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

Colonel Outed – E-Cat Schizophrenia Spreads

August 12, 2012

Details of the mysterious figure presented as the 1MW customer rep in October of last year have now been revealed. Many sceptics doubted he even existed but now they will most certainly doubt his impartiality (or assume he is Rossi’s employee or partner). Indeed, accusations fly that the more we know the more it stinks. To me, while the revelation is hardly good news for Rossi, it is difficult to conclude anything definitive. It is just one more brick in the wall.

Domenico Fioravanti, it seems, is ‘Cures’ – the handle responsible for the ‘leaked’ information about the so-called hot-cat. The unfortunate revelation that this is the person who supposedly gave the thumbs-up on behalf of the secret military outfit touted as the first e-Cat customer (who did not seem too bothered about picking up their purchase) is a double whammy bound to put the nail in the coffin for some and understandably so.

I try to balance the over-belligerent sceptics with a dose of non-judgmental caution but Rossi does not make it easy. The new information is highly suspicious. That said, our suspicions have been aroused for a while and this is just one more concern among many. Yet again, it seems to be a point score for the meannies. We can believe that this is an innocent conjunction of old acquaintances being reunited in a mutually beneficial contract or we can see it as an attempt to paper over the fact that the ‘Cures’ post was a fake leak by an insider (who was actually working with Rossi all along) to spin a photo of a standard furnace as ‘proof’ that miracles were happening in e-Cat land and to cover the cracks propagating along the secret customer’s independent tester story.

When Defkalion painted themselves into a corner by promising to reveal details of seven independent ‘well-known’ testing organizations and their results, I thought no company would do such a thing if they did not intend to deliver – it would be stupid. When they simply stood up and walked through the paint when the time came, I decided to accept nothing they said in the future until they demonstrate something substantial. That did not happen in NI Week and we are still waiting with nothing but a sliver of wishful thinking. Our next opportunity to be surprised will come at ICCF 17 in Korea. I wait in hope but not expectation. To me, Defkalion has a long credibility hill to climb and all the signs are that they will struggle to make it. While it is not in my nature to accuse people of criminal acts without solid proof, it is sensible to distrust anything they say until they back it with evidence. As soon as they do, they will be championed and deserve it.

I hope the same sorry pattern does not unfold for Rossi. With his new claim of October testing at the University of Bologna, the credulous part of me thinks that he would not paint himself into such a time-limited corner if there was no substance to his word. The sceptic within then slaps me in the face and recalls all the previous misdirections and ‘misunderstandings’ and chastises the other half of me for being a mug. Who knew schizophrenia could be so entertaining?

I cling to hope by my fingertips but the rock-face is crumbling.

Andrea… Show the world that you are the man you profess to be. I for one will applaud you. The University of Bologna has been a key player in indirectly lending its reputation to this saga from the beginning. I look forward to finally hearing from them that the eCat has landed. Those who accuse you of being a lying con artist willing to use the suffering of sick children as a prop in your game need to be shown how mistaken they are.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Luca Salvarani:
    All this mess around Cures is much ado for nothing. Yes, somebody has leaked information regarding the 16 July test, made by 9 Professors and 1 Army Engineer. The names of the validators and the text of the test had to remain confidential until the end of the validation process, which will be within October 15th. Somebody, overwhelmed by enthusiasm, leaked. I want not to know who he is and the issue is not important to me, what is important is that now we have the capacity to heat water with a wall over 1000 Celsius (the reactor is operating every day and confirms all his performance and safety)-
    I am sorry for Cures, who will have some troubles, but it is not my problem at this point.
    The COP will not change; the Hot Cat is limited to industrial applications; a full and complete report will be published by the University that will complete the validation.
    Warmest Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Antonella:
    About the tests: the precise dates will be decided in an agreement that we should reach at the beginning of September: obviously we have to accept their needs.
    About Cures: He has been identified as Domenico Fioravanti, it appears that the data from the test made on July 16th comes from him. If it is true, it is due to an excess of enthusiasm for the results, that have been obtained in a test directed by him and by 6 Professors from two Universities. The data had to remain confidential, but he could not help to talk about this event and the remarkable results.
    He is making these tests as a Consultant of a military Customer of us and now probably he will have problems for the leakages, even if I do not think it has been so important: sooner or later the same data will be published. I knew Ing Fioravanti when he was a Student of the Politecnico di Torino ( the Engineering University of Turin, Italy) because he was making a research for Prof. Cesare Boffa (one of the best Engineering Prof. of the time) regarding the new technologies of Electrostatic Precipitators. It was the year 1976 and even if I was 26 years old, I was at the times considered an expert of the sector, so I gave to Domenico Fioravanti much papers I had wrote and he also sisited the electrostatic precipitators I manufactured in my factory of Caponago (Milan, Italy). The we never met again. After 35 years (!!!) I received an email from him in the blog of the Journal, in which he congratulated for the E-Cat, and for me has been a delighting surprise to hear from him again. I contacted him privately and he explained to me that he was a Colonel Engineer, expert of missiles tests. One year later, when with our Military Customer we had to choose a neutral Consultant for the test of the well known plant of 1 MW, I proposed Fioravanti, whom they knew very well, because he wrrked with NATO, with the Pentagon at the highest levels and always for engineering connected with thermodynamic tests. So we all have been glad to choose him.
    His intellectual integrity and his knowledge of the matter has allowed a job that has been considered highly professional from all the parties involved.
    This is it.
    Warm Regards,

Posted by on August 12, 2012. Filed under Bologna,Defkalion,Drama,Rossi,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

477 Responses to Colonel Outed – E-Cat Schizophrenia Spreads

  1. GreenWin

    August 14, 2012 at 3:51 am

    More than likely the Colonel is one of the guys in this very secret organization (requiring secret handshake and all.)

    Hey, we can’t help it if this thing is catching.

  2. GreenWin

    August 14, 2012 at 4:31 am

    “George Hody / Maryyugo / John Milstone’s Thermonetics company used to be so positive about cold fusion… “Measures total heat output of cold fusion electrochemical reactions.”

    Too HILARIOUS for words… okay these words:

    LENR Skeptopaths in jealous rage throw themselves into shark infested waters off Zarcofagus Island! TV ratings skyrocket!

    Thank you, thank you, thank you Mary!!

    IGZ-2013 Resistance is Futile.

    • General Zaroff

      August 14, 2012 at 5:17 am

      GreenWin, why do all the links you provide lead to dirty fetish porn sites? Can’t we keep the clean energy revolution clean?

      On a different topic. In 200 words or less, can someone explain why we care about George Hody or Mary Yugo? I guess I started posting at this site long after they left. I have figured out that calling someone a Mary-Yugo is akin to labeling them as the anti-christ, but I am not sure why.

      • Kapytanhook

        August 14, 2012 at 3:16 pm

        Well said, they where objective people worried that others would be suckered in by a possible Rossi scam.

        Maryyugo was a hero.

        • Methusela

          August 14, 2012 at 3:19 pm

          That’s drivel.

          If he is so ‘worried’ he’d be parading up and down outside the venue with a placard.

        • 123star

          August 15, 2012 at 7:16 am

          Maryyugo was a hero.

          Admin once said that she is still posting. What is the new nickname then?
          MY, reveal yourself!
          And by the way, if it’s not clear, I’m a fan of Maryyugo too 🙂


  3. Loonyman

    August 14, 2012 at 6:13 am

    So, Georgehants has given up and gone home… Amazing! But good to see Spacegoat and a few others still flying the flag for Rossi and Co.
    You go guys! Never stop dreaming the dream! ( even in the face of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary!)

    I can’t be arsed to wade through the thousands of comments, so what is your feelings about the e-mail exchange on that “Stop Rossi” site? Pretty damning in my opinion. But then, I would say that, being a Mary Yugo, or psudoskeptic , or what ever you are calling us folks who like a little evidence with our claims these days.

    ( one more thing, anyone know where the esteemed Mr G.Hants hangs out these days? I have a question about UFO’s for him.)



    • spacegoat

      August 14, 2012 at 7:53 am


      Georgehants posts with even greater intensity on a site for believers.

      Correction: I have never flown the flag for slapstick farce Rossi, but I have always had a greater than 50% confidence in DGT, who recently delivered the goods, but etcatnews lenr atheists are too lazy, prejudiced or unqualified to read their paper. They prefer to chew and regurgitate Rossi farce over and over.

      The “Stop Rossi” site is more farcical than the RossiSays site. Irrelevant.

      Following DGT’s world shattering news, today was the presentation by Mitchell Swartz / Peter L. Hagelstein. Having been lucky enough to read their paper in advance, now the presentation is over, I can state that they have announced repeatable and reliable lenr as engineered devices.

      But let’s not disturb the atheists versus believers spectacle here on this site. Let them continue. Especially General Zaroff whose wit is a delight. Without the spectacle, his energies would be devoted to more hunting on his island.

      Loonyman, if you want to be a realist, get hold of the papers and read.

      • CuriousChris

        August 14, 2012 at 2:37 pm

        Actually with respect to DGT like most believers you use misinformation as your tool.

