ended by string theory etc.
        As all classical science can be said within reason to be known and consists of nothing but adding a few decimal points, one has to move into the unknown to have any hope of progress, if it is the unknown how can you judge, especially before working on a subject that it is (your quote) ” I looked at it for 10 minutes in 1985 and basically concluded it was complete bullshit” this must surely be clairvoyance.
        Are you suggesting that all speculation and theorising in attempting to find the direction for main-line science to move ahead, (that from the 1950’s it has achieved nothing new of any kind) should be abandoned.
        Many people in history have been skeptical of things, beyond known science, and of course been completely wrong themselves, how would one know in advance what will be correct before doing the research.

        • D R Lunsford

          November 1, 2011 at 8:42 am

          Some people have good instincts for science. What can I say? I didn’t stop working, and am freer for not being in that toxic environment. But I also like to teach and be part of a community.


      • Pekka Janhunen

        November 1, 2011 at 10:13 am

        Fair enough, but do I know some stringists who are comfortable with normal physics.

      • Daniel de França MTd2

        November 1, 2011 at 1:37 pm

        Tony Smith is a lawyer, so his career was not destroyed. What happened is that his ideas were severely censored after he was banned by the arxiv.

      • Stephen

        November 1, 2011 at 9:57 pm

        “my own attempt at a career was ended before it began”

        How so?

  15. Casey

    November 1, 2011 at 1:08 am

    I think I finally figured out why the ecat needs an emergency heater.

    The ecat does it’s trick and generates radiation. The radiation gets absorbed by the lead shielding and heats up. But there is a layer of thermal insulation between the lead and the ecat. Operating the ecat mostly just heats up the lead and not the ecat, so even if the reaction ran away it is only the shielding that over heats. If that melts radiation could escape.
    The emergency heater melts the nickel in the ecat killing the reaction.

    • John Dlouhy

      November 1, 2011 at 2:28 am

      Casey, its pretty hard to try and speculate on what goes on inside the reactor. Technical types, like myself, who have hung on Rossi’s every word for the last 10 months, realize that over that time, he has pretty much contradicted every last detail he has given about the reactor. When confronted he simply declares that there has been a “misunderstanding”. If you believe he has developed a successful reactor, then it seems likely he has been purposefully misinforming people to deter replication. If you think about, what does he stand to gain by giving out accurate details?

    • LCD

      November 1, 2011 at 3:38 am

      That would mean the lead heats the water. Not the copper, which can’t be reconciled, its a good try though.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      November 1, 2011 at 10:29 am

      If one assumes that a large fraction of the output energy is in the form of X-rays at some point inside the reactor, then the lead shielding must be thick enough to contain quite many halving lengths of those X-rays, because nothing is detected outside the shielding. This means that the halving length can be only about 1 mm or smaller. This implies, in turn, that the majority of the energy must be dissipated very close to where it is generated, i.e. in the reactor itself (nickel), the reactor walls (steel?) and the cooling water which is between the steel and the lead, because all substances absorb X-rays, not only lead, although lead is the best. Only an energetically insignificant part probably reaches the lead, and even if it does, it gets absorbed very near the inner surface where the heat conducts to the nearby cooling water easily. The lead seems to be there to protect people rather than to act as a functional element of the reactor.

      • John Dlouhy

        November 1, 2011 at 1:05 pm

        Another good try but, it doesn’t correspond with what Rossi has shown and described about the actual reactor. According to him, the core module is 20x20x1cm sandwiched within lead shielding for a total of 4cm thick. (or 5cm depending on when you ask him). This places the lead immediately next to the reaction chamber, the water and cooling fins next, and the steel casing at the outermost.

        You do raise a good point about it being shielded to ambient levels. The actual soft gamma production must be very well shielded somehow, OR non existent to begin with, to show absolutely no reading. I still think Rossi has nothing to gain by sharing secrets and most of what we’ve been told is misinformation.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          November 1, 2011 at 2:11 pm

          If there is no coolant between reactor and lead, I would worry about the risk of melting the lead under some conditions. I took my concept from Rossi’s patent application which, I guess, should correspond to the earlier E-cat designs. If the fat-cat is significantly different, then my reasoning does not apply to it. Anyway, you are right that this is rather idle speculation since we are not certain about the facts. Personally I don’t believe that Rossi gives intentional misinformation, but of course he gives his replies in a hurry and the answers are sometimes sloppy.

          • John Dlouhy

            November 1, 2011 at 5:06 pm

            The earlier E-Cat design, right, I should have realized that’s what you were talking about. The water jacket was inside the shield in that version. I imagine, though, the operating principles should be similar for the FatCat and so without the intervening water layer we can look for an alternative explanation. I suppose the lead could be allowed to melt if it were properly contained in a sealed metal housing and still do its job. Or it may be a misdirect for the average person who thinks lead has magical shielding properties and expects to find it in a nuclear reactor. Iron would work just fine and is cheap, abundant, high temperature, and non toxic.

            I just want to point out that I don’t suggest Rossi is misinforming people to his detriment, conversely, I think it makes the story more believable considering his emphasis on commercialization and protection of intellectual property rights.

  16. Bjoern

    November 1, 2011 at 1:16 am

    If such a big invention is,true, it would really be a sensation.
    So I can’t imagine that such a bombshell could curculate only a few days behind thes)e mass media.
    But I can imagine, that someone could make a few hundred dollars ad revenue a day by building up a hoax like a network of “independent” wordpress sites like this, a few initial blog entries, some news and so on – that’s only a weekend of work.
    Why should someone who made an invention which is potentially more valueable than all oil of the world plan to produce “30-100 units a year”?! If I would make such an invention and can prove it, i’m s ure i would be able to mobilize billions to build up the biggest industry ever seen – without any fear to come off badly… 1kg nickle is round about $15 which should complies a few barrels of oil – so money shouldn’t play any role if this is true…

    • LCD

      November 1, 2011 at 3:41 am

      Because you don’t really know how it works and you’re afraid somebody else will figure it out before you do.

