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

HotCat Report – Thoughts And Criticism

May 21, 2013

With a day to consider yesterday’s HotCat report, the following is an update on my thoughts:

There are too many unknowns to be answered but the initial positive impression has survived a close reading of the paper. In purely scientific terms, people are right to be cautious and question the extent of its independence. This can be done without accusation. I await the assault that usually follows such tests but, by the relative silence so far, my guess is that specific debunking is taking more work than usual. Where this is in evidence, the reaction appears to be hurried and flawed.

An example of this follows cautiously positive comments from particle physicist, Tommasco Dorigo at Science 2.0. Currently working at CERN, Dorigo says he still opts for the eCat being a scam. However, he also admits to being impressed by the results and will follow the developing story with more interest.

To some, anything but absolute condemnation is confirmation that you are an idiot.

Luboš Motl, a Czech physicist, castigates Dorigo and tears apart the report. I have no problem with this. