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

Francesco Celani Talks About His Cold Fusion Demo

August 29, 2012

I need to watch this again when my brain is working but feel that you should be given the chance to watch it while I sleep. FC’s accent can be difficult to follow, although we must thank him for presenting this in English (a language he is not comfortable with).

It is good to hear him say that his next goal is to push it into self-sustain mode in order to remove any last doubt that there is an error somewhere.

[With thanks to Akira Shirakawa on Vortex]

Posted by on August 29, 2012. Filed under Competitors,Tests & Demos,Videos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

127 Responses to Francesco Celani Talks About His Cold Fusion Demo

  1. Loop Reply

    August 29, 2012 at 11:56 am

    Ok wire preparation is half-euro, and he is distancing himself from words “Cold Fusion” in order to patent his type of wire and his chamber.

  2. Jami Reply

    August 29, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    He’s really very difficult to follow – but from what I understand, it is 12 minutes of meaningless, anecdotal chatter (and, to be fair, presumably not meant to be anything else – just “shooting the breeze with Francesco” after a long day).

    • daniel maris Reply

      August 29, 2012 at 12:46 pm

      So you reckon he’s another scammer then, Jami?

      • John Milstone Reply

        August 29, 2012 at 12:55 pm

        daniel, your obsessive reaction is really tiresome.

        • Jami Reply

          August 29, 2012 at 1:06 pm

          Yep. This is such a dumb remark to make that I give Daniel the benefit of doubt and put it down to playful provocation.

          • daniel maris

            August 29, 2012 at 1:54 pm

            Jami –

            Well you obviously think his comments are meaningless – and that sounds like you are doubting what he is saying and claiming, since for me his comments seem perfectly meaningful.

            If you are not sure whether he is a liar, deluded, incompetent or a truthful innovator, why not just say so, rather than trying to encourage disbelief in his statements?

          • Jami

            August 29, 2012 at 2:10 pm

            Ok, I take it back. You ARE dumb, daniel. There is no other way to describe somebody who seriously considers a statement to be either meaningful or indicative of fraud, delusion or incompetence. I can’t help wondering how you’d assess yourself by those rules – not a pretty sight, I guess – but don’t really wanna know either.

        • Iggy Dalrymple Reply

          August 29, 2012 at 5:17 pm

          Mr Milstone, Rossi has an encoded message here to honor you. His new proposed design for his Hot-Cat is purposely designed to resemble a millstone.
          ~~~~~~~~~~
          Dear Dr Joseph Fine:

          You are perfectly right: in fact we are designing the new 1 MW plants, for hot temperature, and the dimensions will be those of a cylinder with a diameter of 1.2 m and a lencth od 0.4 m.
          Is shocking, I myself are surprised, but it is so.

          Warmest Regards,
          A.R.

          • Al Potenza

            August 29, 2012 at 5:20 pm

            Simply hilarious.

          • Ivan Mohorovicic

            August 29, 2012 at 9:14 pm

          • Methusela

            August 29, 2012 at 9:27 pm

            @Ivan. That brings back memories :) And did you know that the metrology of the pellets and their shape is vital, and the order in which they are packed into the rod is also vital?

        • MPB Reply

          August 29, 2012 at 6:24 pm

          I can’t believe you just posted this.

    • daniel maris Reply

      August 29, 2012 at 5:07 pm

      Well I am not sure your analysis stands up to scrutiny. Statements can be meaningful – but not all statements that are motivated by deceit, delusion or error are meaningless.

      However,you chose to say that Celani’s statement was meaningless. I am not sure why. That’s what I am trying to clarify as his statement seemed brimful of meaning.

      I wondered whether you labelled it meaningless because you wanted to avoid saying whether you thought it deceitful, deluded or the product of error.

      With Celani it seems to me that deceit or delusion are not very likely. That leaves error as an alternative to him being an accurate observer.

  3. Aaron Reply

    August 29, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    this is the guy that saved the world? cool -
    did he mention fractal cracking, the NAE style catalyst

  4. daniel maris Reply

    August 29, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Excellent video I would say. It is difficult to follow but Celani seems a very credible guy.

    Let’s hope someone, of a slightly sceptical persuasion, can now replicate this or – alternatively – Celani can move swiftly into the tens and hundreds of kilowatts.

    • Jami Reply

      August 29, 2012 at 1:04 pm

      Nah, he said he’ll try to make it self-sustaining. That’d be a lot more convincing than scaling it up to “hundreds of kilowatts” – and a whole lot cheaper and faster to do, too. Only – he won’t succeed.

      • daniel maris Reply

        August 29, 2012 at 5:09 pm

        The absence of visual evidence of a wire is not evidence of the absence of a wire. I am sure you will all start querying a self-sustaining experiment if it is in the small watts area.

        Why do you say he won’t succeed? Is that because you think he is lying or deluded? Or because you think his measurements are wrong.

        • Al Potenza Reply

          August 29, 2012 at 5:24 pm

          Celani claims “excess heat” of 20 to 40 watts (approximately). If he can produce that amount of heat without any power input and sustain it for a few months, NOBODY who understands physics is going to say the energy comes from chemistry. There is no chemical process that can do that.
          -
          If Celani shows less than a watt for a few days, that’s another matter. So it’s up to him.
          -
          I still don’t see any reason whatever not to

          a) scale it up with say ten or so wires and

          b) remake the container into a heat exchanger suitable for flow calorimetry.

          I wish someone would ask him why he doesn’t do that. It would take a bit of time and cost a bit of money but it would definitively resolve the issue whether he has something worthwhile or not.

          • robiD

            August 29, 2012 at 6:50 pm

            Celani claims an excess heat from 14 to 21 W.

            He finished his work on the wire and the “glass calorimetry” on 28th of July, after that he never worked because of the NIWeeK and the ICCF-17.

            To build a 10-100 wires reactor he has to build the wires, then he has to test them one by one because you can’t put in the reactor a non-working wire.
            A test requires many days: assembly, calibration with Helium, calibration with Argon (days for one of them), the wire needs to stay for three days in Hydrogen atmosphere then you can do the test that lasts at least 3-4 days. If there is a gas leak you have to repeat that part of the experiment. All this has to be done for each wire. Keep also in count that the “glass calorimetry” is a fast way to do things (that’s the main reason why a such calorimetry has been used) because using a flux calorimetry would require by far more time.

