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

Set Your Recorders – 60 Minutes Cold Fusion Update?

July 11, 2012

One of the few mainstream outlets to grab cold fusion by the shorts was 60 Minutes. It is worth watching again before you set your recorders for an update on Tuesday 17th July.

ETA- a few posters point out that this may only be a rerun of the original and I have to agree that it is always possible that we could be disappointed. The description of the LHC segment does not mention the recent Higgs announcement. Nevertheless, it also says the following:

…. CNBC brings you the latest on these classic stories with updates and never before seen footage of these award winning business news stories. …

If Tuesday’s broadcast is not a clone, it will likely generate a bubble of interest that could have lasting ripples. That is why I consider this story worthy of note.



The link for Tuesday’s show is here.

SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGHS – Tuesday, July 17th 9p | 12a ET

Cold Fusion Is Hot Again
A report on cold fusion – nuclear energy like that which powers the sun, but made at room temperatures on a tabletop, which in 1989, was presented as a revolutionary new source of energy that promised to be cheap, limitless and clean but was quickly dismissed as junk science. Today, scientists believe that cold fusion, now most often called low temperature fusion or a nuclear effect, could lead to monumental breakthroughs in energy production.



Posted by on July 11, 2012. Filed under Media & Blogs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

971 Responses to Set Your Recorders – 60 Minutes Cold Fusion Update?

  1. Ransompw

    July 24, 2012 at 8:26 pm


    If you watch the site anymore, I would suggest you think about closing it before one of the few remaining posters has a stroke. Many seem to be worked up into a lather. However, based on his moniker and his posts, I always picture the General as foaming at the mouth.

    • JNewman

      July 24, 2012 at 8:53 pm

      One of the few remaining posters? It seems to me that most of the usual gang is here, although some of the crowd that is most allergic to difficult questions has fled permanently to e-cat world where the news is always good. Even over there some people occasionally seek actual reasons to believe any of the drivel that passes for news, although they are mostly kept at bay by the proprietor. As a last resort, there is always PESN where there has never been a discovery too good to be true. If this site really aggravates people too much, they might really consider those places. After all, all the same exciting developments in LENR are reported there as well and you don’t even have to deal with people who ask too many questions.

      • General Zaroff

        July 24, 2012 at 9:09 pm

        “…you don’t even have to deal with people who ask too many questions.”
        …or imply that certain energy innovators are the metaphorical equivalent of cannibal-squirrels.

      • Ransompw

        July 24, 2012 at 9:15 pm


        Add up the posts and see how many of the last 1800 were posted by a handful of posters? But more importantly the posting has gotten ugly lately and repetitive.

        I personally don’t find much positive in stories about cannibal squirrels eating their young but if that is your thing and you want to revel in it, well I think I’ll pass.

        And Milstone obviously thinks that if he says the same thing often enough it might come true.

        And the other side of the debate is no better and I for one think until some reasonable civility can be maintained everyone would be better off without the posts.

        • Al Potenza

          July 24, 2012 at 9:29 pm

          Just out of curiosity, did you ever reply to my question about your assertion that I think LENR is impossible? I don’t say that, you know? Where did you get the idea that I did?

          Table top fusion is a reality in other systems than LENR. But it doesn’t make energy, it consumes it, in order to make neutrons. Still, it’s quite useful:

          These devices are real and work. They are sold commercially off the shelf regularly. There is no a priori reason to think LENR of some sort is categorically impossible. The claim I make is that it has never conclusively been shown to exist and certainly involves no commercial products whatsoever.

          • Ransompw

            July 24, 2012 at 10:05 pm


            I assume you don’t know the mechanism causing any of the alleged LENR results. Since you don’t know the mechanism I think it is safe to say you have NO idea whether once understood it may be exploited. You base your opinion on the lack of something now. However Al, You do understand that history has demonstrated that things once thought impossible have become possible with better understanding and knowledge. Don’t you think before you conclude it would be wise to understand.

          • daniel maris

            July 24, 2012 at 11:40 pm

            Yes, Al, and I say you therefore disagree with NASA, DARPA, National Instruments, Stanford Research Institute, Mitsubishi, scientists at Amoco and others. Will you at least admit you are at odds with those agencies? Sometimes it seems you are reluctant to admit they back LENR as a real phenomenon.

          • Al Potenza

            July 24, 2012 at 11:54 pm

            “Don’t you think before you conclude it would be wise to understand…

            Conclude what? You keep thinking I’ve concluded some broad thing about the future of LENR. I have done no such thing. The only conclusions I have made which are fairly firm is that Defkalion and Rossi behave like classical previous investor scams and almost certainly are.

            I have tentatively concluded that the existing evidence for LENR is at best weak and circumstantial but having not looked at all of it, I obviously could have missed something.