      • John Dlouhy

        November 1, 2011 at 1:20 pm

        Exactly, while at the same time dealing with the hazzards of being OPEC’s and Exxon’s new BFF!

  17. Ben

    November 1, 2011 at 5:10 am

    A former board member of New Energy Times speaks out on Krivit and recent charges of fraud against Rossi. (three parts)

    • raul heining

      November 1, 2011 at 9:34 am

      This proves Krivit has a secret agenda.

    • John Dlouhy

      November 1, 2011 at 2:01 pm

      Thanks for the link Ben.

      That was a good read, a very sober and enlightening reinforcement of something many of us have already come to suspect, that Krivit seems to be loosing his mind! Also, I found it particularly interesting that many of the allegations used here against maryyugo were lobbed against Mr. Lomax by Krivit. It seems some paranoid inferences are just human nature and it doesn’t matter which side of the discussion you’re on. In Krivit’s world, the cold fusion complex becomes “the man” and the pseudonym, Mr. Lomax, a front for a group of individuals in “his” employ. I particularly liked the X-Files reference at the end. Thanks to Steven Johnson for the excellent post.

  18. georgehants

    November 1, 2011 at 8:51 am

    My questions to Rossi are not at the moment getting through.
    Can somebody ask when will the next CAT be ready for delivery and can he say who that customer is.

    • georgehants

      November 1, 2011 at 9:05 am

      I find that Rossi will not say who the customer is but he might still say when.

      • raul heining

        November 1, 2011 at 9:35 am

        He said that it would be delivered in 3 months.

        • georgehants

          November 1, 2011 at 9:47 am

          Thanks raul, that cuts the wait down to something sensible, if nothing else happens before then.

  19. raul heining

    November 1, 2011 at 9:38 am

    I am curious about Defkalion and what is coming from them. In this kind of atmosphere and watching Rossi I wouldn’t be surprised whatever it comes.

  20. arian

    November 1, 2011 at 10:37 am

    Iggy Dalrymple
    October 31st, 2011 at 9:16 PM

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    When do you intend to start production in the USA?

    Andrea Rossi
    November 1st, 2011 at 3:35 AM

    Dear Iggy Dalrymple:
    Already did. The charges are already made in the USA. Of course the work is in progress.
    Warm Regards,

  21. Tom Baccei

    November 1, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    This war in physics is unbelievable. Call it a cultural-epistemology war. Since probably none of us on this blog have ever built, or tested a LENR device, it is safe to say that all the positions on the “deny – accept” axis are based on our belief systems: views of science, views of the energy industry, personal experiences, our essential optimistic / pessimistic natures, etc. Names and labels are now being rolled out to box in our antagonists, and they us. Wild!

    As the cold fusion debate has developed, the main stream physics establishment has invested more and more in their position denying the existence of any genuine phenomenon behind published results. Their investment has gone up to such a point that discrediting the movement has become essential if they are to retain their position and status. I would expect their campaign to discredit this field will reach a fever pitch as more evidence accumulates supporting a real phenomenon behind LENR. Part of that establishment edits the news at large news organizations. From their point of view, a little time might result in all this just going away. It will, however, not go away. At some point I think two things will happen. The first is the muscleing in process, where they say, “well, harumph, now it is time for us “real” physicists to take over. This stuff might be dangerous, you know, and we’ll never perfect it without a complete theory.” The other is the rolling out of a number of sacrificial goats, probably mostly old, dead, retired or at least not holding very prestigious positions. “You know, those boys at MIT back in the 90’s sure did some inept experiments, and, why, we just trusted them because of the credibility of the school. Too bad! They, wasted a lot of valuable time.”

    Science not only depends on peer review and honest skepticism, it depends on trust in other scientists. Everyone cannot do every experiment. I wonder how many of those in physics who deeply, and utterly deny the validity of the claims have actually either done hands on experiments with an open mind, or at least visited with those claiming positive results in order to evaluate their methodology, analysis, and design. I suspect that the answer is not very many. They will not look because they already know what is there.

    What we “know” as a culture derives from those with positions of deep and abiding trust. Those of us who have become more and more convinced of the reality behind LENR phenomena are attacking the very roots of that trust and it would be foolish to think that they would give it up without an epistemological fight to the death.

    • Don Witcher

      November 1, 2011 at 2:15 pm


      I think what you have written is a really fine analysis of a the situation. The main opposition to Rossi and LENR is and will be the entrenched Physics establishment and its obsession with high energy physics to the exclusion of all else. The reason is obvious. High energy physics has for several decades now required huge sums of money to build ever more expensive tools to pursue the current lines of research. To interested laymen like me (I’m just a hard headed engineer and analyst} it seems the return on investment has become increasingly questionable. The huge sums of money that have been spent on high energy physics have come at the expense of a lot of other research such as LENR that should have been pursued. A lot of budgets will now be undergoing close scrutiny and any combination of LENR success such as Rossi’s ecat, failure to find the Higgs Boson, and extension of ITER schedule is going to be lethel. Follow the money.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        November 1, 2011 at 2:40 pm

        If Rossi turns out to be true, I would see two main things happen in science: 1) it will be and must be concluded that the categorical banning of cold fusion since FP was an error, 2) as a natural outcome, fusion plasma physics will disappear. But science should still continue to require repeatability and reproducibility of measurements and continue to use the peer review system. What comes to theoretical particle physics, it indeed has acquired some “religious” traits over the years; however, that has little to do with cold fusion. Science walks (and to a large extent has always walked) a rather tight rope between raw business interests lurking on the applied side and the threat of dogmatism and publish-or-perish on the fundamental side. The absolute number of scientists who manage their path well has increased much less (if at all?) over the years than the total size of the scientist population, but their number is certainly not zero.

        To get some more perspective, I think that Rossi’s invention (if true) is scientifically speaking actually not much more dramatic than what was for example the finding of superconductivity. In both cases the phenomenon was completely unexpected and initially with no theoretical explanation within the then-current framework. It’s mainly the enormously wide and rapid applicability that sets the E-cat apart from earlier landmark inventions.