        Read the papers. Digested them and found them severely lacking. Inconsistent and mostly making claims which are unsubstantiated.

        And have discussed the failings in previous posts which you probably chose not to read in case you didn’t like the result.

    • Frank

      August 14, 2012 at 11:27 am

      George preferred ‘home’ now is a as you can read in this thread:

      Check out the reply he did on my comment there – you will enjoy 😉

  4. Jami

    August 14, 2012 at 8:15 am

    “unqualified to read their paper”

    True. I tried. Really. But whatever qualification may be required (being a drug user presumably helps a lot and believing Rydberg to be a holiday resort in Norway surely doesn’t hurt) – I don’t have it. Meanwhile our friend Tyler’s confidence in them seems to have taken somewhat of a hit after having been confronted with a small dose of tedious LENR reality at ICCF.

  5. Wolf

    August 14, 2012 at 10:07 am

    I’m stunned by the vehemence with which both sides here (LENR / Rossi “atheists” and “believers”) throw their heads against each other. It just seems as if everybody knows the truth and is on a crusade to turn the other party around.

    However, the facts are that there are
    a) many signs which point to an anomalous heat effect, but nobody knows why it’s there and how it works for sure.
    b) many signs which question the integrity and validity of both Rossi and DGT

    Regarding a) Not doing research on LENR would be like simply closing your eyes and ears because you simply don’t wanna see and hear anything. Not exactly the scientific way… If there is something which you cannot explain, do the research and have a deeper look at it in order to understand the data.

    Regarding b) As far as I know, there is no concrete and valid proof that either one (Rossi / DGT) is a scam. There are pointers in both directions with definitely many pointing to the scam area (especially for Rossi, but thats just my humble opinion). Also, no one was hurt yet AFAIK. Therefore: Why not keep an open mind, write down all the facts that we have and keep watching this story unfold? Would anyone get hurt from that? It’s always helpful to keep an open mind and think (not believe!) for yourself, but still let other people draw their own conclusions without trying to deafening them.

    I myself am what I would call a rational sceptic and normally tend to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Until then: Why fight each other? Why not simply exchange arguments? Why not simply have the courage to admit that other people are allowed to have different opinions until proven otherwise? This is not a sign of weakness, au contraire.

    I would just love to be able to look quickly at the “facts” (whatever you wanna call it) again instead of scrolling through hundreds of offending comments in order to search something noteworthy (also if it’s just another rumour…)

    Just my 2 cents…

    • JNewman

      August 14, 2012 at 3:01 pm

      Exchanging arguments is a fine idea. However, that requires one to distinguish between attacking an argument and attacking the person making the argument. That skill is not plentiful here.

  6. Loonyman

    August 14, 2012 at 11:20 am

    There are no “Facts” , it’s all horseshit and mirrors, designed to remove money from investors. I would have thought that was obvious by now!

    Spacegoat, 1. Just because defskallyon says they have something, it does not make it so. ( You have had this pointed out to you before, but I can try again.)

    2. The “Stop Rossi” website IS extremely relevant, ( if somewhat badly presented).
    I am sure that you have commented in the past that Rossi is not a scam artist because he is not taking money. The E mails laid out show you EXACTLY where the guy is making his money from, and highlights all the bullshit and inconsistencies that have flowed out of Rossilabs.

    Anyone who has not read the email exchange has no right to say another word about Rossi , because they obviously have no interest in discovering the facts.

    • Methusela

      August 14, 2012 at 12:03 pm



      • timycelyn

        August 14, 2012 at 12:30 pm

        To be pitied, I think. Hard of thinking, one might say…..

        • Methusela

          August 14, 2012 at 12:38 pm

          Indeed he is. He’s quite a troll, actually.

          • Loonyman

            August 14, 2012 at 4:17 pm

            As ever was the way, attack the messenger and ignore the message!!

            Anyone else want to place a bet on LENR befor this Christmas? Or any Christmas for that matter…. Which reminds me, I better check back and find the bet I had with that other dude in Sweden… 1000:- if I remember right, to a children’s hospital if no LENR products in 2012.
            Looking good for the hospital 🙂
            Anyone want to contact me for a bet, or just a friendly exchange of ideas you can get me at. outerspex (at) yahoo (dot) com

            See ya in 2 months otherwise!

    • daniel maris

      August 14, 2012 at 1:01 pm

      So Celani currently demonstrating at an open conference an LENR machine producing 20W excess is a scammer as well?

      • John Milstone

        August 14, 2012 at 1:43 pm

        So Celani currently demonstrating at an open conference an LENR machine producing 20W excess is a scammer as well?

        Were the CERN researchers who ran thousands of experiments showing faster-than-light neutrinos scammers?

        Were the NASA researchers to discovered arsenic-based life scammers?

        Neither were scammers, but both were wrong. Scientists make mistakes. That’s why replication is so important. A “demo” at a conference isn’t sufficient. That doesn’t mean it’s a scam, or even wrong. It means that it hasn’t been proven yet. It’s far too easy for a “demo” to be rigged, as Rossi (and Carl Tilley, and John Keely, and Steorn and Blacklight Power, and Joseph Newman, and Madison Priest, etc. etc. etc.) have proven.

        But the True Believers never understand that.

        • Anapopei

          August 14, 2012 at 1:51 pm

          In what way was the Essén-Kullander test rigged by Rossi?

          • John Milstone

            August 14, 2012 at 2:08 pm

            In what way was the Essén-Kullander test rigged by Rossi?

            What was the date of that test? I assume you mean a test run by Rossi which was viewed by Essén and Kullander. I am aware that neither Essén nor Kullander ever conducted a test of an E-Cat.

            Meanwhile, why are we still waiting for the “detailed isotopic analysis” of Rossi’s gadget that Kullander promised to provide before Christmas 2011? (LINK)

          • Al Potenza

            August 14, 2012 at 5:03 pm

            Tests witnessed by Essen and Kullander were rigged because the heat output calculations assumed the steam was dry. Krivit and others demonstrated clearly that it was not. Liquid water was included in the output stream. This introduces a large (and I think deliberate) error in the energy measurement. In later tests where Rossi used a heat exchanger, he (I think deliberately) misplaced the temperature out thermocouple. It was placed too close to the hot end of the heat exchanger and did not reflect accurately the temperature at the output.

          • Anapopei

            August 14, 2012 at 5:45 pm

            The test took place 29 March 2011.

            As you may recall, Dick Smith offered 1 MUS$ for a re-run with better measurement of input power.

            Where are the proofs that the Rossi actually rigged the input power?

          • Anapopei

            August 14, 2012 at 5:49 pm

            The test was done 29 March 2011.

            As you may recall, Dick Smith offered 1 MUS$ for a re-run with better measurement of input power.

          • Max S

            August 16, 2012 at 6:36 pm

            The wrong energy measurement – margin of error 600% is exactly the excess heat as claimed – means there is no evidence for any excess heat. It means the conclusion of a nuclear reaction in this experiment was inappropriate.
            Moreover Kullander tested the isotopes of Ni and Cu of the e-cat ash and found them in natural ratio. This is absolutely incompatible with the transmutation process claimed by Rossi.
            These are the reasons why serious scientists do not buy the e-cat story.

        • Bettingman

          August 14, 2012 at 2:21 pm

          I do hope that the work of Celani is replicated soon with a thorough test. Or disproved. We will learn more both ways.

          • Frank

            August 14, 2012 at 2:41 pm


            That’s would be the correct approach.
            (And that applies to all other LENR devices/claims as well)

          • Al Potenza

            August 14, 2012 at 5:05 pm

            Celani’s current demo is crude and error prone. He says he did flow calorimetry but I did not see where he presented clearly the method and results. He could also improve his experiment with insulation and more active wires to greatly increase the output signal which at present is weak (some few variable watts over a background of about 50). But of course, as others said, the best proof is replication.

      • Max S

        August 16, 2012 at 6:48 pm

        Celani is not Rossi, these are different experimental setups.
        If Celani finds excess heat in nuclear reaction, it does not prove anything for Rossi.
        Celani is a serious scientist who deserves respect, in case of Rossi this remains to be seen.

    • Frank

      August 14, 2012 at 2:00 pm

      I understand that you are upset by some of the absurd/irrational comments made on this blog.
      But if you suspect that the e-cat story is a scam, then you should also consider that it might involve all characters of a classical scam.

      Did you ever run into a classical street scam, such as 3 card monte?
      (Yes, you still can find this kind of game – there are still enough gullible ones out there, so it makes it still worthwhile for scammer to go after them. )
      If you watch such a game, then it’s obvious for any reasonable thinker with at least half of a brain that the ‘operator’ is conducting a farce – but does it make sense to discuss with the ‘shills’ about it?
      You will also see that sceptical ‘bystanders’ are not welcome at such a place and the ‘shills’ try to edge them out since they interfere with their business. But if you are just an enthustiastic, uncritical or dumb bystander – then your attendance is welcome to support the show.

  7. Harry Perini

    August 14, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    • Ivy Matt

      August 14, 2012 at 1:13 pm

      Rossi’s going to dynamite his robotic E-Cat factory?

      • Methusela

        August 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm

        He’s going to stuff it full of rocket fuel and wait for someone to pull the plug.