            As to what will happen with LENR research, I have no idea.

            Please don’t attribute statements to me which I did not make and don’t agree with, Ransom.

          • Al Potenza

            July 25, 2012 at 12:01 am

            “Yes, Al, and I say you therefore disagree with NASA, DARPA, National Instruments, Stanford Research Institute, Mitsubishi, scientists at Amoco and others. Will you at least admit you are at odds with those agencies? Sometimes it seems you are reluctant to admit they back LENR as a real phenomenon.”

            I am strongly at odds with Rossi and Defkalion’s claims. I am not ‘at odds’ with the groups you mention. That’s because none of the institutions and companies you mentioned has ever written that LENR is real and then followed that up with a demonstration of some real LENR.

            Individual scientists with these organizations may think well of LENR but, as far as I know, none of them has made a positive statement about LENR **as an institution**.

            Even if they had, absent the evidence, it would just be another thing someone said. We have lots of that and very little evidence.

        • JNewman

          July 24, 2012 at 9:31 pm

          I am all for reasonable civility, but I am also for reasonable debate. I have lost track of how many times I have raised specific and substantive questions in recent times and have had them summarily ignored. The only responses offered by the believer crowd is the usual insults and accusations.

          Apart from such generalities, there really is nothing much to talk about here. Rossi comes up with increasingly extravagant claims every few weeks and never backs them up with anything. That is grist for a few days’ worth of chatter, but what is there really to say? A handful of folks here simply believe him, another handful defend him as a matter of some misguided principle, and another handful seize yet another opportunity to point out the absurdity of it all. What else is there? Trumped-up excitement over 3-year-old DARPA projects and detail-less announcements from a variety of sources. Combine this all with the never-ending assertion that progress in LENR is accelerating and what do we have? A bunch of nonsense. The perfect playground for General Zaroff’s “unique” contributions.

          If you don’t like what goes on here, how about trying to improve it? Believe it or not, I try with my invitations to substantive discussion about matters of LENR, but there are clearly no takers. People seem to have adopted the principle that Rossi, DGT and other luminaries in this field hold to: take what I say as gospel because I am not going to back it up. The net result is GI-GO, as they say.

          • Ransompw

            July 24, 2012 at 9:55 pm


            I am not here to convince you of anything, nor could I. If I mention that NASA is obviously testing and will likely publish results, if I mention that the University of Missouri is obviously testing and will likely publish results, if I mention that NI is testing and will likely announce results what will you say other than “no published results yet” You don’t accept as valid any of the prior reports of heat energy over input. Since you claim they prove nothing mentioning them is a waste of time. You base this on ?, I have no idea. Have you personally reviewed the hundreds of studies and reports done, I doubt it. Have you personally done any testing you can relate to us, I doubt it?

            I think we will likely hear something from one of the groups mentioned in the not to distant future and then we will have something to talk about. Whether Rossi or DGT are frauds will have to wait on further evidence in my mind, but having Licensee’s who want to sell products is going to make it more and more difficult for Rossi if he has nothing to sell, so I would expect someone to start howling pretty soon.

            However, to act like nothing of substance is happening in the field on the basis that no commercial product is being demonstrated is not sufficient support to call everyone who disagrees with you close minded delusional or worse.

          • JNewman

            July 24, 2012 at 10:20 pm

            Ransom, perhaps it is your professional training or just a personal quirk, but you insist on using the straw man form of argument in which you inaccurately ascribe a view to your opponent and then proceed to criticize it. It is tiresome and makes having a sensible discussion difficult.

            I will answer your post point by point, because that is a sensible thing to do. I only wish others here would give it a try.

            1) There are groups at NASA and at U of Missouri doing LENR testing. I presume they will publish results. That’s all good. Does this fact provide evidence that LENR is real? No. If the mere fact that tests are going on convinces you of anything, I can’t imagine why.

            2) I don’t for one minute believe that NI is testing LENR. NI is a scientific instrument company, not a research laboratory. We have been told that they are providing some support for tests in several places. Again, very good. And again, it proves nothing. Nonetheless, it is a welcome development since there is at least reason to believe that high-quality work may get done.

            3) Every time I ask for an example of a convincing paper on LENR, I am asked if I have read hundreds of papers. Have you? And what would you possibly gain from doing so? Unless you are an expert in the field, you are in no position to evaluate them. And yet, in some mysterious way, you find them collectively convincing. Or are there one or two papers that are the convincing ones? I know you won’t answer, because no one ever does. How amazing…

            4) There is no urgency to declare Rossi and DGT to be frauds. It is quite possible that they will linger in this state of uncertainty for years to come. As long as people continue to give them the benefit of the doubt in the absence of anything tangible, there is no reason this can’t go on indefinitely. I feel no compulsion to declare them to be frauds. However, I feel far less inclination to believe that they have anything real.