        • LCD

          November 1, 2011 at 3:07 pm

          well said Pekka

    • Peter Roe

      November 1, 2011 at 2:39 pm

      I think the term ‘epistemological’ is giving too much credit to virtually everyone involved in this discussion, as it implies some insight on their part as to why they react as ‘believers’, ‘skeptics’ or somewhere in between, for which there is little evidence.

      At the ‘believer’ end of the spectrum, and extending past the mid point into mild skepticism, will be those without too much investment in rigid beliefs that prevent assimilation of the concept of a new set of physics theories, and those with such an investment who are nevertheless flexible enough to modify their beliefs. Such individuals are free to process the concept, and to integrate it into their expectations in a way that depends on their own baggage.

      However the ‘skeptic’ end of the spectum is more complex, because there are two basic ‘reasons’ for being firmly in the skeptic camp.

      The first is a literal inability to accept Rossi’s version of LENR as fact, because to do so would negate personal investment in a picture of reality that simply doesn’t ‘allow’ it to be true. This relatively small group will consist almost exclusively of physicists who have too much emotional investment in the current paradigm to properly process the new data. For them, the ‘disconnect’ between the new information and their beliefs is such that the new information simply cannot be integrated into their existing reference frame. Many of this group will experience mental ‘breakdowns’ when they reach a point where they are forced to accept ‘cold fusion’ as reality.

      A very much larger group will be those who, as Tom says, have too much invested in the status quo in other ways – academic careers, publications, ongoing research projects, or more general careers and/or financial investments that will suffer. This group will consist of some research directors, physics researchers and other academics, plus a huge swathe of politicians, bankers, corporate managers and directors, planners, marketers, service providers, manufacturers and so on – virtually anyone with a personal stake in energy production remaining exactly as it is now. These are the ‘fake skeptics’ – the physicists who “will not look because they already know what is there” and the rest who will simply fight with whatever tools are available to maintain their power, status and income, *despite* the knowledge that the lot of humanity will be transformed for the better by the technology when it is widely implemented.

      For both groups, the inevitable will have to go through the ‘classic’ stages of denial, ridicule, violent opposition, then self-evident acceptance, plus possibly a fifth – ‘how do I get in on this?’.

      We are already seeing the first two, and quite soon we may see violent opposition being directed at Rossi and anyone else concerned by some of the more powerful vested interests. I hope he has taken whatever precautions are feasible.

      • LCD

        November 1, 2011 at 3:16 pm

        I think the thought that LENR is real and not a small effect in quantum probability terms, is so unbelievable that “current common sense” prevents people from taking it seriously.

        It’s condensed matter nuclear physics, we don’t really even have an area of physics devoted to that! Because it’s an oxymoron. The thought that you can get strong nuclear interactions while something is still in a solid form, i.e. not hot, not in an ionized state. Think about how silly that sounds to physicists.

        That may be a stronger barrier to the psyche than the coulomb barrier is to the proton.

        • CM Edwards

          November 1, 2011 at 4:08 pm

          The Coulomb barrier isn’t such a big deal. We have cold fusion now. 🙂

          Actually, it’s not so difficult to conceptualize LENR. Most of the nuclear reactions occuring in a conventional fission reactor are not fission at all, but various lower energy state transitions and reactions from nuclei excited by energy from the fission reaction. Those other, non-fissile reactions are thought to be typically endothermic, dissipating rather than adding energy, but it doesn’t stretch the limits of human comprehension to suppose one or two of them might be exothermic. It only stretches the current theory.

          Stretching is good for people. It adds flexibility and improves the circulation. I think it’s probably good for theories, too.

      • georgehants

        November 1, 2011 at 4:46 pm

        As we are all fair skeptics on these pages, can we see that Fred was attacked for postulating, biology from space, now being shown correct
        Is it fair to say that as conventional science even the Quantum is at a dead end and much supposedly known is falling apart, Cosmology etc. —-
        It may be time to look in the obvious next direction, all of metaphysics and all non-physical areas at present only researched by the usual few rebels.

        ASTRONOMER DR FRED HOYLE: “When science begins the study of non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the centuries of its experience.”

    • Jay2011

      November 1, 2011 at 3:29 pm


      I agree that there are many corrupting elements in physics, money being the biggest one, but various downside aspects of human nature and societal dynamics being always present as well. Still, physics is not a monolithic endeavor, and the majority of physicists have much more on their minds than a coordinated effort to suppress LENR (and yes, I actually have built a few LENR devices).

      The history of LENR might have been much different had university lawyers and greed not forced P&F to go public before they were ready, and had more been understood about the various parameters in play. Early replications were failures because there were too many unknown and uncontrolled variables. But had the initial announcement been made public in a manner compatible with the scientific tradition, things might have gone differently and the community would not have given up so quickly after the first attempts at replication failed.

      I don’t see a vast conspiracy to suppress at present. Many LENR papers are routinely published these days. Even the early Piantelli/Focardi research had no trouble being published in the relatively mainstream peer reviewed journal Nuovo Cimento. The ACS often has a condensed matter science section (usually not well attended) in its annual meetings. The problem is more of apathy than conspiratorial suppression. Non-reproducibility is the core reason for this apathy. Science has a hard time gaining traction if the core experiment can’t be replicated twice in a row. It doesn’t help if someone finally cracks this problem, but decides once again to try to make some quick money rather than advance science.

      The corruption of money cuts in all directions.

      • CM Edwards

        November 1, 2011 at 4:22 pm

        “The history of LENR might have been much different had university lawyers and greed not forced P&F to go public before they were ready…”

        You’re kidding about this part, right? A lawyer told them to do that?

        Otherwise, your post is spot on. P & F’s attempt to preempt Jones with their big press conference did not work out for them, not at all.

        • Stephen

          November 1, 2011 at 10:09 pm

          No, he’s not kidding, read the whole story (of F&P).

    • Stephen

      November 1, 2011 at 10:06 pm

      “Since probably none of us on this blog have ever built, or tested a LENR device”
      Wrong presumption.