        Milstone! Time for you start pulling something else!

  8. Thicket

    August 14, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    Whew. Just went through all the e-mails on shutdownrossi.

    It was entertaining to see con-man Roger Green being conned. Robert K strung him along for an incredible amount of time. I had to laugh at the detailed information Robert K provided about his fictitious committee. Green just lapped it up. I wouldn’t have the patience for such an exercise. My congratulations to Robert K for his creativity, ingenuity and perserverance.

    The reason that Roger Green kept trying to persuade Robert K is greed. Green is one dumb, slow-witted con artist. A con-man should be able to sniff out another con, but Green was too stupid. Heck, Rossi quickly sniffed out the Defkalion scam when they tried to muscle in on his turf.

    Not surprisingly, Rossi believers either ignore the damning fraud evidence provided by the e-mails or dismiss it as not proving that the eCat is a fraud. When you’re a tin-foil hat wearing, woo-woo believing, credulous, gullible sycophant, absolutely nothing will convince you that your favorite illusion is a fraud.

    Shutdownrossi provides more original Rossi information than Vortex, eCatworld and this site combined. Only Krivit’s site has provided more original information.

    • Ransompw

      August 14, 2012 at 5:58 pm


      What is the damning fraud evidence you believe was disclosed by this obvious sting operation? What false information did Green supply to Robert K?

      • Al Potenza

        August 14, 2012 at 6:06 pm

        The false information is that Rossi’s ecat has been properly vetted and tested and works. It is also false that Rossi has delivered “megawatt plants” to military (or any other) clients. It is also false that Rossi is building million ecat per year factories. And there are more lies. In fact, if you know anything about science and physics, you will realize that everything Rossi claims about ecat performance is almost certainly a lie.

        And it is very unlikely that Rossi has sold anywhere near the number of licenses or franchises or whatever you wish to call what he sells.

        • Ransompw

          August 14, 2012 at 7:59 pm

          Wow big guy, where is the proof that Rossi HASN’T delivered a megawatt plant to military clients? You don’t have any. Obviously there isn’t any proof he has and that is important but lack of proof isn’t proof against the proposition.

          Where is the proof that he isn’t building or fitting a factory to make his million ecats. Again, you have NO proof and of course there is no proof he is doing it either. But again no proof he is is not proof he isn’t.

          As to whether his claims are against the laws of physics, I’d prefer to have a better source for the opinion. No offense but what are your credentials. Post your CV and I’ll let you know if you deserve consideration as an expert or whether your opinion is any better than mine, which I readily agree isn’t worth much on that point.

          And if he hasn’t sold many licenses and given how stupidly cheap they are (which in my opinion is the best evidence so far that he doesn’t have a world changing device) he sure hasn’t run much of a scam.

          • John Milstone

            August 14, 2012 at 8:13 pm

            Where is the proof that he isn’t building or fitting a factory to make his million ecats.

            There is Rossi’s own claim to the Florida authorities that he was not engaging in any manufacturing in Florida.

            The very next day, he claimed to be manufacturing E-Cats in Florida on his blog.

            One of those statements is obviously a lie.

            Ask yourself which situation would cause Rossi to be in legal jeopardy if he were lying, and you’ll have a handle on which statement was true.

          • Ransompw

            August 14, 2012 at 8:53 pm


            I think what you just posted is inaccurate. I am not going back and rehashing the factory issue but it wasn’t the next day that the alleged inconsistantcy took place. If it was and you have the energy prove it.

            I also think the location of where he might be building his product is irrelevant. It would be relevant if he wasn’t building anything or if he had no product, but not where he is building them.

          • John Milstone

            August 14, 2012 at 11:26 pm

            I don’t have Rossi’s quote handy, but I’m almost certain he claimed to be manufacturing the E-Cats for his “secret customer” in the United States within a day or so of his claims to the Florida authorities that he was not doing any manufacturing in the United States. The significance of the post only became apparent later, when the information about his contact with the Florida authorities became public.

            Meanwhile, there is always Sterling Allan’s article about it. He points out some of the contradictory statements by Rossi.

      • Thicket

        August 14, 2012 at 8:39 pm

        Sorry Ransom. I won’t bite this time. I’ve read enough of your turgid rationalizing lawyer-speak about the Australian e-mails to engage you in another circle-jerk. I also know you like to get into a good debate just for the sake of debate.

        Let’s simply say that you and I won’t agree on this damning fraud evidence and leave it at that.

        • Ransompw

          August 14, 2012 at 9:00 pm


          It comes as no surprise to me that you won’t discuss specifics. One seldom does when the facts don’t support the proposition they advance. In the law business we call it pounding the table.

          It’s OK though, I really don’t believe Rossi has a commercial product so you really don’t have to convince me of anything other than there is proof we are both correct.

          • Al Potenza

            August 14, 2012 at 9:11 pm

            Rossi’s behavior and statements strongly suggest that he has nothing never did. Is that legal proof? No. But just wait a bit. If he cheated enough people out of enough money, it will get to court.

          • Ransompw

            August 14, 2012 at 9:27 pm

            Now Al, that’s the spirit. You are predicting an eventual crash and burn. You may very well be right. I certainly hope Rossi is painting himself into enough of a corner that you will get to see if you are right in the next several months. At least by 2013. Seems to me his licensees will want to sell something by then.

            I don’t think we can know with certainty at this point because there just isn’t conclusive evidence. I also don’t think Gary Wright has enough evidence to create a website and accuse people of fraud, but that’s me. I do think there is enough to form an opinion and I think most rational people at this point are doubtful Rossi has a commercial product to sell. It is certainly a bizarre drama though. It is too bad so few people know about it.

          • dsm

            August 14, 2012 at 10:40 pm

            To me there is an even more logical and simple answer. Let Rossi sue Gary Wright then that will allow a court to prove to their satisfaction if what Wright is saying is slander or indeed has merit.
            Is Rossi going to sue Gary Wright ? – he keeps saying he plans to take legal action against the ‘snakes’ (He calls Krivit that and also calls Wright Krivit).
            But so far it is just more Rossi says & in fact his lack of action against Gary Wright gives added credence to what Wright claims.
            So from a law perspective to resolve the issue Rossi must take legal action against Wright else have us believe he won’t because he knows he won’t prevail !. Not a hard call.

          • Ransompw

            August 15, 2012 at 12:03 am


            If Rossi has what he says and starts selling products, I would expect a suit against Gary assuming Gary has a pot to @%$& in.

            It would make a great suit, He only got to sell the Licenses for $100,000, would have gotten millions except for Wright’s accusation of Fraud, which if he has a product will seem unsubstantiated. The suit is worth Millions, too bad Gary is probably not good for it. Of course maybe Gary had help, like Robert K and other pockets.

            Anyway, if I were Rossi and had the goods, I wouldn’t file suit until I was ready to sell my products. In other words, the statute of limitations gives Rossi time and he can use his own timetable to institute action. So actually, waiting to sue proves little, I’d wait if I had the goods, I wouldn’t sue if it interfered with my timetable. The suit actually will get better with some age.

            Of course if Gary is right, he has nothing to fear.

          • dsm

            August 15, 2012 at 12:36 am

            But the law as I know it says that Gary Wright can only be committing any crime if he claims Rossi is fraudulent about claiming eCats are real after Rossi gets validation that his claims are real.
            Wright would not even have to apologize providing he removed his web site as soon as an eCat got official validation. We can argue (just as a court could) about what official validation is.
            As for the emails, Roger Green can sue Wright if he doesn’t like what is being said, but I think he has no case.
            AFAICT Rossi can’t sue Wright over the emails as they are Roger Greens. Rossi managed to avoid falling into this black hole but Green is (perhaps) Rossi’s biggest agent.

          • Ransompw

            August 15, 2012 at 6:10 am


            Intentional interference with a business expectancy or contract is a tort. Rossi doesn’t have to sue for libel. Wright is intentionally trying to hurt his business relationships and is doing it based on speculation. If he is right no problem but if wrong he’s subject to liability.

          • dsm

            August 15, 2012 at 8:26 am

            I don’t believe it (well yes I do) – you just wrote a post that makes no sense.

            “Intentional interference with a business expectancy or contract is a tort. Rossi doesn’t have to sue for libel. Wright is intentionally trying to hurt his business relationships and is doing it based on speculation. If he is right no problem but if wrong he’s subject to liability.”
            Firstly your logic above is basically you saying that any scammer or conman can make extravagant claims that aren’t validated by accepted science & sue anyone who points this out on the basis that it is hurting his ‘business’ – your twisted logic is implying a scam can be claimed to be a business and that the scammer doesn’t have to prove is not a scam !.
            Was this invented in the Chicago school of scametric science ?

          • Methusela

            August 15, 2012 at 8:48 am

            If said business sues, they have to prove they have a legitimate business in court.

            All that’s being said is that they have the right to sue him.

          • Ransompw

            August 15, 2012 at 12:46 pm


            If it isn’t a scam he can sue and win. Repeat that about a hundred times and maybe it will finally sink in. Jeez, please read before you post.

            Your previous point was that Wright could call Rossi a fraud, acknowledge an attempt to hurt Roosi’s plans and no liability would ensue even if Rossi was for real, if Rossi hadn’t yet gotten validation that his device was real. I disagree.

  9. Jami

    August 14, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    “So Celani currently demonstrating at an open conference an LENR machine producing 20W excess is a scammer as well?”

    Daniel – for the very last time – stop playing that game. No, he most likely isn’t a scammer – he is just wrong.

    And everybody making statements like “an LENR machine producing 20W excess” should think (again). I already posted an example of how you can arrive at much more impressive numbers without scamming at all. Drive your car. Record the mileage and call it your calibration. Drive it again. Record the mileage again. If it’s worse or unchanged – forget it. If it is better, calculate how many kWh of excess energy you just pulled out of thin air. Be very surprised and happy cause it’s likely gonna be huge – and therefore absolutely must be nuclear. Measure radiation as you drive along and wonder why you sometimes detect some and sometines not (but don’t worry too long – it doesn’t matter). Repeat it 200 times and you’ll end up with a (for LENR circles very respectable) reproducability of roughly 50%. Write a paper about it. If you’re creative and know the right words, dream up a theory. Fly to Korea. Is that scamming? Is your math wrong? Have you blundered during calibration? Probably neither. Is it respectable science? Not really.

    (Oh – and don’t forget that, while you can almost prove that you produced several kWh from nothing, you won’t be able to drive your car running on nothing at all. But don’t let that fact distract you. As long as LENR research exists, nobody has driven even an inch without input. So nobody will mind. And when people ask, why it works only sometimes, admit freely that you’re still working on “controllability” (which is true, of course) and that’s what keeps you from commercializing your technology. No scamming whatsoever involved).

    • Methusela

      August 14, 2012 at 5:51 pm

      I cannot believe that you are using that as an example!

      • John Milstone

        August 14, 2012 at 6:05 pm

        OK, how about this:

        CERN researchers performed thousands of experiments, and every one of them showed faster-than-light neutrinos. There is no doubt about the veracity of the researchers, and their results were completely consistent.

        But they were mistaken.

        As long as they only used their setup, they would never discover the source of their error. It was only when outsiders tried to replicate their experiments that the error (a bad cable in this case) was discovered.

        How can you be certain that Celani doesn’t have the equivilent of a “bad cable”? (And, before you drag in National Instruments, let me point out NI provides lots of equipment and software to CERN, but that didn’t prevent CERN from screwing up.)

        • daniel maris

          August 14, 2012 at 8:22 pm

          I don’t think anyone is asking you to accept that Celani is right. Well I am not. I think most people are simply suggesting that there is no reason to doubt his veracity and – given all the other results (confirmed by NASA, DARPA and the EU Directorate of Research and Innovation among others) – there is every reason to be enthusiastic about these results. Of course they have to be confirmed. But why not watch and wait or make constructive suggestions as to how these demos might be improved.

    • Ransompw

      August 14, 2012 at 6:00 pm


      If the conditions are identical are you going to see different results? Even with the car.

      • Al Potenza

        August 14, 2012 at 6:11 pm

        In any scientific experiment, if the conditions are poorly controlled, you will see different results on different tests. Even Rothwell admits that Celani’s current tests are poorly controlled. And the calorimetry is inadequate and faulty.

        Celani says that he did some better tests at home using flow calorimetry but it’s hard to find out what he did and what he got when you read his paper. He needs to refine his reporting and writing skills. And he needs to have his work enhanced (more wires and better insulation and no leaks) and replicated by others.

        He may have something interesting or he may not. From what we know now, there is no way to tell.

        • daniel maris

          August 14, 2012 at 8:15 pm

          Let’s remember the speed of light has never been measured to be the same as anyone else’s measurement (unless maybe there was a lucky double).

          • Al Potenza

            August 14, 2012 at 8:20 pm

            What are you talking about? The speed of light is known to extreme precision.

          • JNewman

            August 14, 2012 at 9:33 pm

            This ought to be good…

      • Jami

        August 14, 2012 at 6:12 pm

        Of course you will – simply because there is no such thing as identical conditions. Not even in a lab – and especially not in this kind of experiment. Conditions have to be different. Depending on however you trigger the supposed reaction, they’ll be very different.

        • Ransompw

          August 14, 2012 at 7:46 pm

          You didn’t answer the question, I didn’t ask if you could ever have the same conditions, I asked if the results would be different for the car if the conditions (everyone of them) was identical.

          It is a hypothetical question Jami in case that is too hard for you to understand.

          And of course I admit that one can’t achieve identical conditions but it calls into question your example because under certain circumstances the conditions could be exact enough to render an opinion about the results. Happens all the time.

          • Jami

            August 14, 2012 at 8:32 pm

            In a very theoretical sense, yes, you’re right. I know this wasn’t your question – but having read Celani’s papers and seen his demo and probably listened to some of his interviews – how close do you think Celani came to “exact enough”? How close is he to saying “I have built a LENR machine producing 20W” rather than “with this experiment I sometimes measured 20W more output when activated compared to the calibration”?

          • Ransompw

            August 14, 2012 at 9:18 pm


            I don’t think we know yet and certainly a demo at a convention is not a lab experiment where conditions are more controlled. I think Celani may be just beginning the process but I also think there isn’t a basis to say He is wrong at this point.

      • John Milstone

        August 14, 2012 at 6:12 pm

        If the conditions are identical are you going to see different results? Even with the car.

        How do you define “identical”?

        Does that mean exactly the same temperature? Exactly the same air pressure? Exactly the same relative humidity? Exactly the same solar radiation striking the car? Exactly the same direction of travel? Exactly the same accessories doing exactly the same thing?

        One reason to require proper replication, as opposed to multiple runs of the same gadget by the same person, is to determine which, if any of those things are and are not significant in producing the effect.

        Simple example: a radio has an antenna that is sensitive to the orientation of the radio to the transmitting antenna. You could do a thousand experiments without ever rotating the radio and get consistent results. I could then take the same radio and happen to orient it differently and get completely different results. If we didn’t know of the directional bias of the antenna, neither one of us would get good results, but we would each be convinced that our results were correct.

        That’s why independent replication is so important.

    • Francesco CH

      August 14, 2012 at 6:07 pm

      Yeah yeah,

      “Celani is wrong”…

      Famous last words.

      • John Milstone

        August 14, 2012 at 6:17 pm

        No one here has said that “Celani is wrong”. (Well, maybe Jami is saying that; I won’t speak for him.)

        What has been said is that a “demo” is not conclusive proof. A “demo” does not eliminate the possibility of fraud or honest errors.

        All Celani has presented publicly so far is a “demo”. When and if Celani allows independent testing and replication, then and only then can we be confident that his results are real.

        • Jami

          August 14, 2012 at 6:23 pm

          I’ll admit – I said he is wrong.

        • daniel maris

          August 14, 2012 at 8:12 pm

          So Mr. Milstone, in line with your dogma, the world should have exhaled a bored sigh in 1919 as it was but one demo…Only once it had been replicated properly (actually that wasn’t till 1959 – some 40 years later) should the world have got excited…Well I don’t call that science.

          “The observations were performed in 1919 by Arthur Eddington and his collaborators during a total solar eclipse,[12] so that the stars near the Sun could be observed. Observations were made simultaneously in the cities of Sobral, Ceará, Brazil and in São Tomé and Príncipe on the west coast of Africa.[13] The result was considered spectacular news and made the front page of most major newspapers. It made Einstein and his theory of general relativity world famous. When asked by his assistant what his reaction would have been if general relativity had not been confirmed by Eddington and Dyson in 1919, Einstein famously made the quip: “Then I would feel sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct anyway.” [14]

          • John Milstone

            August 14, 2012 at 9:23 pm

            Funny you should pick that example.

            The two sets of observations were inconsistent, and Eddington “threw out” the ones that didn’t match his “belief” about Relativity. He turned out to be correct, but he arrived at the correct answer through very flawed means.

            As for invoking Einstein, let’s not forget that he was consistently wrong about Quantum Mechanics.

            Finally, you have to work with the data you can obtain. If the only data can be collected by taking advantage of a rare solar eclipse, then that’s what you use.

            In the case of every LENR claim for the last quarter-century, there has been no reason, other than the greed of the LENR researchers, for failing to provide full data and the opportunity to allow others to replicate. So, any failure of LENR research “succeeding” can be laid at the feet of all the LENR researchers who were more interested in making a lot of money than of advancing the science.

          • daniel maris

            August 14, 2012 at 9:51 pm

            Yes, JM I know about that. And had you known about Eddington’s legerdemain at the time would you have denounced Einstein as a scammer?

            My point is not that Rossi or Celani are right but that scientific confirmation is a far more messy business than you are misleadingly claiming it to be.

          • John Milstone

            August 14, 2012 at 11:39 pm

            daniel, you yourself admit that “scientific confirmation is a far more messy business than you are [I am] misleadingly claiming it to be” in the same post where you accuse me of insisting that anything that isn’t true must be a “scam”.

            I realize (far more than you, apparently) how messy it can be. That’s the reason I’m not willing to simply accept Rossi’s (or anyone else’s) unsubstantiated claims.