            5) I act as if there is nothing of substance happening in the field because I know of nothing of substance happening in the field. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the lack of commercial products. When I ask people here for examples of something substantive happening in the field, they recite a litany of initials (DARPA, NRL, EU, NI…) as though that somehow constitutes validation of LENR or a sign of progress. All it tells me is that there is some money flowing to study LENR and actually has been for years. That is certainly the case. But when extrapolated into statements like “DARPA has proved LENR is real”, that has crossed the boundary into overzealous wishful thinking.

            Anyway, I know you don’t share these views. After all this time, I still can’t fathom how you have come to believe what you do, but I presume you are sincere about it. Whenever I ask you or any other of the more sensible believer types here to explain, I only get vague gestalt arguments. Personally, I think that 100 weak reasons to believe something don’t even add up to one good reason to believe it. But like you, I am not here to convince you or anybody else of anything. But I do remain fascinated by how strong beliefs develop from mysterious sources.

          • Ransompw

            July 24, 2012 at 11:10 pm


            Let me make it simple for you. I follow this because of the enormous potential it has. Potential doesn’t mean it will happen. I point out NASA, The University of Missouri NI etc, because I doubt they would be testing if the outlook was hopeless or positive results as unlikely as Al, Milstone and you for that matter put on. I suspect they are intrigued so I am intrigued. I also think they represent qualified researchers who may do some good solid tests and provide quality results. What those results will show, I don’t know. I doubt you do either but your posts seem to suggest a bias toward negative results. I think that is as daft as those citing the studies and assuming positive results.

            I think 100’s of reports of positive test over the years reminds me of smoke. They may all be mistaken but I tend to think something real is going on, that is just my feeling. In other words where their is smoke…

            I certainly am not saying I know, since I am not qualified to know, but I can still have an opinion and based on what I have read and heard from people I trust, I think LENR is a real effect. To what extent it can be exploited is the question but I see NO reason to assume at this point that exploitation is impossible.

            Since I tend to think LENR is real, Rossi and DGT may be legit but I agree they very very often don’t act like it.

          • JNewman

            July 25, 2012 at 12:30 am

            Ransom, your comments seem quite reasonable. I am not sure that your activities on this site are commensurate with your beliefs. If you are primarily interested because of the great potential of LENR but are cognizant of the fact that the jury is still very much out on the subject, it doesn’t seem sensible that you are such a staunch defender against all and any criticisms launched toward any claims made in the field. Who are you protecting?

            As I tried to say the other day, I don’t even think it is a meaningful statement to say that LENR is a real effect. There are many different effects that have been given that name and I am very doubtful that they are all real (real in this sense having the narrow definition of being a nuclear effect or other non-conventional phenomenon.) Despite your conviction that I am convinced that LENR is impossible or some other such definitive condemnation of the field, the truth is that I am quite willing to believe that there may be a real effect among the various observations. My position is not that LENR doesn’t exist, it is that it has not been convincingly demonstrated to exist. Those are two very different positions to hold.

            My assertion is that science is very much different from the law. Under the law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. In science, a phenomenon is not real until it is proven to exist, not the converse. As far as I am concerned (and, I would contend, so are most scientists who have looked into the matter), that proof has not happened.

            There is the plaintive cry that LENR would be a wonderful thing if it were real and could be exploited. I agree wholeheartedly. However, that fact has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the matter.

            I don’t spend time here trying to dissuade anybody about the reality of LENR. I spend time trying to point out how flimsy the arguments are for asserting its reality. That doesn’t mean it isn’t real nor does it mean that I am disposed to conclude that it isn’t real. It just means that I won’t accept its reality for poor reasons. There is no need to dredge up adages about extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. The fact that that any scientific claim requires solid scientific evidence, and solid scientific evidence is a pretty well-defined thing.

            I know it is much more comfortable to believe that am I some kind of pathologically skeptical person who has a vendetta against LENR or other such nonsense. Unfortunately, that simply is not the case. I simply require the same level of verification that has been applied to every other established physical phenomenon in the world. The last I checked, there are many of those floating around that have never been commercialized but are nonetheless completely accepted as genuine. LENR has to play by the same rules.

          • Ransompw

            July 25, 2012 at 1:55 am


            I tend to disagree with your point on science. To me science is simply observation followed by an attempt to understand and explain what is observed.

            A phenomenon is an observation, in fact that is how it is defined. Look it up if you doubt me. Science doesn’t treat observations as not real. In fact assuming any of the measures of heat are arguably and I mean arguably accurate science should require that one assume it is real and then try to explain it. That is my biggest gripes with the P & F fiasco and the last 23 years of denial. You have got things ass backward.