    • Spyros

      November 2, 2011 at 8:22 am

      It would be good if the “war” stayed between scientists, after all it’d be a war of ideas. Money is energy and money controls everything, unfortunatelly. Greed is the main ingredient of corporations. Think of a long string of dead around the oil areas of the planet. Who is the secret Rossi’s customer?

  22. Chappin4tay

    November 1, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    This is very frustrating. We’ve all been following this saga for months. We were all expecting some kind of resolution in October.

    It looks to me like the possibility of the mainstream media vetting the Ecat and announcing it to the public is approaching zero. Rossi hasn’t been cooperative enough to allow them to run a reasonable test. He has no future demonstrations scheduled.

    Furthermore, as long as the customers remain anonymous we’ll never find out if 1MW plants are really operating. Clearly the reason they remained anonymous is to protect themselves from looking stupid by falling for a cold fusion scam. If the anonymous customers are getting scammed they are not going to be speaking up to warn other prospective buyers.

    It seems to me that if Rossi is a scammer he’s created for himself a nice little window of a year or 2 where he can sell $2 Million dollar Ecats before anyone really has any idea whether they work or not.

    Also if Rossi is not a scammer, we, the general public, are not going to be able to validate his claims for 1 to 2 year period at a minimum.

    Do any of you see a scenario where we get another chance to authenticate the Ecat?

  23. LCD

    November 1, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    I actually am pretty fed up with the waiting. It’s obvious Rossi doesn’t care to prove this thing scientifically anytime soon. AND according to his own words the research with Upsalla and UNIBO will be kept private.

    So I’ve decided to just start a place where people can discuss building an actual ecat. Nothing fancy, bad graphics, color scheme sucks but its a start.

    Paul I put a link back to here to discuss latest news. By the way thanks for making this site what it is Paul.

    • Ransompw

      November 1, 2011 at 3:33 pm

      I have posted this suggestion before but I really think the following paper is the Primer to understand the process taking place in NiH reactions.

      Of course in this study a Nickel bar alloy was used and it could have contained unmeasured amounts of copper and the hydrogenation and dehydrogenation may have caused the copper to come to the surface and pool, but if the results are from a NiH reaction then the test suggests something special is taking place in a tiny segment of the nickel bar. Why? Answer that question and you may be on the path to follow Rossi and understanding the secret of the ecat. I find it interesting that he teamed with Focardi shortly after this paper.

      • LCD

        November 1, 2011 at 3:49 pm


    • admin

      November 1, 2011 at 4:44 pm

      No problem, LCD. Good idea and I wish you luck with it.


    • georgehants

      November 1, 2011 at 5:00 pm

      LCD, good luck, hope you continue to put your good input to these pages.

  24. Thicket

    November 1, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    I just love the fairy-tale world generated by some believers to denigrate skeptical opinions. The negative, close-minded, entrenched opinions expressed by these believers is precisely the behaviors they try to superimpose on skeptics.

    The monolithic scientific community with their unwillingness to change is a myth these believers create out of ignorance and desire to demonize those that challenge their tin-foil hat, woo-woo beliefs in magic. I don’t know how many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of scientists there are in the world, but anyone who thinks that there is a consensus approach to science is simply crackers. Scientific creativity is the reason most of us live comfortable long lives. Superstitions and conspiracy theories give us nothing.

    This kind of believer logic is consistent with ‘suppressits’. These are believers who imagine that opposition to their beliefs is founded in some conspiratorial mass-think group of people with common motives. What a crock!

    The majority of skeptics are asking for something quite simple when it comes to claims of breakthrough science. Show me, prove it, let me test it. Skeptics aren’t convinced by smoke and mirrors, inventor statements, secret sauces, secret customers and enough blarney to make an Irishman blush.

    • LCD

      November 1, 2011 at 3:43 pm

      blah blah blah blah blah

      That’s what I got.

      Thicket make a website with a single page and just put that post on there so you don’t have to repeat it over and over again.

    • Ransompw

      November 1, 2011 at 3:48 pm


      You represent the opposite side of the coin. The other swing of the pendulum, the other end of the bell shaped curve. Your position is as illogical and flawed as the group you mock. That is what is fascinating about all of this. You are identical in ways you cannot appreciate, the opposite, matter and anti matter the same and opposite.

      And by the way, you are convinced, as convinced of your position as the Believers are of theirs. Amazing.

      • LCD

        November 1, 2011 at 4:18 pm

        That’s actually a pretty good point Ransom.

      • Thicket

        November 1, 2011 at 4:42 pm


        Yeah, I’m reading your posts again.

        You could be right. Success does reinforce certain behaviours, including mine. This is the fourth major time I’ve been in the role of firm skeptic against some pseudoscientic scheme or scam. I’ve always been in the minority. The behavior of believers on the other three was consistent with believers on this forum. Despite some die-hard hangers-on, the other three (BLP, EEStor and Steorn) have been thoroughly debunked.

        Yes, you’re correct. I’m as convinced of my position as the Believers are of theirs. Difference is, I haven’t been wrong yet.

        Were you the guy that thought I was Krivit? If you were, what was that all about? As I recall, you’re a lawyer. I’d have expected more logic and critical thinking out of a professional like yourself. It did make me laugh though.

        Earlier today someone said I was Maryyugo. That was funny. So are folks who think I get paid to post here. Lol.

        • Ransompw

          November 1, 2011 at 5:19 pm

          You would never respond to my Krivit accusation so I just kept making it until from your posts it seemed unlikely. Since I might be one of the few posting to this site who can be identified, the identity of others including you is certainly open to speculation. I believe the thing that prompted my initial suspicion was your reference to that guy (can’t remember his name) that Krivit bloged about who was a supposed spy for the U.S. keeping track of LENR, maybe you lifted the stuff from Krivit but it sounded just like him.