            To sum up: it needs TIME (time starting from now and not starting from 1989).

            Celani’s work on costantan wires is quite recent. He starts to work on this “glass calorimetry” on April. The work on the nickel’s wire is also recent, it’s since one year and a half because before that Celani had always worked on Palladium-Deuterium systems. Funny to say but he always said that with Pd-D is easier to get the anomalous heat excess, though it’s by far less intense.

            You might ask to the scientists that work on HOT fusion to by-pass the ITER project and go directly to the DEMO’s one, in this way we could get the energy from hot fusion in advance by 30 years (so, _perhaps_, we could see it in 2030 instead of 2060). It seems to you a reasonable request?

          • Al Potenza

            August 29, 2012 at 7:14 pm

            “because using a flux calorimetry would require by far more time.”

            True enough but flux, fluid flow, and related type of calorimeters including the Seebeck effect envelope type, all work properly and measure output energy very accurately. Spot temperature measurements in general do not. It is easy to get misled or self deceived. EVERYTHING must be done to rule this out, even if it’s time consuming and difficult. I think one can test and screen wires more quickly than one at a time.

          • daniel maris

            August 29, 2012 at 8:50 pm

            I think those are perfectly reasonable questions. Not sure I agree with that approach but reasonable nonetheless.

        • Jami Reply

          August 29, 2012 at 6:20 pm

          “Why do you say he won’t succeed?”

          Because I’m sure he already tried. I would try it first thing with every new experiment long before I’d start messing around with TCs. And Al is right about the degree to which a self-sustained LENR device would be convincing. Of course it would still have to be replicated – but it would bury any doubt if it was.

          I wouldn’t be so confident about a mere “scaling up” approach. Something like ten wires with ten times the input and ten times the crudely calculated output wouldn’t convince me at all.

          • Al Potenza

            August 29, 2012 at 6:48 pm

            Ahha, but I was not thinking ten times the input. Put all ten in a heated chamber. Heat them all with the same, hopefully low, power that you now heat one.

          • Paul Stout

            August 29, 2012 at 7:36 pm

            And, assuming it works, you end up with 10 tmes the output power for only so long as it takes to turn the wire into slag, which would only serve to prove incompetince.

      • lcd Reply

        August 31, 2012 at 1:06 pm

        And Jami you call urself objective.

        U r a joke.

    • Ivan Mohorovicic Reply

      August 29, 2012 at 1:23 pm

      Tyler of lenrproof.com said that later this year Celani plans to make complete kits available (through the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project non-profit organization) for other people to study and research the effect.

      • Quax Reply

        August 30, 2012 at 3:38 am

        Ivan, that would be fabulous.

  5. Piero Reply

    August 29, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    …but you don’t mind if he tries, do you?

  6. Dale G. Basgall Reply

    August 29, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    Celani appears to be the person that’s got fact, he is far ahead of anyone else and the way he worked the wire deal with the manufacturer is the way to get er done, it’s a more real approach. An agreement is only worth as much as the people that have entered into it.

    You make an agreement with someone straight up and honest, everything turns out great, you make agreements with those who are weasels you end up weaseled.

    Also when this LENR began with Rossi claims a friend and I were trying to pick out names for a theory and the words we came up with were Virtual Particle Probability Fluctuations (VPPF). That’s as near as we could get to accurate what LENR will come down to in definable terms. The theory kind of bombed out a few months into it because of the math part, how about Stimulated electron capture? andother term coined by the nuclear physicist.

    Bottom line Celani is working with the kind of materials that will make the LENR system work reliably.

    Thanks Mr. Celani for not being another “mad scientist”, and Great Work on the exhibit.

  7. Al Potenza Reply

    August 29, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    Celani distinguishes and differentiates himself from probable crooks like Rossi and Defkalion when he acknowledges the following: if the reaction produces heat, then that heat can cause the reaction to self sustain. .
    -
    Rossi has always maintained the stupidity that the large heaters in all his ecats are for “safety”. That’s ridiculous. When asked why they are needed, he says it’s a secret and he can’t discuss what’s in the reactor. How convenient! And how phony! I know Rossi’s ecats work “self-sustaining” but that’s for short period and is probably only stored heat (or a hidden energy source). Unlike Rossi, Celani understands the need to produce power without input and to do it at a high enough level and for a long time. Rossi always pretends those things don’t matter because he can’t do them!
    Rossi also always refuses proper independent measurements
    -
    So it’s reassuring that Celani doesn’t do the same. He’s happy to discuss what’s in the reactor and he’s going to try to get rid of the heater. That doesn’t mean his machine will make heat without input power but it does mean he’s honest. He’s also willing to have other people, in one case NI, set up his measurement system entirely. That’s another major difference from Rossi.

    • Loop Reply

      August 29, 2012 at 6:42 pm

      The most important thing is that you can feel and you can see into the soul of Celani and you can see that by miles he is better person than Rossi.

      • Al Potenza Reply

        August 29, 2012 at 6:49 pm

        Oh yes, I am sure you can tell a con man just by looking. Con men can’t make a living because it’s so easy to tell who’s honest just by looking into their soul or eyes. Definitely the most important thing. Who needs science when you can read a soul?

        • Tony Reply

          August 29, 2012 at 8:58 pm

          And this is a perfect segue into a classic Woody Allen line:

          “I failed my metaphysics class – I got caught looking into the soul of the boy sitting next to me.”

          Tony2

    • Loop Reply

      August 29, 2012 at 7:53 pm

      Its based on science called Psychology.

      The idea of my post is that if everything checks in every aspect, its better that Celani is the potential patent owner, there is possibility that he would make the patent free to the human kind.

      I didn’t said that based on psychology you would invest your money into the Celani, I just said that if he is the real deal its by miles better deal than Rossi.