          • JNewman

            July 25, 2012 at 2:09 am

            Ransom, I am afraid you are focusing on the wrong detail. There is no denying that heat has been measured in LENR experiments. If that is “the phenomenon” to which you refer, then yes, that phenomenon was observed. But let’s not lawyerize this discussion. You know darned well that the phenomenon we are talking about is the generation of heat by some kind of nuclear process that exceeds what could be produced by a chemical reaction. It is the existence of this phenomenon that is in question and to assume that it has occurred until it has been proven to not have occurred is ludicrous. This is a very controversial assumption and the supporting evidence may be voluminous but it is also composed of paper-thin constituents that individually can’t hold much weight. Like I repeatedly, boringly say, show me one really convincing piece of evidence. You can’t, because as far as I know, there isn’t one. If there was, why wouldn’t you tell me about it? Instead, I am told to go read 500 papers. Sorry counselor, but LENR is intriguing pipe dreams until proven real.

          • Ransompw

            July 25, 2012 at 2:41 am


            If we don’t know the cause, the mechanism, science would ask us to investigate. I never said it was nuclear, maybe it is ZPE, maybe Magnetic, maybe nuclear, maybe chemical. I think it is real whatever the cause and we need to understand the phenomenon we are observing. LENR is a moniker until we understand it.

            For you to pretend it either doesn’t exist or is an unknown chemical reaction without really knowing is the issue. I agree we shouldn’t assume it is nuclear until proved, maybe it is something even better.

          • JNewman

            July 25, 2012 at 3:06 am

            Putting words in my mouth again, eh? I am not pretending “it” doesn’t exist or is an unknown chemical reaction. When people do LENR experiments, something generally happens. I don’t claim to know what it is. I strongly doubt that whatever it is produces energy either in excess of what is used to make it happen or for a long enough time to rule out some conventional chemical process. But I don’t claim to know that either. I base my presumption on established science. But I could be wrong. Conventional science could be inadequate in this situation. Something new and unexpected could be happening. However, I have yet to see any reason to believe that to be the likely explanation. This should not be so difficult to grasp. I am not certain that LENR does not exist. I am just not convinced that it does. You are convinced that it exists. As a result, your reaction to any new LENR claim is heightened optimism. My reaction is to ask for some proof. We will just have to agree to disagree until events dictate otherwise.

    • General Zaroff

      July 24, 2012 at 9:04 pm

      Your harsh words sting me Ransompw. But in the spirit of creative writing and peace, I offer this olive branch in the form of a limerick:

      A man from an old law school camp,
      loved LENR like a pimp loves a tramp,
      but we were taken aback,
      by the complete and utter lack,
      of knowledge and wit by the champ.

      • Ransompw

        July 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm


        See what I mean. Do you really want to be grouped with that kind of nonsense?

        • General Zaroff

          July 24, 2012 at 9:30 pm

          So, after a year and a half you have finally realized that things are repetitive here? I guess we should shut this site down.

          Maybe to shake things up you would like to engage in a debate about the science involved in the ecat? No? Why not? If you do I am sure the skeptics would be happy to oblige. I have a bunch of questions that are easy to answer. I hoped LCD could help me, maybe you can?

        • Al Potenza

          July 24, 2012 at 9:30 pm

          Participating in a forum doesn’t “group you” with anything.

          • General Zaroff

            July 24, 2012 at 9:53 pm

            This is true. In the lunch room of the ecatnews virtual world, General Zaroff would surely be sitting alone.

  2. daniel maris

    July 24, 2012 at 11:53 pm

    There’s a rumour on the E-Cat World site,originating from Passerini’s site, that CIPRIANI PROFILLATI S.R.L. may have been a purchaser of Rossi’s 1MW device and be helping set up Prometeon.

    Can’t say whether there’s any real substance to that, but Passerini’s site has been reasonably accurate.

    • Al Potenza

      July 24, 2012 at 11:58 pm

      I don’t agree that Passerini is accurate. He has been a purveyor of unkept promises of great things to be announced which usually turned out to be insignificant, or “Rossi says”. He’s a wishful thinker who Rossi uses when he wants to circulate a new rumor, probably for the benefit of influencing existing and potential investors.

    • JNewman

      July 25, 2012 at 2:29 am

      There is a rumor on e-cat world? According to the dictionary, a rumor is “a currently circulating story or report of uncertain truth”. By that definition, there are nothing but rumors on that site. I can barely imagine what reasonably accurate means in the virtual world of Rossi news.