            It’s a real possibility that Celani is wrong. Both NASA and CERN screwed up big-time just in the last few months. Is Celani somehow exempt from human fallibility? I don’t think so.

            I would be more excited about Celani’s claims if it weren’t for previous 25 years of LENR history. We’ve seen many claims as significant as Celani’s before, but they’ve never been proven out. If they had been, this wouldn’t be big news.

            You can continue to ignore the entire history of LENR and assume that this time is different. I’m not going to waste my time getting excited unless and until I see compelling evidence to justify it.

          • daniel maris

            August 15, 2012 at 12:50 am


            But it depends how you view that 25 years. There is a strong argument for saying it consisted of a period of persecutory suppression of research, followed by some solid work which clarified the importance of some key variables and then moved into the current productive phase when researchers began working with NiH.

            It is in that context that I think a negative approach to Celani is not acceptable unless and until something is proven against his method. Absent that, I think we should show some respectful interest and leave it at that.

          • John Milstone

            August 15, 2012 at 1:20 am

            It is in that context that I think a negative approach to Celani is not acceptable unless and until something is proven against his method.

            Saying that he hasn’t proven his claims yet is not negative. It’s a simple fact.

            I will be following his work with interest. I hope something does come of it.

            But to “believe” in a revolutionary discovery which will overthrow a century of well-established physics based on the flimsy evidence presented so far is totally irrational.

          • Alain

            August 15, 2012 at 7:33 am

            papers of Spawar, of ENEA deninno/Rubbia, are enough.
            add that the national instruments who have no interest else bet its reputation to catch the fame when, they are sure, LENR be accepted.

            add that the behavior of canadian living businessmen, living comfortably , who jump in the train… (defkalion)

            and don’t talk of errors, at that level of anomalous heat, errors are no more possible.
            it is fraud or reality.

            and fraud is not credible anymore.

            and if even one watt of anomalous heat is produced wuthout doubt, it is a revolution,.

            that the pathoskeptiks refuse all claims, is a good proof that it is not a rational effect but a collective denial, which explain all about last 23years, and even about before 89, because like hot suuperconduction, LENR have been seen before F&P make a paper.

          • John Milstone

            August 15, 2012 at 11:57 am

            that the pathoskeptiks refuse all claims, is a good proof that it is not a rational effect but a collective denial, which explain all about last 23years, and even about before 89, because like hot suuperconduction, LENR have been seen before F&P make a paper.

            Alain, since you seem to be such an expert, perhaps you can explain what happened to Piantelli and Focardi’s 50-Watt device, described in the 1994 article referenced on this page by CuriousChris?

            They claimed it was “perfectly reproducible and controllable”. Where has that device been since 1994?

            Believing that “big oil” or the Illuminati is somehow suppressing LENR worldwide is the real example of “collective denial”. Every crazy group relies on a conspiracy theory to explain why everyone considers them crazy. LENR “True Believers” fit neatly into that category.

          • Alain

            August 15, 2012 at 1:53 pm

            @J milston
            about patent, maybe they where simply anticipating quick progress. It was slower, as sual, because the problem is complex.
            An it is a patent, not a paper.

            by the way nice to pinpoint a small paper (a patent in fact) and ignore the hard paper I repeat, that you cannot criticize reasonably, at least not all.

            that has a name, the hypercritical method.

            about iluminati I don’t believe in it, just collective delusions.
            especially when admitting a fact would make you look lose your research budget, your comfortable position, your career…
            Next group to come are industry corps that are promised to die.

            the main manipulation for now is simply scientific, in fact administration and oligarchy of science… MIT bosses (not scientists), national fundings agencies, peer reviewed magazine, media…
            and the little layman that believe he have a scientific brain, simply use “ad hominem” cyclic reasoning to reject what the mainstream reject.

            Typical in hierarchical organization (not hierarchy of order, but of success/wealth dependency).

            you think that NI is corrupted.
            that ENEA is corrupetd.
            NASA GRC too,
            a canadian green economist, an IT CEO, a swiss banker , are running a blatant scam on a domain where nobody believe in?

            that MIT did not fraud it’s replication experiment like the man responsible of the publication notice it ?

            to disprove LENR, all recent huge power experiments have to be faked, (error is impossible), in the past all experiments are to be erroneous, all the companies involved have to be complice of the fraud (because error is impossible at that level)

            I’m 9.11 mm from a godwin point.

      • General Zaroff

        August 14, 2012 at 6:33 pm

        ‘Famous last words.’

        I doubt it. Ask yourself this, Mr Francesco CH: How long has this game been going on? How many wonderful breakthroughs have we heard about? And just how many of those have really played out?

        You can expect a lot more of the same until something definitive actually gets done.

    • Dale G. Basgall

      August 14, 2012 at 7:02 pm

      Celani appears to have some cool looking experiment for the exhibit and from the video he looks like a respectable person and he writes good information. In fact he has been doing this for several years now, so I don’t see why others think a seasoned scientist would botch up numbers, either accidentally or purposely.

      I have seen more details written by Celani in a way of an honest experimenter than any one other claimant of LENR. He seems to be one man to follow closely in my opinion.

      • Al Potenza

        August 14, 2012 at 8:22 pm

        Celani seems honest but a bit “scattered”. His experiment doesn’t make much excess heat and his demo uses an uncertain measurement method. He needs to increase the output (insulate and use more active wires). He needs to use flow calorimetry (he said he already has in which case he needs to publish the method and results).

    • daniel maris

      August 14, 2012 at 8:31 pm

      Jami – It’s a valid question because Piantelli influenced Celani and Focardi has confirmed Rossi. So that’s already four people who are deluded or scammers.

      And that’s why you don’t like me raising it.

      • daniel maris

        August 14, 2012 at 8:35 pm

        I meant to say and Piantelli also influenced Focardi who vouched for Rossi…point being there is quite a close connection between the two.

        • Jami

          August 14, 2012 at 9:51 pm

          Wait a minute. Piantelli influenced Focardi. Focardi vouched for Rossi. Piantelli called Rossi a fraud… (maybe not the exact words but in effect he did and you conveniently forgot to mention it). Where does that leave us, in your opinion?

          In my opinion, we have one relatively honest, though not very successful, researcher, a deluded old man wanting to see his life’s dream come true before he fades away and a professional scammer ruthlessly taking advantage of that.

          • daniel maris

            August 15, 2012 at 12:53 am

            Jami – Where did Piantelli call Rossi a fraud? Do you have a quote?

          • Al Potenza

            August 15, 2012 at 2:39 am

            I don’t know if Piantelli called Rossi a fraud but Celani repeatedly offered to perform a black box (no secrets revealed) independent test of Rossi’s ecat at no cost. Rossi consistently refused and accused Celani of being a spy and a competitor. What if he is? What would he learn from making his own connections to the fluid pathways and electrical circuit of an ecat that Lewan, Essen and Kullander might not know? Other than whether it’s real or not, that is!

      • Jami

        August 14, 2012 at 8:42 pm

        I can honestly say I was “influenced” by John Lennon. But if I claim I’ve written the Mondscheinsonate, I’d be a scammer while Lennon (RIP) claiming he’d written “I am the walrus” wouldn’t be. It’s not a difficult concept to understand.

        • daniel maris

          August 14, 2012 at 9:44 pm

          Yep, and its not difficult to understand there is a close family resemblance between Celani and Rossi that goes back to Piantelli and NiH…at least that is what I understand. If you know differently, say so.

          • Jami

            August 14, 2012 at 9:57 pm

            Same with John and me. I wrote the Mondscheinsonate in a dirty hotel room and the piano was a Steinway, too. Seriously, Daniel. Family resemblance? Because of what? Of course Rossi would ride on some kind of at least half way promising research rather chosing something completely outlandish for his scamming. If he’d chosen wood and nail fusion, probably even you wouldn’t believe him.

          • CuriousChris

            August 15, 2012 at 12:33 am

            You seem to have missed something about Rossi’s MO

            Take a theory that produces little if any value. Claim you have invented a way to make it 1000 times or more, more efficient and wait for the fools to come rushing to your door.

            In the past those fools have included the US Navy

            PetrolDragon – Convert garbage to oil
            Reality – Very low efficiency
            Scam – Claim a very high efficiency

            Thermoelectric Generators – Convert waste heat to electricity
            Reality – very low efficiency
            Scam – Claim a very high efficiency

            LENR – convert hydrogen/nickel to energy
            Reality – Unknown but many claims of low returns (milliwatts to watts)
            Scam – Able to produce Kilowatts

            All Scammers use someone as their patsie to “prove” their claims, Bob Rohner uses McKubre. Rossi uses his association with Focardi, Levi, Piantelli and others

            All scammers who work in the technology area rely on most peoples lack of understanding of science they also throw in a bogus patent or two.

            Most are here because they want LENR to work. But that doesn’t mean we accept every extraordinary claim that comes along. Only fools and the gullible do that.

          • daniel maris

            August 15, 2012 at 12:42 am

            Jami –

            Correction…just been checking out a video of Celani speaking on ITalian TV. I am told over at E Cat world by an Italian speaker than he says Rossi was the inspiration for use of NiH…so the family resemblance is actually closer than I thought.