    • daniel maris Reply

      August 29, 2012 at 8:55 pm

      Al –

      If LENR is real, then it appears that there is going to be more than one way to bring it about. Whilst it might be possible to apply heat in a self-sustaining system in Celani’s device, that doesn’t mean it will be possible in all devices. I note for instance, if I am reading this right, that Celani’s device appears to consist of wires, whereas, others seem not to. I can imagine there might well be issues over how one applies heat to non-wire devices.

    • 123star Reply

      August 30, 2012 at 10:47 am

      Haha, safety heaters ^^
      I guess that, to be coherent, Rossi filled his fire extinguishers with a highly flammable gas!

  8. Al Potenza Reply

    August 29, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    Even funnier than Rossi’s announcement of a new megawatt plant made of hot cats is the reaction of the faithful here:

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/08/shocking-design-of-1-mw-plants-1-2-x-0-4-m/

    It’s serious comedy.

    • JNewman Reply

      August 29, 2012 at 8:44 pm

      Wow. Just wow.

      • Ransompw Reply

        August 29, 2012 at 8:59 pm

        All I can say is he’s run out time for this BS, he needs to prove his product or shut up and start running.

    • Thicket Reply

      August 29, 2012 at 9:10 pm

      The comments are hilarious, especially since the posters are serious. It’s not often that you see so many woo-woo nutters all in one place.

    • Mahron - A4 B2 Reply

      August 29, 2012 at 9:55 pm

      The best argument is rossis favor now, is the fact that no one could possibly make stuff like this up.

      • Al Potenza Reply

        August 30, 2012 at 1:26 am

        Au contraire mon frere, I could make up much better stuff.

    • daniel maris Reply

      August 29, 2012 at 10:37 pm

      I really don’t see why if you are prepared to give Celani – who has come to nickel-hydrogen very late in the day – a respectful hearing you are so certain Rossi is a fake. Rossi and Focardi were working on nickel-hydrogen for several years. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that he is well in advance of Celani’s technology?

      • Al Potenza Reply

        August 30, 2012 at 1:29 am

        Rossi acts like a fraud for all the many reasons we discussed before. Celani seems open and willing to perform and have performed proper independent tests. Rossi always uses the corniest and crummiest, totally absurd reasons to avoid any kind of conclusive test. Celani makes modest and reasonable claims. Rossi make incredible claims as in THEY CAN’T BE TRUE because they don’t make scientific sense EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE LENR IS REAL.

        Celani does not necessarily have LENR but he should be given every opportunity to test whether or not he does. There is the possibility that his excess heat is chemical and/or measurement error but deception or dishonesty seems very unlikely because of what the man has already done.

        • ivan_cev Reply

          August 30, 2012 at 7:34 am

          Celani also have a secret “The wire preparation, and is in moral debt to the company who help him to develop the procedure, so they trying to patent it” after patent lets hope is made public, He talks about skeleton, fractures, surface like a sponge, in all this he is refering to the Active Nuclear Zone, as Storms has postulated. It really seems credible to me, at the end of the day Fermi and Marconi were Italian also. I Thinks He is very close.
          I also want him to put more wires to see if the effect scalates, then there is no doubt, What about infrared cameras to see the source of heat?

      • Quax Reply

        August 30, 2012 at 3:43 am

        Daniel, openness matters especially in science. Rossi, fraud or not, obviously is in it for the money. Celani acts like a scientist.

        • daniel maris Reply

          August 30, 2012 at 8:56 am

          In my view Rossi has always been a businessman first – whether legitimate or not remains to be seen. Celani certainly fits the template of scientist better. However, I do firmly agree with Rossi that this thing is only going to be decided by getting a device to market. As sceptics have pointed out here – there have been devices before which have fooled senior scientists. If Celani produces a more sophisticated machine sceptics will find more sophisticated reasons to doubt it. There may be a move towards acceptance but it could take years. Far better to get something to market that works independently in several hundred or thousand homes.

          • Quax

            August 30, 2012 at 7:00 pm

            If scientists can conduct experiments with a device under their own control then I’d expect very few to be fooled by it.

            I think you underestimate the effect that widespread scientific acceptance of LENR as a real effect would have.

            Most prominent example (on this board) would be Dick Smith, who equivocally stated that he trusts reputable scientists in this matter. (I’d expect this to be a common sense approach taken by most business people).

      • dsm Reply

        August 30, 2012 at 4:43 am

        Daniel
        .
        Can you recite with accuracy the actual comments of Rossi and Focardi as to how quickly they built the 1st eCat that ran for a year in Rossi’s Bondeno factory ?
        .
        I’ll offer the following claims (statements directly from Rossi & Focardi & if you doubt any one of them I’ll link you to the source)…
        .
        1) Rossi meets Focardi in July 2007 & asks Focardi to review his ‘design’ (no eCat built yet)
        .
        2) Focardi’s main role was to ensure no radiation got out & killed of burnt them, Focardi was to say if the Rossi design would work & Focardi agreed it would so they joined up & started work initiall testing powder mixes but only did that for 6-8 weeks.
        .
        3) Began experimenting at Bondeno in Aug 2007
        .
        4) Built the famous heater eCat in Oct 2007
        .
        5) Rossi filed his 1st patent app in April 2008 & lists the Oct 2007 eCat, in it, as a working embodiment of the invention
        .
        6) In 2010 Rossi & Focardi publish their paper & list test data from 11-June-2008 showing output in excess of input of 205 times output over input energy (on 11-may2008 it was 83 times).
        http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3080659.ece/BINARY/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf
        .
        Daniel, if you accept that above as true then how many months did it take Rossi & Focardi to go from the design to the working eCat ?
        .
        Again if there is any point made that you don’t accept please say & I’ll post the source which in nearly *all* the points, comes directly from published interviews of Rossi & Focardi.
        .
        Please do answer this as I then want to learn about these so called ‘years’ that they worked together to develop the eCat.
        .
        Thanks
        .
        DSM

        • Ransompw Reply

          August 30, 2012 at 5:35 am

          DSM:

          I think you accurately outlined various Rossi says (Focardi for a few) although some of it has been brought into question by other Rossi says.

          It is your speculation from these Rossi says that usually loses me.