  3. JKW

    July 25, 2012 at 12:03 am

    For those of us who are not foaming at the moment, and can recall our “Intro to Thermodynamics” courses:

    Steven N. Karels
    July 24th, 2012 at 6:12 AM
    The last Heat Transfer course I took was in 1972 so I am dated but the physics is the same — Conduction, Convection and Radiation transfer. I understand that modern electrical power plants typicaly use 600C steam pressure as a means of doing the Carnot cycle and I have seem some suggestions of higher temperatures that can lead to some improvements in efficiency but with the additional technical issues of handling the higher pressures and associated material problems. So what is the driving application(s) for a high temperature eCat or a Very High temperature eCat? What market niche is Andrea pursuing? Ideas?

    July 24th, 2012 at 7:20 AM
    DearSteven N. Karels:
    We will use the Carnot cycle to begin. We are working also on alternatives.
    Warm Regards,

    I’m thrilled that Dr./Eng. Rossi begins with Carnot cycle and considers alternatives.
    I would advice Corliss engine cycle as the next step to improve the efficiency, but I’m afraid that I’ll be grouped together with the General.

    • General Zaroff

      July 25, 2012 at 3:26 am

      I guess I am confused, as usual. I thought the Carnot cycle was a theoretical model used to bound the amount of mechanical work that can be done by a heat engine consisting of two reservoirs.

      Am I totally dyslexic or does the above make any sense at all?

      • JKW

        July 25, 2012 at 9:56 am

        I am dyslexic, too, and on top of it English is not my second language. Therefore my ESL classes were a total waste.
        But anyway, I was just wondering how the doc is going to start with Carnot cycle, which is the theoretical unreachable limit, as your correctly mentioned.
        Maybe this is another LENR miracle, that enables steam turbines to execute Carnot cycle. Or maybe our dear engineer never heard about a guy called Rankine.
        It was a nice bone thrown at him and he picked it up without hesitation.

        • JNewman

          July 25, 2012 at 6:47 pm

          I suspect that Rossi’s attitude towards the laws of thermodynamics are similar to those of Roman drivers toward traffic laws. He knows about them but doesn’t believe they apply to his personal situation.

  4. dsm

    July 25, 2012 at 1:01 am

    I think I can speak for all in saying that we are all frustrated at the lack of definitive progress …
    The skeptics are frustrated at the barrage of promises, rumors, guesses, blind faith that offer nothing of any substance
    The LENR believers are frustrated at the lack of proofs that would silence LENR critics
    The Rossi/eCat believers are frustrated at the constant (and in my mind justified) criticism of Rossi & what he does & is doing. Some are clearly embarrassed by the escalation of claims & no certified proofs to back them
    Many of us are frustrated – so we pull each others tails as one way of letting off steam 🙂

    • JKW

      July 25, 2012 at 1:24 am

      And then there are the lawyers with “not being guilty until proven”. Who is guilty and what is required for the proof is subject to their interpretation.

      • Ransompw

        July 25, 2012 at 1:38 am


        I am not defending Rossi so don’t interpret what I am about to say as support for him, BUT, the people currently accusing Rosi of fraud don’t have a thing to do with him. When someone that has something to do with him (I guess Krivit would be the closest but he really only went and met him, he isn’t involved financially) starts making waves we can start evaluating his guilt or innocence.

        • dsm

          July 25, 2012 at 1:49 am

          An in the meantime keep pulling each other’s tails (out of sheer frustration) 🙂

        • dsm

          July 25, 2012 at 2:00 am


          Just to take a position on this business of announcing achievements with out scientific backup.
          I read you as saying that until someone files a complaint against Rossi, we should all stop picking on him. Is that what you are meaning ?.
          On the other hand, to me, if someone goes global and announces that they have achieved an advance that will reshape the world as we know it thus impacting my life & my country & my world, then in my mind that person has some obligations in regard to any such announcement.
          That obligation is, in my mind, to allow the monumental claim to be publicly validated else stop making the claims.
          Failing to get validation for monumental claims & in fact walking away from any such opportunity, opens the person up to charges of misleading the world. And that is exactly where I see us at.

          • Ransompw

            July 25, 2012 at 2:10 am


            We can pick on him all we want but in legal parlance, none of us has standing to make an actual claim against him. Has he defrauded any of us, not to my knowledge, thus no standing.

            Again, I am not defending him but the picking would have more substance if it was based on some actual facts.

          • Ransompw

            July 25, 2012 at 2:18 am

            By the way DSM, I might agree with you considering the importance of the subject but I am pretty sure the law of fraud disagrees.

          • dsm

            July 25, 2012 at 2:27 am

            I think you are quite right about the legal aspects of the situation.
            But, I do see the claims vs proofs is the cause of a great deal of frustration among us.
            In the grander scheme of things this will play out as fate will have it. We will all probably chose a perch (skeptic, critic, believer, defender, attacker) in chirp away as we do.
            DSM 🙂

        • Al Potenza

          July 25, 2012 at 2:01 am

          Do we apply that logic to Steorn? To Sniffex? Both were obvious fraud. Steorn had nothing we know of happen to them after five years. The action against Sniffex was finally brought by the FBI and the SEC, not the investors.