          By the way, I really am conflicted about all this. I do have friends at NASA and I am not without some sources of my own and notwithstanding your skepticism toward LENR, the info I have suggests something real is happening. Rossi, I don’t have a clue, but the whole thing is becoming so elaborate with so many co-conspiators, keeping something like that from exposure is really hard. Any good reporter should be able to unravel this thing pretty quickly whether it is real or whether it is a scam, so what is Peter Swensson of AP doing. This whole thing is getting intolerable.

          • Peter Roe

            November 2, 2011 at 9:45 am

            I don’t think we’ll be hearing from Mr Svensson any time soon. It seems unclear why he attended if he had no intention of reporting the event, and especially why he was given exclusive rights for the day, possibly displacing other reporters who might have done the job properly. I asked AR the following a couple of days ago:

            Dear Mr Rossi
            The Associated Press science writer Peter Svensson and his photographer were present at the 1 MW test, but the story (if he submitted one) seems to have failed to appear on the ‘news wires’.
            Do you have any comment on this apparent suppression of the news of the success of the 1 MW test? Would you prefer it if the story did not ‘break’ worldwide for a while?
            With regards,

            He has not replied, indicating that this may be a sensitive area.

          • Peter Roe

            November 2, 2011 at 10:10 am

            Another blog editorial whose author is not happy about AP:


            Article includes APs contact page if anyone wants to ask them directly what happened to the story (I have).

      • Ben

        November 1, 2011 at 5:15 pm

        Nice summation counselor.

    • AB

      November 1, 2011 at 4:29 pm


      Your sort of pseudoskepticism is emotionally motivated – you wouldn’t spend as much time here otherwise. You don’t care about the accuracy of your posts (hence they’re often so far from objective truth). You’re the sort of person that enjoys attacking a minority because it’s so easy. Your inflated ego disguises this activity as some intellectual interest in studying the poor deluded believers or as desire to help them find back to reality, while your goal is simply to make them feel miserable.

      • Thicket

        November 1, 2011 at 5:05 pm


        My reasons for being here are to have fun and my fascination with believers who firmly believe in outrageous things.

        I could try and return your insults, but I couldn’t be bothered. You’re not worth it.

        • Peter Roe

          November 1, 2011 at 7:59 pm

          Thicket –

          I also suspect that you might be ‘maryyugo’, the reason being that ‘she’ has several times claimed precisely the same motives for watching this blog like a hawk and repetitively posting diversions and irrelevances, occasionally loaded with sarcasm and personal abuse. Such behaviour, if it is not a paid attempt to disrupt blogs like this, is difficult to explain in rational terms.

          ‘Maryyugo’ also uses a relatively small number of apparently favourite put-downs including ‘woo woo’, ‘believers’, ‘tin-foil hat’, ‘dog and pony show’ and ‘scam’ (the latter over and over) which I have noticed also frequently appear in your posts. Also like ‘her’ you occasionally post something informative, presumably as a form of camouflage, to break the pattern of otherwise unrelenting FUD and negativity. Either you are one and the same or you both use the same ‘pseudoskeptics manual’.

    • Sojourner Soo

      November 1, 2011 at 5:21 pm

      Thicket: I can tell you haven’t read Thomas Kuhn. Had you done so, you would understand why the hard sciences have tremendous difficulties with anomalies which don’t fit into the current paradigm. I guess you prefer ignorance. Have it your way. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t force it to drink.

    • Stephen

      November 1, 2011 at 10:13 pm

      “Superstitions and conspiracy theories give us nothing”
      Wrong, they give us wars, which gives us advanced gadgets in the living room and the kitchen via eventual trickle down. And them wars somewhat slowdown the population growth. 7 Billions this week.

  25. Don Witcher

    November 1, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    I totally agree with what LCD is setting out to do. Rossi I believe has provided the “proof of principal” needed to get LENR going at the commercial level. Problem is he is following the Wright Brothers game plan of maintaining a monopoly on his creation. The Wright Brothers monopolistic desires had the effect of bringing aircraft development in the United States to a standstill except for the work that Glenn Curtiss was doing. By 1913 the Wright Brothers designs were hopelessly outclassed by the work going on in Europe and the court fight with Curtiss had severely impeded Curtiss’s work. Ultimately the US government had to step in and force the merger of the Curtiss and Wright operations so the US could get going again but by that time the damage was done for that period of history. It looks to me like some parts of that history are in danger of being repeated. LENR badly needs some good theoretical work done and openly published asap with an eye toward commercial development. I think its obvious that the control problem for high power and high COP operation is going to be the number one problem in commercializing LENR and its not going to be solved until we have a good theoretical base.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      November 1, 2011 at 5:27 pm

      LENR badly needs some good theoretical work, yes. But even more importantly it needs observational data, such as X-ray spectrum and isotope composition before and after (plus convincing proof of energy, unnecessary to repeat). Physicists are not so clever that they could discover what a black box does if the only hint is that it does something that current models do not predict. (Or someone might be, but I wouldn’t count on it.)

      • Don Witcher

        November 1, 2011 at 6:31 pm


        Totally agree. Not being a working physicist I lump a lot of things together. Experimental work should always be the starting point if possible and hypothesis and theory should always be checked and confirmed by experimental results if possible. No theory(mathematical model) is valid if it doesn’t conform to repeatable experimental evidence. That seems to be something some mainstream physicists have forgotten and is why many skeptics of LENR have put themselves in untenable positions. As Jed Rothwell has said there is a mountain of data and experimental evidence out there and I for one don’t see any conflict with any fundamental physical principals including QED. I do think that there are undoubtedly conflicts with some oversimplified models that have been developed but thats nothing new. The classic case is the one of the aerodynamicist in the 1930’s who proudly announce that the bumblebee couldn’t fly because his aerodynamic models proved that it couldn’t. All mathematical models are an oversimplification of the real world.

  26. Thicket

    November 1, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    Opinions on Rossi’s Ecat cover the full gamut. Some say that ECat cold fusion claims are absolutely real. Others say that Rossi is a fraud. Most opinions lie somewhere between these two extremes.

    As a skeptic, I think that the ECat technology claims are bogus. Nevertheless, to declare Rossi’s Ecat claims fraudulent requires definitive proof, Despite Rossi’s criminal past, there is no definitive proof that Ecat is a scam.

    I have some opinions and observations about Ecat and the scam scenario. Some say that Rossi’s actions and Ecat results aren’t consistent with a scam. I disagree. While not definitive proof, what I see shows that a scam is a definite possibility.

    Based on the (perhaps faulty) assumption that Rossi is a fraudster, how would he go about convincing investors/customers to part with their money?

    • Make bold statements about groundbreaking cold fusion technology.
    • Claim that all the ‘secrets’ lie with you. No one else can be allowed to mess up your scam.
    • Find some impressionable scientists to act as your stooges and lend credibility to your claims.
    • Launch a website that you strictly control.
    • Publicly demonstrate your cold fusion technology, but tightly control who can witness the tests and what readings they can take. It is critical that any rigorous data measurement or analysis not happen.
    • Churn up media interest. It doesn’t matter if the coverage is negative. All publicity is good publicity. You only need to convince a tiny number of people for your scam to be successful.
    • Pay for credible people to come to your demonstrations. It’s difficult for someone to trash your claims when you’ve paid their way to come.
    • Don’t do something stupid like installing a hidden energy source. It’s too easy to foul up. Put the energy source in plain view, such as a honking big diesel generator hooked up and running through the entire demonstration. People won’t believe that you could perpetrate such an obvious ploy.
    • Make up a reason for the obvious energy source. Heating up the unit to reaction temperature is a good excuse. An outside energy source to ensure the safe operation of the unit is another good excuse.
    • Make up a ‘secret’ ingredient. People love intrigue and mystery.
    • Have a ‘secret’ client. Same reason. The client may or may not be real. It doesn’t matter. It’s a great ploy to convince other gullible folks with money to burn.
    • It doesn’t matter if your demonstration unit leaks, doesn’t generate the output you predicted and runs only a short time. People will view these things as proof that you couldn’t possibly be scamming.
    • Keep silent about private demonstrations that don’t work out. If the failure becomes public, rant about snakes and clowns.
    • Make absolutely sure that no one gets hold of a unit without your constant supervision. For big units, announce that they are gone.
    • Follow the script of legendary scammer John Worrell Keely. He had demonstrations and bilked investors for twenty-five years.
    • Make investors and clients feel ‘special’. This has to be done in private. Impress the dupes that confidentiality and secrecy is absolutely critical to maximize their return. It maximizes your ability to scam as much and as many people as possible.
    • Don’t worry about making contradictory or outlandish statements. The people you are trying to convince will rationalize them away, ignore them or won’t understand them.
    • Appeal to emotions. Saving children with cancer is a good one.
    • Say that you’re only using your own money and haven’t accepted payment from anyone. This reinforces the noble and pure aspects of your scam.

    Yeah, I know that this post will be met with scorn and abuse. Pfffft. Some things just need to be said.

    • Sojourner Soo

      November 1, 2011 at 5:29 pm

      Wow! Just wow! You, sir, are completely nuts. Sorry, but if ever I saw evidence of a screwed up mind, that last post was it. Talk about a conspiracy theory. That whole scenario you just painted is utterly bizarre.

      • Stephen

        November 1, 2011 at 10:22 pm

        But believing a majority of physicists on this planet are so psychologically inept that they refuse to accept the “fact’ that Rossi hit the jackpot and so did others in the past is perfectly logical. Bizarre indeed.

    • AB

      November 1, 2011 at 5:49 pm

      > Yeah, I know that this post will be met with scorn and abuse. Pfffft. Some things just need to be said.

      Like your posts aren’t written precisely with that purpose in mind.

      Admin, I suggest you moderate Thicket more strictly or outright ban him, he is a type of poster that simply has no intention of fair discourse or respecting boundaries, and the five post limit has made no difference so far in his case.

    • Jay2011

      November 1, 2011 at 7:11 pm

      I generally try to stick with what I know (physics). When it comes to human behavior, I don’t think anyone is as good at analyzing and predicting as they think. That said, I’m surprised the post by Thicket spurs so much disbelief and outrage. It actually seems like a pretty good summation of some of the bizarre behavior we’ve witnessed for over nearly a year. I think it’s certainly one plausible scenario. There are undoubtedly others, for example John D’s scenario that Rossi is trying to maneuver a very fine line in trying to obtain investment backing while lulling the scientific community to sleep with deliberately dumbed-down demonstrations. I don’t think anyone can say for certain whether Rossi is for real, self-deluded, one very flamboyant flim flam artist, or some interesting hybrid of two or more of these.

      On the physics side, there is clearly much room for puzzlement. None of the many demonstrations have been compelling. On top of that, they have been highly choreographed for a very select audience. Operating right at the phase change of water without ever measuring steam content is clearly a deliberate sleight of hand (I’ll withhold judgment regarding whether this is to deceive or to protect). The fact that none of the scientists present, including the Italians and Swedes, raised concerns or alarms , does not give me confidence in their vetting competency. But steam calorimetry is not something that most physicists would ever encounter. It doesn’t require a conspiracy theory to explain a lack of competency in this area. Nor does it require a conspiracy theory to explain that one or more less technically savvy customers might be persuaded to invest in Rossi without having better data to make a decision.

      There are so many puzzles and internal contradictions in this story. It’s part of what keeps it so entertaining. Whatever else he may be, Rossi makes a splendid master of ceremonies. So far he’s been remarkably consistent in his pre-disclosed outline for the story he’s telling. Since part of that storyline involves independent replication at one or more universities, I’m prepared to once again wait for that to happen. But I don’t begrudge anyone for celebrating early if they wish.

      • Don Witcher

        November 1, 2011 at 7:41 pm


        If you know physics, which I doubt, then lets see you give us some numerical arguments. Lots of data have been taken during Rossi’s tests and demonstrations and the bottom line has always been that the ecat provides excess heat which is extremely difficult to account for in any other way than a nuclear source. Your statement about operating at the phase change of water to deceive or protect is clearly fatuous. The whole purpose of the October 6 demonstration was to refute that argument. Why do you waste our time with that kind of a vague statement. I still have an open mind about Rossi and some of his behaviour which can be difficult to understand. However at this time the bulk of the evidence indicates he has the real thing and is acting accordingly. For me to think otherwise requires much better arguments than I have seen from any of the skeptics.