          • dsm

            August 30, 2012 at 6:01 am

            Ransompw
            .
            Good :) , can you quote with links, any Rossi & Focardi says/publishes, that contradicts any of the above dates – I can go as far as supplying the months, if not actual dates.
            .
            I can post this from early interviews & videos where the dates are beyond question other than in 2011 when the stories started to morph into a quite different story when repeated by others. My sources are early on Rossi & Focardi. What I can post comes from an Italian TV interview + a presentation by Focardi plus PESN reports + eCatNews reports + the 2008 patent plus their published paper from 2010. What I call very very hard to refute material.
            .
            I really do challenge you to come up with any direct quotes or interviews of Rossi/Focardi where either man contradicts the points I listed. My links will show both Focardi and Rossi saying the same dates.
            .
            I really look forward to anything you can find. I think this is a very important exercise that clears a lot of smoke that some people have added.
            .
            Thanks
            .
            DSM

          • Ransompw

            August 30, 2012 at 1:14 pm

            DSM:

            I already said I thought it was an accurate recitation. But Rossi has posted untold messages on his JONP and given many interviews. Are you saying his story has been precisely the same over the last 5 years?

            In any regard, what makes this so important? Rossi is know to at best stretch the truth if not outright lie, so why do you think you can trust him on this part of the story.

            As I said before, you do a good job of accumulating information, but then use it to form opinions I find hard to follow.

            Like A+B+C= Blue, it is your = sign and speculation I question.

          • Dsm

            August 31, 2012 at 5:41 am

            Ransompw
            You just said that you dont always agree with how I interpret things but walk away from the chance to prove what you said:)
            .
            Also the Oct 2007 ecat was written up in Rossi’s patent so, if you can’t find evidence of it you clearly never tried to find it.
            .
            There are several points that arise from the dates I posted.
            .
            1) That Rossi built his 20kw Bondeno ecat in 3 months from paper design to working eCat with a high COP. This is much faster than even DGT could claim.
            .
            2) no one else on the planet can come near such speed of design build & patent of a kw+ LENR device !.
            .
            3) from Oct 2007 to today, no independent science org has been allowed to validate this as patented eCat.
            .
            4) for Daniel, the above dates make it impossible for Rossi & Focardi to have spent years perfecting the patented eCat. Note also that the US patent is for the same 2008 patented device.
            .
            DSM
            .

        • daniel maris Reply

          August 30, 2012 at 9:00 am

          The point I would make DSM is that they did work together on this over several years – clearly there have been a series of prototypes. A video I saw had Focardi refer to several prototypes if I recall correctly. I don’t have the reference now.

          Also important, Rossi must be one of the most patient scammers going. It was really four years before he launched the alleged scam on the public, if scam it was.

          • Dsm

            August 30, 2012 at 11:49 am

            Daniel
            Where did I bring up any mention of scam. Can we for once stay on topic. I raised a set of points with dates. Either these points are accurate or can be shown to be wrong. If you can point out any discrepancies please do but please don’t alter the point of the post with something that was never raised & really does not bong with the points made.
            .
            You said they worked together for years but that alone means little without context.
            .
            Daniel please provide any info you have that says they met and worked together before 2007 jul and please show what inf you have that they did not have their ecat working by 2007 oct,
            .
            If you can’t refute those dates just say “yes I accept them” or say “no I don’t”
            .
            Not a hard challenge.
            .
            DSM

          • Ransompw

            August 30, 2012 at 1:40 pm

            DSM:

            They didn’t demo their ecat in 2007. I find no evidence whatsoever that they had a working ecat back in 2007 other than a Rossi says which is worth exactly nothing. What is your point?

          • John Milstone

            August 30, 2012 at 6:55 pm

            they did work together on this over several years – clearly there have been a series of prototypes.

            Focardi is just about the only aspect of Rossi’s “circus” that has any credibility at all.

            However, Focardi himself admitted that he doesn’t know how the E-Cat works, and that he doesn’t want to know.

            If Focardi doesn’t know how it works, he can’t be certain that it actually works as Rossi claimed. He doesn’t know that it is not some sort (or several sorts) of fraud on Rossi’s part.

            There may have been several “prototypes”. Perhaps Rossi used them to finesse ways to fake the claimed results. Perhaps Focardi was nothing more that a guinea pig for testing how convincing a fake device has to be to fool a LENR researcher.

            Of course, after almost 2 years, all we’ve actually seen were two small desktop steam generators of questionable effectiveness, and a shipping container full of boxes which, for all we know, were empty props. Everything else has been Rossi razzle-dazzle.

          • Dsm

            August 31, 2012 at 10:01 am

            Ransomepw
            Re 2007 oct ecat. Are you serious that you can’t find proof (published Rossi docs) ?
            .
            If you can’t it will confirm a conviction I have long held that you are not able to do relatively straight forward research.
            .
            There are multiple sources for the oct 2007 ecat including a Focardi video !!!.
            .
            Please reconsider your ‘opinion’ re the 2007 ecat:)
            .
            DSM

        • Robert Munson Reply

          August 30, 2012 at 4:27 pm

          Dsm

          Could u compare that with the celani timeline. I think celani started with NH in 2011 I would think three years of study is quite a bit. If Rossi has something wouldnt it be logical that he has a lot more data from trial and eror??

        • Robert Munson Reply

          August 30, 2012 at 4:46 pm

          Dsm

          Let’s cut to the chase. Rossi is a serial liar ( obviously a psychological issue)
          Rehashing old lines and the usual circle jerk on this site is counter productive. We’re all here for good or bad to see If this machine exists. Nothing else matters.

          • Dsm

            August 31, 2012 at 5:45 am

            Robert
            This post was intended to gently bring Daniel to reality in regard to his comment about why he believes Rossi (because Rossi and Focardi spent year perfecting it when that is so provably wrong).
            .
            Many other people repeat this same disinformation. What is sad is when one presents irrefutable evidence to the contrary, they just don’t want to know & Daniel is a classic in this regard.
            .
            But we enjoy pulling each other’s tails :)
            .
            DSM

      • John Milstone Reply

        August 30, 2012 at 9:48 pm

        Rossi and Focardi were working on nickel-hydrogen for several years.