          There are a lot of reasons why investors may not “make waves”. They may not realize they’ve been had, they may be criminals laundering money, they may be under NDA’s they are afraid to crack, they may be afraid of looking stupid, or they may be hoping that somehow things will still come out OK and I am sure there are other reasons why they might be silent that I have not even thought of yet.

          • Ransompw

            July 25, 2012 at 2:14 am


            Sniffex was a publically traded company and was an insider trading scam. Rossi’s company to my knowledge is not public and their are no investors. Licensees are not investors.

  5. dsm

    July 25, 2012 at 6:43 am

    Anyone need a distraction 🙂
    How about PlasmERG are still on target (so our dear friend Sterling Allan says) for a September 2012 announcement and demos of running Noble Gas based engines.
    At the moment these actually fascinate me more than LENR reactors (all are about on a par for happening this year 😉 )
    Wouldn’t you just love to have an engine that has no exhaust gas, no cooling system, runs for months without needing a Noble Gas mix top up, no radiation, puts out more power than a gasoline engine (those smelly dirty noisy things).
    Can run in and power planes, boats, submarines, electricity generators, provide spacecraft power, etc: etc:.
    But then I wake up & realize there is work to do & other things to be done & decide I’ll have to dream about it again, later.
    DSM 🙂
    PS should add that the 1st such engine (the ‘Papp’ Engine) exploded at a public demo killing 1 person & seriously injuring 2 others. All this happened in the presence of a Nobel Prizewinning scientist Richard Feynman who was said to be the cause of the explosion by pulling a plug out that controlled the timing of the plasma flash ignition electronics.

    • JKW

      July 25, 2012 at 10:19 am

      These engines do have a connection with doctor-engineer Rossi’s e-cat. Both use Carnot cycle or better.

    • daniel maris

      July 25, 2012 at 1:45 pm

      Hmmm…they do seem awful keen on getting the money in…

      But at least they show you on You Tube how they put the machine together!

  6. Blanco69

    July 25, 2012 at 9:20 am

    Haven’t chipped my tuppence worth in here for a while but, on the basis that the highlights here are now ther General’s woodland wanderings, here goes.I was wondering what the objectives of the average skeptic was. I can imagine that, for the average believer, this story provides a framework for dreaming and wishful thinking where one can see why people would want to share their enthusiasm. The skeptic’s motives baffle me however. The fake Dick Smith used to say he was on a mission to save the Mom & Pop investors from this obvious scam. I’ve seen less proof of that scenario that the ecat itself. Is there a drive to save poor unfortunate believers from dellusion? If that were true I venture you’d see a different tone in the posts. One more of, I’ll save you” rather than, “I’m right and you’re wrong”. So if any skeptics would like to shed some light on their true motives. Knock yourselves out! as they say.

    • JKW

      July 25, 2012 at 10:32 am

      It’s a sociological phenomenon. I wish I could tell you more but I’m not a sociologist, just a pathoscept. I get a kick out of annoying Methusela.

    • JNewman

      July 25, 2012 at 2:28 pm

      Everybody enjoys annoying Mehusela, but apart from that, there is a compelling fascination with watching people who claim to be “interested” in a topic and indulging “wishful thinking” and yet defend their beliefs with religious fervor and perform extraordinary logical contortion acts to reconcile events with their convictions. In short, it is a riveting human drama.

      In terms of motivations, I think the believers here are into the drama too. If they just wanted to fantasize about LENR, there are better websites for that purpose.

      • MPBrunelli

        July 25, 2012 at 3:10 pm

        “perform extraordinary logical contortion acts to reconcile events with their convictions”

        Who’s being the mental contortionist? You completely ignored the actual question and transformed the discussion to fit your beliefs. The inability to stick to the subject is why alot of us refuse to post, causing the conversation to become stale. Thrist for drama is a lazy answer.

        • MIKE

          July 25, 2012 at 3:54 pm

          I couldn’t agree more. Some posters seem to be more involved with each other rather than the story.

        • JNewman

          July 25, 2012 at 3:59 pm

          The actual question was what is the true motive for posting here. The answer is that I find that people’s inexplicably intense attachment to this questionable area of science endlessly fascinating and I enjoy exploring it. That’s the truth. If you find it to be an unsatisfactory answer, that’s your problem.

    • General Zaroff

      July 25, 2012 at 6:00 pm

      My primary motivation for posting here is amusement.

      I see a fascinating story unfolding. I see many colorful characters trying to convince themselves of how great and imminent the energy revolution is, and I see very little in the way of science to back it up. It is fun to interact with these self-described ‘open-minded’ or ‘neutral’ observers.