          • daniel maris

            August 15, 2012 at 12:46 am

            Curious Chris –

            I fully accept that’s a possibility (and a much more likely than that Rossi has nothing at all). But you have to admit you have no evidence for Rossi’s E cat being a scam…you are simply saying it is part of a pattern that you discern (and which I would agree can certainly be argued).

            Against you, is the fact that both Celani and Focardi have argued that Rossi brought a new approach which was effective.

          • CuriousChris

            August 15, 2012 at 2:08 am

            The proof that Rossi is a scammer is
            He lies – Proven
            He has previously scammed – Proven
            He has failed to produce any verifiable proof of his current claim which is materially the same as his previous scams. – Circumstantially proven

            Either he has turned a magical corner from scammer to genius, all the while continuing to show a lack of understanding of things such as how to calculate power (hint: kilowatt hours per hour is nonsensical in the context)

          • Alain

            August 15, 2012 at 7:39 am

            You seems to admit ther is anomalous heat that cannot be chemical.

            that deserve a nobel price.

            moreover as I’ve explained, if celani toy demo can produce more that 1/10th of the claimed heat (just 1W is enough), then you can harness it to make a huge energetic revolution.

            moreover with nickel foam, it seems that even 1/10W for his small wire, could be exploited with nickel foam(45m2/g) to reach the claims of DGT and Rossi.

            the rest is engineering, is not simpl, as Defkalion said, and Rossi show involuntarily.


            Am I clear. Intel processor started with unreliable measure of resistance on germanium bars.

          • dsm

            August 15, 2012 at 8:04 am


            You said “All Scammers use someone as their patsie to “prove” their claims, Bob Rohner uses McKubre.”
            Do you have anything to back this up ?
            i.e. That Bob Rohner is running a scam ?
            if yes what is it ?,
            where does one buy into it ?
            does he have a website seeking agents or offering to sell scam machines ?
            And whilst you are at it can you quote in full context how Mike McKubre is supporting this alleged scam. i.e. Mike McKure’s direct words that you puport as supporting the alledged Scam ?
            If it can be shown to be not true, will you be man enough to post a retraction ?

          • John Milstone

            August 15, 2012 at 3:16 pm


            Rohner has a device that supposedly violates the laws of physics (just like Rossi).

            He claims to have had independent tests done, but no independent testers have ever confirmed this statement (just like Rossi).

            He claims to be uninterested in investors (just like Rossi when he started publicizing his gadget).

            McKubre, in THIS video makes it clear that he was convinced based on nothing more than some videos and emails. He then describes some 2nd-hand comments to bolster his claim. He then describes how he recommended certain testing be done, but twice he mumbles past the part where he is describing who actually ran the tests. Lacking anything more concrete, it appears to me that he only provided suggestions on how to do some testing, and then accepted the results returned by Rohner.

            You obviously have some special connection to McKubre, since you’ve never had a problem criticizing other researchers who have lent their names to likely scammers (i.e. Kullander and Essen).

            If you have some inside information you would like to share, please do so. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing about the Papp/Rohner circus that makes it any more credible than the Rossi circus.

          • dsm

            August 15, 2012 at 10:33 pm

            I was addressing CuriousChris thanks – We have already had several exchanges on this topic as to what McKubre said about the Noble Gas expansion effect and what he said about Bob Rohner’s experiments. You are butting in to try to rescue Chris from the hole he dug for himself over the slander he posted.
            If you want to repeat what Chris posted then you can take over from him and just answer the questions as asked. But tag wrestling in debates is a gutless way to get out of trouble.
            Also you are not spelling out which Rohner you are referring to (deliberate ambiguity ?). I specifically mentioned Bob. You know damned well there are 2 Rohner companies. You have thus far done *nothing* to address the questions asked of Chris.
            The bit you posted about not criticizing McKubre is meaningless ? stick to the topic at hand ! – I have defended McKubre in this matter alone because Chris all but lied (so are you backing Chris’s assertions ?). Also I have *not* criticized Essen & Kullander (you made that up for gods sake) I have pointed out that they (via a video I posted) never fully endorsed Rossi.
            Also, I posted back here days ago a blow-by-blow (go to x.yy mins etc:) post that refers to the video take you just linked to with McKubre speaking, pointing out exactly what McKubre said and in what context.
            He never stated he fully believed unquestioningly in the Papp effect of in Bob’s demo never !. You merely do a blanket link and with no references to the words you should be using to prove or make your point.
            If there is anything I am having a go at it is this deceitful discrediting of a decent scientist by thoroughly dishonest means & you are as guilty as Chris. I had always regarded you as an honest person. That is fading fast.

  10. General Zaroff

    August 14, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    I have a puzzle for the bored among us. Consider Jami’s mileage test. Suppose you run the experiment 200 times. Assume the mileage you calculate after a test run is a uniformly distributed random variable.

    How many record breaking high mileage runs should you expect? That is, how many times in your 200 runs should you expect to set a new record for best mileage compared with all previous tests? Do not count your very first test as a record.

    The solution to this problem will be a key ingredient in the new LENR device I am working on, so don’t be shy.

    • Dale G. Basgall

      August 14, 2012 at 7:31 pm

      General that puzzle is a wide open can of worms. The first hole comes from distributing the random variable, so your first run which really isn’t recorded as per se record but is involved in a random distribution amoungst what? That is a redundant statement.

      Secondly you are simply recording mileage, there has been no parameters for expectation by the recorder. Again redundant.

      So your new LENR device runs on 98.6F air?

      • General Zaroff

        August 14, 2012 at 7:52 pm

        Perhaps an example will clear it up. Suppose I run Jami’s test just 10 times, and the results, in miles/gallon are: 10, 12, 9, 9, 11, 13, 12, 10, 11, 14 (ignore how good or bad this mileage is, I don’t know anything in miles/gallon). Then there are exactly 3 record-breaking runs, in tests #2, 6, and 10. Technically you could count the very first test as a record-breaker (there are no better mileage recordings prior to it), but I have chosen the convention that it is not.

        I am usually full of hot air, but this particular puzzle is honest and fair.

        • Dale G. Basgall

          August 14, 2012 at 8:04 pm

          Nice, that’s the mileage of a 1974 Ford 351 or a Chevrolet 350 that year. Anyway I took the hint of the LENR secret claimed (yours) and felt human hot air has propelled LENR into our desktop’s.

          So I get it now! Thanks.

        • Al Potenza

          August 14, 2012 at 8:23 pm

          Are we about reinvent the whole science of statistics? Lask I looked, the methods for dealing with variability in measurements was pretty well established.

          • General Zaroff

            August 14, 2012 at 8:46 pm

            Sounds like somebody can’t find his statistics textbook to help him solve a little puzzle.

            Maybe we should offer a course on statistics here at ecatnews. Learning just how improbable the BS we hear about is might help everyone involved. I nominate Daniel Maris to provide the first three lectures.

        • daniel maris

          August 14, 2012 at 9:48 pm

          Are you running these over the same time period in each case and does it matter since if you choose and hour you might get 15 miles per gallon for 50 minutes and 10 miles per gallon for 10 minutes? If you had chosen 50 minute periods you would have a record. It’s a bit like the days when they used to time people on 1500 metres during mile races, so potentially someone could break the record for the 1500 metres but not the mile.

          In other words strictly equal time periods are very misleading.

          • General Zaroff

            August 14, 2012 at 11:26 pm

            Make each test as similar as possible. Start with a full tank of gas, drive the car around a track at a constant speed, measure the toal distance the car drove before going dry, then calculate mileage. For each test use the same track, the same car, the same speed, and the same initial amount of gas in the tank.

            No, this is not how they actually compute the mileage I am sure. But it is a simple repeatable experiment that anyone with a driver’s licence could do.

          • General Zaroff

            August 14, 2012 at 11:29 pm

            Let’s make it even simpler. Go buy 200 5′ long 2×4’s. Lay them out side by side from left to right. Starting at the left take your tape measure and measure and record the length of each board. Count how many times you set a record-breaking length. What is the number of record-breakers you should expect?

          • daniel maris

            August 14, 2012 at 11:32 pm

            Same track? How can it be the “same track”? Is this indoors/outdoors? Are you measuring air pressure? Wind speed? Friction resistance on the tarmac? Do they go the same way or can they choose clockwise versus anti-clockwise? Why does speed have to be a constant if there are so many other variables? And we haven’t got on to driver style yet…

          • Bigwilly

            August 15, 2012 at 12:22 am


            If everything was exactly equal then there would be no variation. If dues ex machina set everything identical down to the most finite detail then there would not be any variation.

            Alas our mortal methods can not match that. There will be some variation that will most likely fall in to some sort of Gaussian distribution.

            This is not meant as any insult but if you don’t have any scientific or engineering background I could understand how this may be nebulous.


  11. GreenWin

    August 14, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    NOTE to the Generale:

    please see your optometrist ASAP. There is NO LINK in the post you cruelly critiqued.

    On another topic, how does fetish porn affect you? Do you feel threatened? Dirty? Squeamish? Tingly all over??