        There are several things to indicate that Focardi has not been deeply involved in Rossi’s work. He has stated that he doesn’t know how it works (and that he doesn’t want to know). He also stated that his primary work was to determine what safety measures would be required, based on Rossi’s description of what was supposedly going on in the E-Cat.

        Based on those statements, and his apparent lack of interest and involvement in Rossi’s work for the last year or more, it’s unreasonable to use Focardi’s credibility to justify Rossi’s.

        • Robert Munson Reply

          August 31, 2012 at 4:48 am

          John

          Focardi is the one who put Rossi on the map or have u forgotten that focardi was the one that took celanis secrets to Rossi soooooo to say focardi had nothing to do with it is patently false!

          • Dsm

            August 31, 2012 at 5:49 am

            Celani’s secrets ? – Robert you have that wrong I think.
            What you meant was Piantelli who wrote how he considered Focardi had used their friendship to get details from him & passed these to Rossi.
            .
            Piantelli called it Focardi’s betrayal. Sad thing about Piantelli is the his health is now failing ( he is IIRC) older than Focardi.
            .
            DSM

          • John Milstone

            August 31, 2012 at 1:46 pm

            Robert,

            So what you are saying is that Focardi “stole” Celani’s “secrets”? Actually, I think you mean Piantelli.

            In that case, you are suggesting that Focardi is not honest or trustworthy, in which case, he certainly can’t be used to give any credibility to Rossi.

            But your comment does support the idea that Focardi is complicit in Rossi’s scam.

    • Sojourner Soo Reply

      August 29, 2012 at 11:44 pm

      Elongated cylinders that are capable of very hot temperatures always remind me of missiles. I’m not liking the cylindrical design of this new Hot Cat. This is Fioravanti’s design, isn’t it? He worked with missiles, yes? I recall recently reading a discussion somewhere about weaponizing LENR. Passerini’s blog, I think it was. I hope that isn’t what this is…

      • dsm Reply

        August 30, 2012 at 1:14 am

        Sojourner Soo
        .
        Weaponizing was a serious consideration of the US Army as far back as 2009/2010 when reports were appearing about CF experiment exploding. I believe there was at least 1 fatality.
        .
        They ran their own LENR event – here http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2010/ARL/ARL-LENR-Workshop-Final-Agenda.pdf
        .
        The papers from that event can be obtained here … http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2010/ARL/Pres/ (but it seems Steven Krivit may now have blocked direct access)
        .
        DSM

      • Al Potenza Reply

        August 30, 2012 at 1:31 am

        Soo, what in the world do you know about what a real fusion reactor would look like and why would you know it?

        • Sojourner Soo Reply

          August 30, 2012 at 2:03 am

          Potenza: I can easily use Google to find out the diameter of a surface-to-air missile. It’s right around the diameter Rossi quoted, 1.2 meters.

          However, to be frank with you, I think the Italians are having a bit of fun at the expense of everyone. I’ll put this new “Hot Cat” right where it belongs, in a fantasy bin alongside my fairy pic. The Italians, I’m thinking, are jesting.

          I’ll sit this one out and simply watch the fireworks. I smell a practical joke that measures 1.2 meters wide and .4 meters long. Or whatever the measurements were. The Hot Cat is a prank.

      • Jami Reply

        August 30, 2012 at 1:43 pm

        “Elongated cylinders that are capable of very hot temperatures always remind me of missiles.”

        Do they? Oh well. You’re not the guy who asked Rossi the all important question about what colour the home e-cat will be, are you?

        • Sojourner Soo Reply

          August 30, 2012 at 3:50 pm

          Sighs. You make the most inane comments, Jams. WTF cares what colour they come in?

          I think female scientists are going to have to find a way for the females of the human species to procreate on their own. Sexual competition is innate in males. This leads to incessant warfare. Worse, everything they invent gets weaponized, if it’s at all possible. They’re so worried some other males are going to kill them first.

          There is really no hope for the species, as long as men are part of it. That isn’t hate, by the way. I do like men. I just think they’re hopeless creatures and much too prone to violence and mayhem. I’m a pacifist, after all. I’m simply sick of warfare and warmongering. I don’t think there’s been a single year of my life free of war. I long for peace on earth. Silly me…

          • Al Potenza

            August 30, 2012 at 4:42 pm

            That says a lot about you, ya know, Soo?

          • Sojourner Soo

            August 30, 2012 at 5:19 pm

            Potenza: Weaponizing everything says a lot about the male half of the species, too. The human species is doomed, unless and until men learn how to stop fighting with each other over everything, be it money, land, food, water, oil, coal, gas, clothing, other animals, and anything else men deem worth fighting over, including women. This is a biological truth. So, as a female, I think humanity needs to evolve so that the species becomes androgynous and self-fertilizing. We would be much better off for it, just like some plants. Maybe then we can get beyond the constant testosterone-fueled warfare and killing. It’s such a bloody bore.

          • Jami

            August 30, 2012 at 5:43 pm

            “WTF cares what colour they come in?”

            I thought, if anybody, you would. If the shape bothers you, the colour may be something you can get really pissed about. Who knows? Maybe it’ll be red, signifying male agression or whatever.

            I wonder who you think you’re kidding with the “I am a woman” bullshit. Apart from personifying practically every bad “stupid blonde” joke ever made, you come across about as female as Arnold Schwarzenegger in Predator – only without the same sense of elegance and subtle grace.

          • John Milstone

            August 30, 2012 at 5:44 pm

            Soo said that the disliked Rossi’s new device because it was shaped more-or-less like a missile (i.e. phallic-shaped).

            She also used the word “penis” to insult another poster (her post was later expunged).

            Now, she is expressing the need to eliminate men altogether.

            I think I see a pattern.

          • Quax

            August 30, 2012 at 7:07 pm

            Sojourner, David Brin wrote a SciFi novel about such a world and explored the idea in great depth. Really a very good read:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_Season

          • Sojourner Soo

            August 30, 2012 at 8:27 pm

            Actually, I used the word “*rick.” That got expunged. I seem to recall somebody may have called me a “*itch” recently. Rainer, maybe? I don’t believe it got expunged. I could be wrong though. He was quite angry at me, I do know that, and very aggressive. I wanted to tell him “DON’T TYPE AT ME IN THAT TONE OF VOICE!”