      Ultimately, I have no interest in converting people to my point of view. I just like to point out how absurd the whole situation is, at least to the extent that my 4th grade reading level allows.

      • daniel maris

        July 25, 2012 at 7:18 pm

        I know you’re busy General so I took the liberty of drafting a letter for you to one of those “colourful characters” (Mr Zawodny):

        “Dear Joe,

        I know you NASA guys think you’re all it with your moonshots, and your operating a Mars Rover, and your getting to Titan, and your manufacturing space telescopes in the most antiseptic conditions possible, but that doesn’t mean you can take the temperature of a beaker of water. Clearly you’ve got this all wrong.There is no anomalous heat generation, no low energy nuclear reaction and most definitely nothing that can be taken to market.

        So please – take down that ridiculous video, and stop attending all those LENR conferences. You’re just encouraging the liars, the delusional, and the incompetent – people like Profs Focardi and Levi and the scientists at Mitsubishi or Amoco.

        Also, please don’t listen to DARPA – they don’t know what they’re talking about either.

        I trust I can expect you to come into line pronto.”

        Hope that saves you a few keyboards strokes, so you can devote your time to the really dangerous mob, the ones on ecatnews.

        Do you want to sign off?

        • General Zaroff

          July 25, 2012 at 7:35 pm


          When I said I enjoy interacting with the colorful characters of LENR, I did mean the people here at ecatnews. I am always so tragically misunderstood.

          Anyways, if I were to draft a letter to NASA it would not look much like yours. Perhaps I will make one for my next creative writing exercise.

          • Ransompw

            July 25, 2012 at 8:18 pm

            Writing a letter to NASA under the alias, General Zaroff, is a sure fire way to get a laugh out of someone before they can the letter.

          • un passante

            July 25, 2012 at 8:27 pm

            oh what a letter that would be, I think they would start trembling at the prospect of receiving a gen zaroff missive!

            I say be magnanimous and let the boys play with their toys, spare DARPA, NASA, NI etc. etc. your legendary wrath.

        • un passante

          July 25, 2012 at 8:16 pm

          it’s insulting that you compare gen. zaboff’s credibility and competence with NASA scientists or DARPA’s or – long list -.

          clearly gen zaboff is superior to all of them, the imaginary squirrels that populate his brain can testify to that!

        • John Milstone

          July 25, 2012 at 8:18 pm

          daniel, that’s a nice straw man you have there. Of course, being a straw man, it doesn’t match reality.

          By the way, here is Dr. Zawodny’s response (LINK):

          As for what people are trying to read into this video, specifically my use of the word “demonstrated”, it is my professional opinion that the production of excess energy has been demonstrated when the results of the last 20+ years of experimentation are evaluated. There has been a lot of work done in the past 20+ years. When considered in aggregate I believe excess power has been demonstrated. I did not say, reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable. If any of those other terms were applicable I would have used them instead. If anything, it is the lack of a single clear demonstration of reliable, useful, and controllable production of excess power that has held LENR research back. As a non-technical piece aimed at the general public, my limited media training has taught me that less information/detail is generally better than more. I did not produce or direct the video. While I saw the video before it was released, I did not learn of it’s release until the email started pouring in Thursday morning.

          There have been many attempts to twist the release of this video into NASA’s support for LENR or as proof that Rossi’s e-cat really works. Many extraordinary claims have been made in 2010. In my scientific opinion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find a distinct absence of the latter. So let me be very clear here. While I personally find sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I remain skeptical. Furthermore, I am unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy.

          So what does extraordinary evidence look like? As a trained scientist, I have been taught the historical standards for acceptance of experimental results or theories. Experiments and theories go hand-in-hand in what is known as the scientific method. Both must be independently tested, replicated, or verified. As a minimum, experimental results must be replicated by an objective and independent party. The nature of the test or replication needs to adhere to the spirit of the original experiment but, should be under the full design, implementation, and control of the independent tester. So, if a device is claimed to be capable of producing excess heat by nature of its operation (i.e., the consumption of fuel via a nuclear process), it must be operated properly. The way power input and power output are measured should be left up to the independent tester. This is standard scientific practice. What would take this to the next level (extraordinary evidence) would be to have the test be an open public test. The nature of the test and specific approach to executing the test should be made public. The conduct of the test should be open to additional 3rd party experts. And finally, the data should be publicly released. Further peer review of all aspects of the independent test is a must. Community consensus is the ultimate goal. Every attempted demonstration of a LENR device that I am aware of has failed to meet one or more of these criteria.

          Gee, Dr. Zawodny sounds just like one of those nasty pathoskeptics!