    This will make a fine new episode of IGZ-2013!!

    • General Zaroff

      August 14, 2012 at 11:38 pm

      Oh I am certain there was a dirty link there when I first saw your post. Perhaps the admin removed it, or you edited it. I guess you are playing revisionist historian again.

      As for how it made me feel? Well, let’s just say that if that sort of stuff constitutes a victimless crime, then I am most definetely an outlaw.

      • GreenWin

        August 15, 2012 at 12:24 am

        Generale… I suspect you are not yet in your doddering years. You claim to have seen something that is in fact not there! This, in nearly any language is sumptuous, irony.

        But then, pickle eyes can deceive us.

        IGZ-2013 Resistance IS Futile.

    • GreenWin

      August 15, 2012 at 1:45 am

      BTW, “…a victimless crime??” Are you a commie Generale?? Over here in the United Snakes, we gotta First Amendment and a Supreme Court. Both guarantee that porn and other explicit materials are protected as free speech. Oddly though, peeping toms commit a class one felony (Fourth Amendment.)

      The only crime committed is by those attempting to usurp the Constitution (aka treason.) I trust you are only a passing friend of Fidel, Kim Jong Il, Burma’s Gestapo and the like. 🙂 Peace out.

  12. dsm

    August 14, 2012 at 11:30 pm

    A bit more entertainment 🙂
    Here is an example of the mindset that adores el Rossi. But perhaps a Rossi eCat powering a 747 is possible 🙁 – as it seems in Rossiland everything is possible. Christopher seems to believe so (even before the eCat has been validated).

    Christopher Calder
    August 12th, 2012 at 11:48 AM

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    If you can get the Hot Cat to operate at 1,200 degrees C with stability, do you think it would be possible to design a system with sufficient power to weight ratio to develop a 747 replacement jet engine that runs on either jet fuel or liquified natural gas? If you could cut the fuel cost for air travel and air cargo by 70%, it seems to me you would really have something. From my understanding 1,200 degrees C is all you need for a jet engine.

    Maybe I am wrong and there is more to it than that, but I am curious.

    Sincerely, Christopher Calder


    To Rossi’s credit, he lets this person down gently 🙂

    Andrea Rossi
    August 13th, 2012 at 7:25 AM

    Dear Christopher Calder:
    It will take a looooong time before we can be useful for something in air and space technology.
    Warm Regards,

    • Mahron - A4 B2

      August 14, 2012 at 11:38 pm

      Fuck jet engines. Put propellers and cut the price in 5, noise is 3, double the size of the seats.

    • Dick Hertz

      August 15, 2012 at 4:15 am

      Check the last sentance and signature line on that question to Rossi.

      He says “…I am curious”

      then signs Christopher Calder

      It’s CuriousChris

      • dsm

        August 15, 2012 at 4:18 am

        If that is CuriousChris then I wonder just how many questions put to Rossi are teasers 🙂
        Probably a lot ?

  13. CuriousChris

    August 15, 2012 at 2:29 am

    I just read this. I hadn’t read it before. I thought perhaps others who havent seen it might be interested

    Its an article about piantelli and focardi’s discovery in 1994. It claims the process to be ‘perfectly reproducible and controllable’
    Original –

    google translate –

    Sorry if this is old news for some. Well it is old.

    • John Milstone

      August 15, 2012 at 11:37 am

      Good find.

      I thought Focardi gave up on LENR because he couldn’t get it working?

      Don’t worry, this time will be different from all the previous times! This time, it will all be real.

  14. Al Potenza

    August 15, 2012 at 2:31 am

    I’m sure having sex with jet engines is spectacular if slightly risky fun. But back on topic, can we please?

    I just noticed this link from Jed Rothwell at Vortex:

    If you scroll down a bit, you find the clearly reported claim that Defkalion has gotten these results:

    They show two columns, one for a DT (delta T?) of 23 degrees and another for 87 degrees C. They show that the energy input for each trigger pulse is 1 Watt-hour and about 2 watt-hours respectively. The corresponding energy out is 16 watt-hours and 92 watt-hours respectively. Including the power to heat up the system, they come up with a ratio of input to output (they call it COP) of 1:8 and 1:22.

    Their typical run is 48 hours. They trigger the reaction 10 times per hour and they say they ran as long as 6 weeks without fresh fuel or a drop in performance. Right? Everybody on the same page?

    What can one conclude from this? Well, Defkalion has clearly stated their claim in a paper at an international meeting. If it’s true, they really have effective and proven LENR. At those power levels and ratio, there is no measurement issue and anyway, the claim is that they used liquid flow calorimetry which is very reliable.

    On the other hand, if the claim is false, they are fraudulent liars.

    So which is it and how can we know? Let’s discuss that a bit. If the administrator wants, it would make a decent topic on its own.

    • Mahron - A4 B2

      August 15, 2012 at 3:02 am

      Use protection and everything will be fine!

      Given the cop rossi and defkalion(especially them) claim, there can be no measurement mistake. They either will change the world or are frauds. Nothing in between. Did you just figure that out now ?

      • Al Potenza

        August 15, 2012 at 4:25 am

        Defkalion has never before made the claims in an international meeting. Most scientists don’t follow Defkalion’s obscure forum so nobody cares what they say there. This is the first time they have gone to a meeting and made such a large claim and in the form of a research report.

        Of course they don’t really say how they measured in any sort of detail and nobody independent has confirmed it.

        • Bettingman

          August 15, 2012 at 6:48 am

          This would be a good first question to DGT when they open up their forum again on the 20th.
          When are they going to name a trusted third party that confirm that this is not a scam but that they actually have something with a cop of (let’s say) 20? Other details can follow…

          • Al Potenza

            August 15, 2012 at 7:20 am

            Yup. I bet the overpolite and overcautious people attending the meeting do not ask that question. But I hope they do. Loudly and very publicly.

    • Dick Hertz

      August 15, 2012 at 4:26 am

      You are right Al, if they have what they say they have, it should be very easy to prove.

      • Al Potenza

        August 15, 2012 at 7:19 am

        While on the topic of Defkalion, I am also suspicious about their move to Canada. I wonder if they have mentioned that the Greek “government authorities” are testing their LENR reactors once too many times. Maybe the government is putting pressure on them to put up or shut up.

        Their reason for leaving Greece, the economic situation, makes no sense. If Defkalion had what they say they have and if they produced and sold it from Greece, they could go a long ways towards solving the economic crisis by themselves and I bet they’d have the instant cooperation of the government.

        It sounds like they are delaying, maybe hoping they will come up with what they claim they have.

        Obviously, that’s all guesswork.

  15. Cheme911

    August 15, 2012 at 5:03 am


    My updated theory of cold fusion is at the link below along with all of the witnessed effects that it explains and references. This is a WordPress document.

    Basically the Ghostbusters had it right, if you cross the streams and generate enough charge, the gremlins will get angry and spew quantum goo.

  16. Bettingman

    August 15, 2012 at 6:32 am

    A link to information from Celani on his experiments:

  17. Roman S.

    August 15, 2012 at 6:55 am

    General Z. asked:

    How many record breaking high mileage runs should you expect? That is, how many times in your 200 runs should you expect to set a new record for best mileage compared with all previous tests? Do not count your very first test as a record.

    Not many:
    gamma+ln(200)+1/400-1 approx., i.e. 4.878 on average.
    This holds for any continuous random variable.

    What is the prize? E-kettle? With whistle, I hope!

    The solution to this problem will be a key ingredient in the new LENR device I am working on, so don’t be shy.

    I’m so proud I could help to rescue our Planet & Mankind!

    • General Zaroff

      August 15, 2012 at 3:28 pm

      You win the prize! I haven’t sorted out exactly what the prize should be. So don’t get your hopes up.

  18. GreenWin

    August 15, 2012 at 7:32 am

    BP has announced the sale of $$38 Billion in oil and gas assets including the Arco brand in California. Siemens has left the nuclear fission business and is trying to buy Ansaldo Energia which has an interest in e-cat and developing LENR.

    Don’t these people know LENR is crackpot science?

    IGZ-2013 Resistance is Futile.

    • Johan

      August 15, 2012 at 7:42 am

      How do you know that Siemens i buying AE because of LENR?

      • Paul Stout

        August 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm

        We do not know that for certain, but we do have some evidence that AE is interested in LENR
        “The Experts Speak
        On Tuesday at 4:45 p.m., National Instruments will host a one-hour “Experts Panel Discussion – Quest for Alternative Energy: Anomalous Heat Effect (AKA Cold Fusion).”

        The panelists are Andrea Aparo, senior adviser of research and development at Ansaldo Energia SpA,”

        And, we have Rossi’s claim that Siemens knows about LENR.

  19. spacegoat

    August 15, 2012 at 9:02 am

    The post by Alain ignored. I wonder why? Because it does not reference RossiSays farce?

    “You seem to admit there is anomalous heat that cannot be chemical.

    That deserves a Nobel prize.

    Moreover as I’ve explained, if Celani’s toy demo can produce more that 1/10th of the claimed heat (just 1W is enough), then you can harness it to make a huge energetic revolution.

    moreover with nickel foam, it seems that even 1/10W for his small wire, could be exploited with nickel foam(45m2/g) to reach the claims of DGT and Rossi.