        • Jay2011

          November 1, 2011 at 7:55 pm

          Hmm, you’re the first actually rude and insulting person I’ve encountered on this forum. Do you automatically react this way with people who don’t have the same opinion as you? I wonder if you’ve ever read the many reports, the various analyses on vortex and other sites, or analyzed the many demonstrations for yourself. Operating at the phase change of water is a feature of every experiment, including both the Oct 6 and Oct 28 demos. (On Oct 6, the primary loop is operating at the phase change of water and there is considerable debate whether it is water or steam that goes into the secondary heat exchanger. Regardless of assumptions that one makes, primary and secondary heat numbers don’t agree.) I would normally go into more detail with other folks on this forum, but I don’t think it would serve any purpose in your case.

        • Stephen

          November 1, 2011 at 10:25 pm

          Hi Don W.! What’s your background, technically speaking? (Mine is electronics if you care)

    • raul heining

      November 1, 2011 at 7:35 pm

      As I thought and I think I was right, Stella_nokia was Steven Krivit in Defkalion Forum.
      Now, I get the idea that Ticket is Krivit in this forum. I am sure he will be around with a nick and Ticket fits well.

      • arian

        November 2, 2011 at 3:49 am

        I’m also think Ticket is Krivit both have same evil mind.

  27. Don Witcher

    November 1, 2011 at 5:20 pm


    If one always starts a line of analyses with an erroneous assumption and rigidly adheres to it then one always comes up with an erroneous conclusion. Its known as GIGO

  28. Thicket

    November 1, 2011 at 5:49 pm


    That’s correct.

    But if you analyze available information and reach a potential explanation based on that information then that’s critical analysis.

    Only a fool jumps to a conclusion before looking at available information. I followed ECat for several months before jumping into the fray.

    Oh darn. There goes my five post administrator imposed limit again. I’ll probably be back tomorrow.

    Oh, and SoSoo. by definition, a one-man scam cannot be a conspiracy. It takes more than one person for a conspiracy. I would have thought you’d know that. Actually, I’m lying. I realize you suffer from fuzzy thinking.

    • Sojourner Soo

      November 2, 2011 at 12:56 pm

      Thicket: Either you’re thick, in which case your alias is apt, or you are deliberately misconstruing my words. You are the one who’s developed a conspiracy theory around what you think Rossi has done, i.e. the E-Cat is a huge scam, involving scores of people, including physicists. It only takes one person to believe a conspiracy exists. That person is you. You’re in good company with Krivit and other dementors.

      As for Stephen’s jibes, I’m just going to ignore him and say, please read Thomas Kuhn’s book. That will answer him quite satisfactorily.

      • Thicket

        November 2, 2011 at 2:07 pm


        The scores of people potentially involved in a scam is your fantasy extrapolation. If the Ecat is a scam, then there is only one single, solitary person in the scam… Rossi. No one else. That’s not a conspiracy.

        It’s typical suppressit mindset that wrongdoings are done by groups of people in a conspiracy. I have some suggested reading for you. Read about the scams of Bernie Madoff, Bre-X and Terraliance.

  29. georgehants

    November 1, 2011 at 6:13 pm

  30. Tom Baccei

    November 1, 2011 at 7:17 pm

    My response to Thicket is this: If it were ONLY “AR and the ecat” I wouldn’t even waste even the time deeded to follow the drama. There is actually not much about Mr. ROssi that impresses, other than his history with Panatelli and Focardi, who, on the other hand, DO impress! They along with the many other competent, and qualified researchers (Miley, Patterson< Storm, Malove create a milieu in which Rossi's claim and the drama surrounding it, make a curiously believable real world drama (to me) of how it just might evolve. Thicket, you clearly are discounting all these others who are and have been reporting convincing results. I just wonder if you dismiss them as scam artists or incompetents? The visibility created by Mr. Rossi has convinced me to spend the time needed to form a more rounded opinion, by reading the various patents, viewing the several documentary films, reading published studies etc. Have you done that? And if you have, how could it have failed to put some doubt into your nearly obsessive conviction that you are right now, because you have been right before. Basing your position on irrelevent nonsense like that is both arrogant and indicative of a very brittle mental state. For instance, as a judge you would terrify me if I, being innocent was brought before you accused of murder. And I was black, and the last several murder suspects were convicted by you, and they were black. And, boy, you sure were right before.

    • Thicket

      November 2, 2011 at 12:27 pm


      You use a number of disingenuous and fallacious arguments. You state that I discount other LENR researchers. You deceitfully ask whether I dismiss tham as scam artists or incompetents. You use the debating trick of deflection to steer the discussion away from Rossi and his Ecat. Are you just careless when you fracture and misrepresent my views on LENR or are you deliberately lying?

      I’ll say it one more time. I have no quarrel with LENR research. While it may amount to nothing, I feel it’s an area worth exploring. I have no opinion nor detailed knowledge of non-Rossi LENR research. I’ve picked up a few things on this forum about Piantelli, but have expressed no opinions.

      As for your personal abuse, shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.

  31. popeye

    November 1, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    I know dissenting voices are not welcome around here, so I won’t stay. I just thought I’d drop in on this first day of November to say:

    I called it. (Others did too.) :

    October resolved nothing. Believers still believe. Skeptics are still skeptical. Fence sitters are still on the fence. Rossi will keep things dangling as long as he can. Certainty is not in his interest.

    Two regulars here disagreed explicitly with me, but even their opinions are not significantly changed. Here are the exchanges:

    LCD said: “Well I’m glad this will all get resolved soon.”

    Popeye said: You’re optimistic. On January 13, various forum commenters were saying of the ecat, “I’m glad this will get resolved tomorrow”. Of course it didn’t, and it probably won’t next month either.