          • Ransompw

            July 25, 2012 at 8:37 pm


            Anyway you want to read Zawodny, he is not a pathoskeptic. I would say a good conservative scientist who believes excess energy has been adequately demonstrated and further investigation of the cause of this observation is warranted. And by the way I agree with everything he wrote which is miles different than the nonsense you write.

          • un passante

            July 25, 2012 at 8:42 pm

            and zawodny stopped researching LENR soon after, right?

            it’s not like he posted another video with a NASA logo on it where he talked about his research and the possible benefits of his research?

            you should send a letter to zawodny telling him that 5 of his colleagues attended a LENR conference recently!

            yes, those NASA people look more and more skeptical.

          • John Milstone

            July 25, 2012 at 9:06 pm

            Ransompw, you obviously don’t agree with most of what Dr. Zawodny says, otherwise you wouldn’t be so vehement about defining Rossi and DGE, both of which fail miserably Zawodny’s standards for credible work.

            Zawodny’s comments are almost identical to what several of the skeptics here have been saying all along. That you keep missing that obvious fact demonstrates your weak grasp of science.

          • Ransompw

            July 25, 2012 at 9:22 pm


            Zawodny doesn’t say Rossi is a fraud, he says he is waiting for Rossi to provide definitive proof of his claims, so am I. There is a big difference between saying Rossi hasn’t provided adequate proof for his claims and claiming Rossi is a fraud.

            There is also a world of difference between Zawodny who says he is convinced excess energy has been demonstrated and your comments about the last 23 years of LENR tests. You either can’t read or know a lot less science than you claim.

            I am more than happy to agree with Zawodny and I do. The only thing that prompted my reply to your post is your attempt to lump Zawodny who I deem to be a reasonable scientist with you, who I am pretty sure is biased and unreasonable.

          • JNewman

            July 25, 2012 at 9:37 pm

            Ranson, please read Dr. Zawody’s words carefully. He clearly states that he believes that the aggregate of LENR measurements indicate that excess heat has been demonstrated but that there is no single experiment that clearly demonstrates a reliable, controllable or useful phenomenon. That position is very close to that of every so-called pathoskeptic who posts here and is very far from that of every so-called believer. The position that LENR is impossible or simply not real is a straw man imposed on skeptics as a way of deflecting their arguments (with the possible exception of the position held by Popeye. Since he is not around these days to speak for himself, we will have to leave him out of the discussion.) As for the rest of us evil naysayers, I don’t think any of us has any quarrel with Zawodny’s words. It is sensible to conclude from the aggregate of LENR data that something may be going on. But Zawodny’s exact words are what we skeptics here are perfectly comfortable with saying: “So let me be very clear here. While I personally find sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I remain skeptical. ” When believers here are cornered, they sometimes say that all they are saying is that more research is warranted. I don’t think anybody is really opposed to that and I don’t think that is all the believers are saying.

            Now if some folks from other agencies would clear the air about all this, that would be great as well. The DARPA nonsense is particularly pathetic.

          • Ransompw

            July 25, 2012 at 9:56 pm


            I speak for myself. What I believe Zawodny is saying is that no test has shown a commercial product (definitively), I agree. After all to be commercial it must be RELIABLE, CONTROLLABLE and USEFUL. Those properties won’t be shown until a commercial product is introduced. And that may be never.

            That is a far cry from your posts which basically don’t even acknowledge the anomaly.

            Now I agree that many of us, myself included would like to see the anomaly turned into a reliable, controllable and useful product and maybe the difference between us is our assessment of that possibility. Based on what I have read I’d give it a decent chance, certainly more then enough to warrant considerable research although not 50-50 at this point.

            The thing is I read You, Milstone, the General and big Al as saying way less then 1% (although I readily acknowledge no % has actually been placed.). Otherwise, why all the adjectives for those that place a higher possibility on this anomaly?

  7. Al Potenza

    July 25, 2012 at 5:27 pm

  8. Harry Perini

    July 25, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    Rossi’s E-Cat Hits 1000 Degrees Celsius

    Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat technology is rapidly evolving, with breakthroughs taking place on a regular basis. Today he announced that the new high temperature E-Cat is now capable of producing temperatures of over 1,000ºC with total stability.

    • JKW

      July 25, 2012 at 9:49 pm

      Hey Hank, sorry, Harry, did he check the floor for pools of melted lead?

  9. JKW

    July 25, 2012 at 9:38 pm

    While reading an article on nuclear energy costs, it struck me that projected construction costs of 3-rd generation power plants are around $1500 per KW. How does this compare to a shipping container stuffed with tinfoiled shoeboxes and sloppy plumbing? Around the same. There must be a true wonder of technology in those boxes.
    Somehow I don’t see utilities lining up in Rossi’s sales office to replace their boilers with billion dollar worth of e-cats, even if they miraculously worked.