            Jami, I’m female, very highly educated in the social sciences, and I know how to speak my mind. That you would think that that means I “must” be a man, one who is even more aggressive than that ridiculous Austrian iron-pusher makes me chuckle. I simply have a highly developed animus a la Jung’s theory. Get over it. You’re beginning to sound like a girl. Maybe you ARE a girl? BTW: Are you familiar with Tit for Tat? Biology 101.

          • Sojourner Soo

            August 30, 2012 at 8:45 pm

            Quax: That’s matriarchy. That is not a solution. I’ve no wish to see females be dominant over males. I was thinking something more egalitarian in nature; more along the lines of a species of androgynous, self-fertilizing humans, one in which the male testosterone and female estrogen levels were more naturally balanced, i.e. a species in which all intra/inter sexual competition was thus minimized. It would be so nice to have warfare eliminated. We would still fight and argue a lot, but I don’t think we would resort to warfare and outright killing as often.

          • Quax

            August 31, 2012 at 4:14 am

            Sojourner Soo, I am not sure that this aggression is innate to our biological mark-up or rather a consequence of population overcrowding.

            After all we’ve been the most successful species for millennia but ever since agricultural life-style has been adopted we’ve been skirting close to mass-extinction events. Can be easily triggered by diseases, climate change, etc.

            Living in North America this density stress is less noticeable when compared to other parts of the world.

            If humanity somehow manages to eventually reduce our population numbers I expect warfare to decrease sharply.

          • Robert Munson

            August 31, 2012 at 5:08 am

            Soo

            I find u highly interesting, well spoken and highly entertaining. Your phallic references and color schemes have the knuckle draggers on this site (potenza,Jami) feeling a little intellectually emasculated.
            Keep up the fine work. Your posts are refreshing!

        • Quax Reply

          August 30, 2012 at 8:37 pm

          Sojourner, for what it’s worth I find your writing style to be perfectly in line with who you claim to be.

          Of course anybody could be a dog on the Intertubes but I see no reason to doubt your self-proclaimed identity.

          • Sojourner Soo

            August 30, 2012 at 8:47 pm

            Thank you, Quax. You’re my buddy, now. And, I’m not a “dog.” I like dogs, but I’m not a dog.

            I read the bright lights and the not so bright lights (you know who you are) at Vortex quite often. They are very sexist over there, I find. What’s up with that, Rothwell?

          • Quax

            August 31, 2012 at 4:24 am

            Sojourner, not familiar with Vortex but in the technical fields sexism is unfortunately quite common. Other predominantly male sites such as RedIt have that problem, too.

            Then there is the innate sexism in our culture i.e. you may find even mothers telling their little boy “don’t be a girl” when he cries.

            As if being a girl was a bad thing.

            I was always bothered about how few women were attracted to pursue a career in physics and engineering, but now being a father this mostly subconscious gender stereotyping has become a major pet-peeve of mine.

      • Ivy Matt Reply

        August 31, 2012 at 2:01 pm

        It’s a sad fact that, whenever we make an advance in science, we tend to turn our ingenuity towards finding a way to use it to kill each other. I can easily imagine Rossi’s E-Cat being used as a kinetic energy weapon.

        • Jami Reply

          August 31, 2012 at 2:29 pm

          Good news then. A war faught with LENR weapons will probably yield the fewest casualties of any conflict ever (including my kids struggling for the remote on saturday afternoon).

  9. Tiki Reply

    August 29, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    Nice Video, I look forward to more tests and more press about what he is doing.

  10. Al Potenza Reply

    August 30, 2012 at 1:45 am

    “Paul Stout
    August 29, 2012 at 7:36 pm
    And, assuming it works, you end up with 10 tmes the output power for only so long as it takes to turn the wire into slag, which would only serve to prove incompetince.”

    -
    I am always amazed when people say silly things like this. A fusion energy source supposedly makes heat. Heat transfer physics is well established as is the engineering aspect of cooling a heat source. There are probably a dozen ways, some of them neither expensive nor especially complicated, that Celani could keep the temperature inside his device safe with ten wires running. And if it really is LENR, he could do away with the electrical heater.
    With a proper cooling system, there is no reason for his wires to get damaged, much less “turn into slag”.

    Just one method for doing it would involve winding the wire around a coolant flow tube, perhaps made of copper with a thin layer of electrical insulation or maybe using a quartz tube. Each wire could have its own cooling channel or the entire bunch could be cooled from the outside, depending on how the calculations come out. The temperature would be controlled by changing the flow rate of the coolant, it’s inlet temperature, or both.

    If Celani really has an LENR reactor, if won’t be of any use at all until he can extract the heat it makes.

    • Quax Reply

      August 30, 2012 at 3:47 am

      My understanding is that this is not supposed to be a reactor but a device that reliably demonstrates that LENR is a real effect. After all the latter still is anything but settled science.

      • daniel maris Reply

        August 30, 2012 at 1:25 pm

        My understanding is that it is a reactor. It is reacting with the hydrogen and creating the nuclear (or whatever) reaction.

        The novelty appears to be the use of wires – presumably to give a good surface area.

        • Quax Reply

          August 30, 2012 at 7:08 pm

          Touche, It is a reactor in the sense that a reaction occurs :-)

          • daniel maris

            August 31, 2012 at 1:09 am

            You didn’t qualify your noun. LOL Always qualify your nouns.

            Actually to be serious, are you confusing his device with the Zawodny device to test different chemicals for LENR utility? Some sceptics have tried to muddy the waters by trying to claim that device relates to the NASA patent, which I don’t believe it does.

            There is so much information and disinformation now that it is difficult to keep it all in place!

          • Quax

            August 31, 2012 at 4:28 am

            No, pretty sure this has no relationship to NASA.

            But given that there clearly is LENR interest at NASA I would hope they’ll eventually take a look at this device and evaluate it.

          • John Milstone

            August 31, 2012 at 1:42 pm

            Some sceptics have tried to muddy the waters by trying to claim that device relates to the NASA patent, which I don’t believe it does.

            Your “belief” is meaningless.

            The fact is that it is a patent for a device which might be useful in LENR research, but is not a “LENR device”.