    LCD said: It will for me. I’m not the addictive type POPS.

    But now he says: “I actually am pretty fed up with the waiting. It’s obvious Rossi doesn’t care to prove this thing scientifically anytime soon.”

    I guess it didn’t get resolved, even for him.

    ransompw said: “Rossi will either go down in flames before an international audience, prove LENR but fail to demonstrate a commercial product or verify his Ecat.”

    Popeye said: “I’m not so sure. That’s what people were saying before the January demo. It was a public test of a module that would become part of the MW plant; it would have scientists present, reports would be published etc. Here we are almost 9 months later, and several more demos performed for several other scientists, and still people argue about whether it’s real or not. ”

    ransompw: “Get over it, this is put up or shut up time. The I/O will be measured accurately of that you can be sure. All the scientists invited are going to be aware of the past criticism. We are going to know soon.”

    But now you’re saying: “Rossi, I don’t have a clue, …”


    The consensus on Rossi’s ecat is not likely to improve for months, maybe years. I suspect if Rossi came out tomorrow and said he’d made a mistake, and there is no excess power, true believers would say “Big Oil got to him”, or “He is just being sneaky and trying to dissuade competitors, but just wait, soon enough he will come clean and we will have our ecat”.

    I read through this thread to see how LCD and ransom are thinking these days, and while I’m here, I have two other brief comments:

    1. It seems to be some kind of received wisdom among believers that scientists fear or suppress disruption or change or revolution. But that is simply wrong. They crave it. That’s, after all, where fame and glory, honor and prestige, and, most of all, funding, come from. Novelty is the most important figure-of-merit in any grant proposal. Pons and Fleischmann proved it in 1989, when they still had reputations. After their claims, scientists all over the world leapt head-first into heavy water electrolysis, for fear of being left behind in the most exciting breakthrough in their careers… except it wasn’t.

    2. LCD said “Because it’s an oxymoron. The thought that you can get strong nuclear interactions while something is still in a solid form,…” Two words: fission reactor. The thing that sounds implausible to physicists is not nuclear reactions in a solid, but “useful heat from nuclear reactions in otherwise non-radioactive material, at ordinary conditions, without nuclear radiation”. Analogies are difficult, but to most nuclear physicists, this is more implausible than torrential rain on a perfectly clear day with not a cloud in sight.

    • Don Witcher

      November 1, 2011 at 8:28 pm

      Nobody ever said including Rossi that what’s going on in the ecat doesn’t come without radiation. Each ecat has many kilograms of lead to absorb the gamma radiation that is there when it is in operation. It just doesn’t have any long life residual unstable isotopes that sit there and are toxic for decades and centuries. What is it about this kind of basic physics that you can’t seem to understand.

      • popeye

        November 1, 2011 at 8:52 pm

        Report of Mauro Villa, Jan 26, 20011:

        “In the system test, the two scintillators (labelled A and B) were fixed to the tube (fig. 1) in correspondence of *two holes* performed in the shielding.”

        “no gamma radiation above the background level in the energy region Eγ > 200keV has been observed, neither in single counting, not in coincidence;”

        (Not that the holes make much difference; there is not enough lead to stop gammas, or as Villa put it: “Even assuming that the whole horizontal tube is made of lead (10 cm radius), we expected some γ to pass.” )

    • Ransompw

      November 1, 2011 at 8:35 pm


      Briefly, when Rossi’s customer became a secret and the test was not going to be public (ie, no independently verified results) my opinion about what would happen October 28 changed. It became obvious this thing would keep on keeping on and that was the substance of my posts as the day approached and it was clearly the opinion of LCD who said as much before the October event.

      However, that being said, if Rossi wants to sell these things and make money, ie if there really is an endgame to this, he better prove it to a buyer, be prepared to run for cover if someone really buys it and it doesn’t work or prove it to the public in a real test. My assumption all along is that he wants to make money and in the end the really big bucks won’t come if it is a scam. Especially now since he is apparantly selling reactors that only big players are likely to buy. If he isn’t interested in making money, then his endgame is a mystery to me.

      As to whether it is real or not my opinion hasn’t changed, I don’t know and neither do you.

      One other thing a good investigative reporter should be able to find out what is going on as there are now too many people involved to maintain secrecy for much longer. So what is Swensson of the AP doing, hopefully some good investigative reporting.

    • Tom Baccei

      November 1, 2011 at 9:22 pm

      Welcome back Pops. See my reaction to Thicket above. What part of the significant number of experimental evidence supporting LENR do you not trust?
      Is it the credentials of the claimants? Are you questioning their competence? Are they shams, frauds. Rossi alone could not (and should not) stand up under the attacks of you, MY and THiket, among many others. But, what, do you think of the other results (Focardi, Piantelli, Patterson, Smiley, NASA, etc. etc.) are all just “fluctuations” in the noise?” Your position is way out on the “I know better than anyone else that this is false” end of the spectrum, I have moved to the cautiously optimistic side. I believe there is a process outside of the current realm of main stream science, that bears, no, demands to be studied further. In fact I am willing to try to build a LENR device, with others, to get to the truth. And any real skeptic would love to do that . Will you join us in that effort? A little poking around on these pages will lead you to that group, and we would all benefit from your honest openness to “finding out”. If you cannot find the site and group, I’ll be glad to help you. Otherwise, I’m afraid that you are unwilling to face the truth, and that, sir would certainly match your rhetoric.

  32. Don Witcher

    November 1, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    To admin

    Isn’t it amazing how every time we get a good reasonably objective technical discussion going on this site we are suddenly overwhelmed with a bunch of fatuous skepticism to muck it all up.

  33. georgehants

    November 1, 2011 at 9:50 pm

    Just come home after lovely meal, not impressed with page content.

  34. Eldering_G

    November 1, 2011 at 10:28 pm

    From the Defkalion forum: Prof. Stremmenos remains a member of the board.

  35. James

    November 9, 2011 at 9:40 am

    Fool me once and shame on you.
    Fool me twice and shame on me.