    The rest is engineering. It is not simple, as Defkalion showed in their paper.


    Am I clear. Intel processor started with unreliable measures of resistance on germanium bars.

    The crux of the matter as explained by Alain and ignored. Certainly no “balanced skeptics” around for a begrudging crumb of optimism.

    • CuriousChris

      August 15, 2012 at 11:00 am

      Any level of PROVEN anonymous heat is a revolution I agree with that totally, always have and said it many times perhaps not in this forum.

      Sadly so far no one has PROVEN any anomalous heat. There is a lot of rhetoric which the believers soak up. The rest will believe it when it is replicated by a credible third party.
      But DGT aren’t claiming minor amounts they are claiming a thousand times more than anyone else apart from Rossi. It leaves them in the company of only Rossi who has no credibility. Whom of course is the reason they exist.

      If you read thePpiantelli Focardi press piece I linked above. They claimed repeatable and controllable 50 watt device 19 years ago. So where is that now? Surely that would have been replicated tested and confirmed many hundreds of times over. Yet nothing. So the repeatable and controllable device was not repeated and obviously could not be controlled.

      Therefore you can’t go on the claims made. You must wait for the reliable independent proof. We are still waiting. Until then we can only use what science has taught us so far. That is simple, LENR as described does not fall within the bounds of known science.

      Scaling is also NEVER straight forward. The techniques one would use to build a 1 story house could not be used to build a thousand floor skyscraper. It is totally wrong to assume that a few milliwatts/Watts of excess energy can be scaled to Kilowatts.

      And what is it with the comparisons to past science, or the other mystery’s of science. As if that has any bearing on the subject matter.

      “Intel processor started with unreliable measure of resistance on germanium bars.”

      It may have been unreliable but it did not go against known science at the time. The wright brothers were told they could not fly, But even that was not because flying was thought impossible, just because it was thought MAN could not fly. With LENR it goes against what is considered possible. Therefore ANY claim must be treated with scepticism. Its fools gold to treat it otherwise.

      • Bettingman

        August 15, 2012 at 11:25 am

        Does anybody has any info whether Celani’s work is being replicated? It should be our first priority to establish the anomaly beyond doubt (or disprove it). The rest will follow…

      • Alain

        August 15, 2012 at 1:30 pm

        funny you are using the stupid crazy dishonest behavior of maisntream to prove that the mainstream is right…

        Proofs are there, few have been replicated like spawar and iwamura, many have been repeated differently, which is more common than total replication in real life.

        thjis cyclic reasoning is the basic of a bistable situation, where it is impossible to change a beliefs.

        As said National instruments they offered labview to any team that would try to prove and disprove LENR, but only those trying to prove it used the offer to have better data treatment…

        and every where the mainstream delusional position use the effect of their blackout as the proof their are right.

        so blatantly evident.
        read report 41 content and names.same for spawar, iwamura, …
        and look at mainstream laughable escape methods…
        spawar lenr have been shutdown after mediatization.
        report 41 blocked of peer-review, and even of entry…
        for iwamura there have been strange accusation that would require an alien technology..

        laughable… so difficult for me to let so much delusional patterns of rhetoric, but I should.

      • daniel maris

        August 15, 2012 at 2:41 pm

        So what is you argument in response to teh following:

        “The Holy Grail was a replicable cold fusion experiment. It was actually first published in about 1993, the work of Miles on heat and helium. There are no negative replications of this, and it’s been amply confirmed, as shown by Storms in his 2010 review. The “replicable experiment” simply requires using the state of the art to generate the anomalous heat — or what appears to be anomalous! — and measuring helium, over many cells, and seeing if the two results correlate. They do, strongly, so strongly that it’s conclusive. Whatever is producing the heat is increasing measured helium proportionately, and at a special value.”

        • CuriousChris

          August 17, 2012 at 7:11 am

          So where are all these working replications?

          There are many CLAIMED working replications but they never seem to pan out. That part you quoted is particularly biased

          “No negative replications of this”

          What does that mean? as far as I am aware all replications have failed. each researcher has devised their own experiment and created their own results.

          That is not a replication.

          And apart from Rossi and DGT ALL have said reproducibility is the biggest problem.

          The article I introduced above claimed reproducibility and controllable. Yet after 19 years absolutely nothing

          These should be in every lab while people try to work out how to scale it. Yet we see none of that.

          So stop making claims you cannot back up.

          • Alain

            August 17, 2012 at 5:14 pm

            iwamura & other
            spawar & other

            nasa GRC 89 and nasa GRC 2005

            replication with different setup are even better because errors cannot natural be the same. And you are right, researchers love not to replicate, but to innovate and discover. this cause failures when needed condition are not well known.

            the size of the conspiracy you assume is not realistic.

            NI, SRI, US NAVY SPAWAR, Toyota, Mitsubishi, NASA GRC 89, NASA GRC 2005, NASA 2012, ENEA, BLP, Brillouin, Celani, Piantelli, Focardi … might be alien invasion.

            even just NASA GRC replication in gza phase is enough to set the fact.
            forget about the rest.
            If you are stubbornly denialist, add Spawar and replicator… and you should be convinced.

            Celani demo is just to shwo you there is no hidden battery in the tube.
            anyway enve if you divide the heat by 10, make a static calorimetry error of 20%, it is far above the chemical energy limit.

            and read the Cv of Celani…

            you are ridiculous. like Science when ther rejected the Report 41, simple factual report, confirming F&P with modern calorimetry, with one Nobel and ENEA support… BECAUSE THERE IS NO PRIORITY (to revolutionize the science and the world)…

            I’m tired.
            ITE MISSA EST.

  20. Jami

    August 15, 2012 at 10:26 am

    “Jami –

    Correction…just been checking out a video of Celani speaking on ITalian TV. I am told over at E Cat world by an Italian speaker than he says Rossi was the inspiration for use of NiH…so the family resemblance is actually closer than I thought.”

    And Alain was probably your inspiraton to start sniffing glue. So?

    Anyway – here’s a link to some of the stuff Piantelli had to say about some of his “family members”:

    For the more juicy stuff, ask Peter (Gluck). He wrote a lot about it on vortex some time last year after a lengthy interview he’d had with Piantelli.

    Look up Rossi’s response on JoNP. He called Piantelli and some of the others “mentally masturbating”.

    A very fine “family” you’ve made out there, Daniel. Really joined at the hip. NO WAY one of them is a scammer and the others aren’t. No way at all.

    Also interesting what Focardi had to say about his “cousins” from the Pd-D fusion research family branch. He is quoted as saying they never had anything at all. Hmmm. Strange. So was Fleischmann a scammer in Focardi’s book? Deluded? An idiot?

    Never mind. It won’t stop people like you from jumbling them all into one big, happy “family” of honest researchers fruitfully influencing each other. And it won’t stop you from piling all their junk papers up to a huge mountain of what you think is evidence for cold fusion in general. And with a mountain as high as this, there just HAS to be the gold nugget in there somewhere, right?

  21. RonB

    August 15, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    Just finished Celani’s report and it seems very interesting. Although I’m puzzled by the cavalier attitude toward the measured X/Gamma radiation. If that were me doing the experiments, I’d be all over that trying to maximize it. There are just so many ways that heat can be created and readings can be wrong but the production of gamma emissions isn’t something that you get out of your everyday house hold appliance.

    In the conclusion of the report they don’t even mention gamma rays. What’s with these people?

    • Bettingman

      August 15, 2012 at 1:05 pm

      Understaffed, underfunded? You can’t do it all at once, I recon. That is why an independent verification is so important. Then the money and resources can come in.

      Now we are stuck with some organisations that want to sell boilers (who cares about boilers!) and keep everything under NDA (if they have anything).

  22. Jami

    August 15, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    “Correction…just been checking out a video of Celani speaking on ITalian TV. I am told over at E Cat world by an Italian speaker than he says Rossi was the inspiration for use of NiH…so the family resemblance is actually closer than I thought.”

    And Alain was probably your inspiraton to start sniffing glue. So?

    Anyway – here’s a link to some of the stuff Piantelli had to say about some of his “family members”:

    For the more juicy stuff, ask Peter (Gluck). He wrote a lot about it on vortex some time last year after a lengthy interview he’d had with Piantelli.

    Look up Rossi’s response on JoNP. He called Piantelli and some of the others “mentally masturbating”.

    A very fine “family” you’ve made out there, Daniel. Really joined at the hip. NO WAY one of them is a scammer and the others aren’t. No way at all.

    Also interesting what Focardi had to say about his “cousins” from the Pd-D fusion research family branch. He is quoted as saying they never had anything at all. Hmmm. Strange. So was Fleischmann a scammer in Focardi’s book? Deluded? An idiot?

    Never mind. It won’t stop people like you from jumbling them all into one big, happy “family” of honest researchers fruitfully influencing each other. And it won’t stop you from piling all their junk papers up to a huge mountain of what you think is evidence for cold fusion in general. And with a mountain as high as this, there just HAS to be the gold nugget in there somewhere, right?