            A valid analogy would be a patent for a spark plug. While it would be useful for an internal-combustion engine, it is not an internal-combustion engine.

        • Jami Reply

          August 31, 2012 at 2:13 pm

          “The novelty appears to be the use of wires – presumably to give a good surface area.”

          Nope. The reason for using a wire is cost and simplicity. If it was only about surface area, you’d look at something very different but a lot more complex to produce. Using a wire has certain drawbacks when it comes to analyzing the results. Celani’s wires will have very different cross-sectional areas and thus heat up very heterogeneously. On top of that, conductivity will change all the time because of expansions and contractions which keep such a wire in permanent motion – even if the power level doesn’t change. Somebody proposed using an IR cam – but unlike with Piantelli’s experiments, it would only show constantly shifting hot spots.

    • Paul Stout Reply

      August 30, 2012 at 6:57 pm

      Normally, I am only accused of saying silly things when I am doing it on purpose.

      I forget the exact terminology that was in one of the NASA pdf files that were made public a few months ago, but one of the comments was that LENR took thermal management to a whole new level of difficulty.

      Assuming the claims are true, then LENR is a very high energy density device, and what is also very important, it has positive feedback characteristics. I.e. the hotter it gets, the more energy in the form of heat it generates. Neither of these characteristics is typical, which means your well established cooling systems are suspect.

      If there is any thermal coupling between the wires, increasing the number of wires will increase the gain in this positive feedback system, which takes your well established thermal management engineering into areas it has never encountered before.

      If you put each wire around its own coolant tube, then you eliminate a significant amount of thermal coupling between the wires, but you have also made it necessary to increase the input power, which runs counter to your requirements.

      If you cool the entire bunch from the outside, then you have significant thermal coupling and potentially lose control of the feedback loop, leading to thermal run away and wires turning into slag.

      With enough understanding of the physics behind LENR and enough engineering, it might be possible to eliminate the electrical heater. I think it is safe to assume you have not acquired either.

      There is a very important practical difference between the heat generated by an electric heater and the heat generated by LENR. And that difference is that we have direct and immediate control over the heat generated by the electric heater. Until we understand LENR a lot better, we do not have that kind of control over the heat that it generates – unless you know something the rest of us are not privy to.

      Using electrical heat to initiate the reaction and limiting the reaction mass is the safe way to control the feedback loop. The experiment is much more controllable if you can quickly damp the feedback by cutting the power input, which lowers the temperature, which lowers the gain of the system.

  11. ivan_cev Reply

    August 30, 2012 at 7:41 am

    In this case the device is a reactor

  12. Methusela Reply

    August 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm

  13. Al Potenza Reply

    August 30, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    “However, I do firmly agree with Rossi that this thing is only going to be decided by getting a device to market. As sceptics have pointed out here – there have been devices before which have fooled senior scientists. If Celani produces a more sophisticated machine sceptics will find more sophisticated reasons to doubt it.”
    -
    This is typical of the believer view and it totally at odds with how scientific research works. It confuses a discovery with a product! Einstein didn’t have to make an atomic bomb and sell it to the military before his theory of relativity was believed.

    Nobody has to sell anything for LENR to be established. As we’ve said over and over and some people just don’t GET, all you need is a good experiment that makes enough heat for long enough. And then it has to be independently verified.

    I am amazed Rossi fooled senior scientists. It’s because they are too trusting. They are also not specialists in the right area of science which in this case would be the measurement of heat transfer and fluid flow. Rossi would not fool a major government lab like Sandia or Oak Ridge. He would not fool the physics department at University of Bologna or Uppsala, even if he did fool Focardi and Levi. He would not fool Dick Smith’s experts. He would not fool MIT or Cal Tech. He wouldn’t fool SRI or Earthtech. That’s why he doesn’t let any of those organizations anywhere near an ecat.

    • Paul Stout Reply

      August 30, 2012 at 8:37 pm

      “I am amazed Rossi fooled senior scientists.”
      I am not the least bit surprised that you find that amazing. Based on your superior intellect, and without witnessing any of the demonstrations, you are able to see the fraud for what it is, when the senior scientists were completely hoodwinked.
      Sorry, but that doesn’t demonstrate superior intellect. What it does demonstrate is pre-conceived assumptions. I’ve been there and done that.
      Maybe Rossi did hoodwink the senior scientists. My friends will tell you that my conceit knows no bounds, but not even I am conceited enough to think that I can make that determination based on the available evidence.
      “This is typical of the believer view and it totally at odds with how scientific research works.”
      Your writing tells me that you do not think like the typical engineer and you assume that Rossi is performing scientific research. He is not. If he is to be believed, most of what he is doing is engineering from a trial and error point of view. The methods and goals that show in his comments are not that of a research scientist, they are the thought process typical of an engineer. This difference means that a lot of the assumptions you make are not valid.

  14. GreenWin Reply

    August 30, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    ..

  15. GreenWin Reply

    August 30, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    Hello Dear Friends! I trust all is dour and doubtful here at ecatnews… Here’s a little puzzle to stimulate your senses: Who wrote this is 1932??

    “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.”

    No cheating or fooling please! And don’t forget, it’s only five nail-biting months to the intro of “Island of Generale Zarcofagus” – 2013!! (get out your fins!)

    • Quax Reply

      August 30, 2012 at 7:09 pm

      Could be something Einstein said.

    • Ivy Matt Reply

      August 31, 2012 at 2:08 pm

      I’m guessing it was the father of nuclear physics. I’ve read a similar quote, but it made more sense. Essentially he was pointing out the limitations of the particle accelerator as a fusion reactor. This quote sounds a bit more like a sweeping generalization.

      • Jami Reply

        August 31, 2012 at 2:21 pm

        I cheated. It was Einstein.

      • Ivy Matt Reply

        August 31, 2012 at 2:26 pm

        Nope, Quax had it right. Here’s Ernest Rutherford’s quote:

        We might in these processes obtain very much more energy than the proton supplied, but on the average we could not expect to obtain energy in this way. It was a very poor and inefficient way of producing energy, and anyone who looked for a source of power in the transformation of the atoms was talking moonshine. But the subject was scientifically interesting because it gave insight into the atoms.

        Leó Szilárd proved both Rutherford and Einstein wrong by developing the idea of a neutron-induced fission chain reaction using heavy elements.

        • Quax Reply

          August 31, 2012 at 7:20 pm

          Yes, I vaguely recall an anecdote of Leó Szilárd walking up to Einstein after a lecture and inquiring if his e=mc^2 formula didn’t imply the potential of limitless energy supply from mass.

          Einstein apparently thought this rather naive. He maintained that his formula, although showing the theoretical equivalence, in no way implied that there was a practical way to convert large amounts of mass into useful energy.

          • GreenWin

            September 6, 2012 at 9:57 pm

            Quax’s instinct is correct – the quote is from Einstein.

  16. Quax Reply

    August 30, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    Indeed an exceptionally tolerant site – not taking any pre-conceived notions. Hence the only worthwhile for me to peruse.

    Paul, keep up the good work!

  17. Cheme911 Reply

    August 30, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    The reaction is very real along with the heat and radiation observed.

    The primary problem remains scaling up a technology which is inherently unstable due to its nature. When you combine fission, fusion and collapsed matter you unleash a torrent of safety and reliability problems. This is the real reason for the delay to market in all of these devices, including magnetic impulse motors and will remain that way until all the issues are resolved.

    I discuss this in my blog.

    ChemE
    http://wp.me/p26aeb-4

  18. Cheme911 Reply

    August 30, 2012 at 8:46 pm

    The reaction is very real along with the heat and radiation observed.

    The primary problem remains scaling up a technology which is inherently unstable due to its nature. When you combine fission, fusion and possible collapsed matter you unleash a torrent of safety and reliability problems. This is the real reason for the delay to market in all of these devices, including magnetic impulse motors and will remain that way until all the issues are resolved.

    I discuss this in my blog.

    ChemE
    http://wp.me/p26aeb-4

  19. jerry Reply

    August 30, 2012 at 10:33 pm

    the Italian Licensee of Leonardo Corp, check out the website .. http://prometeon.it/ – he has a count down clock this is getting interesting!

    Andrea Rossi
    August 30th, 2012 at 11:38 AM
    To the Readers interested to contact the Italian Licensee of Leonardo Corp:
    aldo.proia@prometeon.it
    A.R.

    • Mahron - A4 B2 Reply

      August 31, 2012 at 12:59 am

      Using 25% of my cpu. So that’s how they produce the heat.

    • daniel maris Reply

      August 31, 2012 at 1:04 am

      Yes, it’s an intriguing idea…let’s hope it’s a countdown to something significant.

    • Tony Reply

      August 31, 2012 at 1:36 am

      This is really good now. The clock counts down to the ultimate dissapointment.

      But we really don’t know what is being counted down, do we? I see 31 days and change. Either the birth of the e-cat or the start of another menstrual cycle.

      This is becoming bloody hilarious.

      Tony2

  20. Jami Reply

    August 31, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    Meanwhile…

    Who reads this sh*t and thinks “Ah, yes, that makes perfectly good sense”?

    ————-
    Andrea Rossi
    August 31st, 2012 at 3:56 AM

    Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
    First of all, the certification process must be completed in Europe or in the USA at least before we make an installation, and this is valid also for Africa: it is deonthologically unacceptable to install a not certified apparatus in a Country just because in that Country the safety issues are not addressed.
    We have no experience in desalination yet, and this operation can be made only after we will know exactly the problem. After that, there are many problems to think about, first of all the problem of the defence of the technology, that in those situations can be very critic: who makes secure the place? That is an action that will be possible only after our plants will be already diffused, the Intallectual Property well defined and our experience in desalination consolidated. We got the idea and we will take in account it: when we will set up our system of charity we will think about this and will look not for charity organizations, but directly to the utilizers, as well as we will give the money for children cancer care directly to the families, to avoid to pay wages of “non profit” organizations managers, secretaries etc instead of paying healthcare
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  21. Jami Reply

    August 31, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    And another nice one. I could put on a smug face and say “told you so”, but then we all knew, didn’t we?

    ————–
    Andrea Rossi
    August 30th, 2012 at 10:06 AM

    Dear Brian:
    The Journalists attending the conference will hear the report. The same report will be eventually published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics and anybody will be allowed to reproduce it free in toto or in part: the Journal Of Nuclear Physics does not apply the Copyright on its publications.
    Regards,
    A.R.

  22. Pemmo Reply

    August 31, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    It is almost impossible to follow what Celani says even in his original language. When he switches to english, well, the result can simply blow up your mind.

  23. Sara Reply

    April 5, 2013 at 6:07 am

    I love the science! Mr. Francesco Celani, you are amazing

  24. Methusela Reply

    August 29, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    This is even ruder than me.

    At least I don’t insult the editor of this site!

  25. Jami Reply

    August 29, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    Not yet, maybe, but what would life be without ambition and a serious goal to achieve, right?

  26. admin Reply

    August 29, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    …At least I don’t insult the editor of this site!

    And thank you for that, too :-)

    Paul

  27. Dale G. Basgall Reply

    August 30, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    admin you have done great work being so patient with us fans, and your site has done good things by getting many variables in the Cold Fusion, LENR, CMNR and all the other topics that have been texfully discusssed here, ground down so to speak.

    I also wanted to try to break this tail of three comments that are lingering for some reason, hope this does it.

    And thanks for having a site we can hang with and that allows multiple views.

  28. GreenWin Reply

    August 30, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    I second that. Considering the heaps of steaming effluvia posted here – Paul is a picture of tolerance!

  29. Thicket Reply

    August 30, 2012 at 7:57 pm

    Gosh. I have to agree with Greenie. Paul has been very tolerant and there has been steaming effluvia.
    (We won’t agree on the source of the effluvia though :) )

  30. JNewman Reply

    August 30, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    Steaming Effluvia would be an awesome name for a rock band!

  31. daniel maris Reply

    August 30, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    That would be a sh*t hot band.

  32. Dsm Reply

    August 31, 2012 at 1:28 am

    What a lot of crap LOL – hilarious considering the source :) :)
    D

Leave a Reply

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

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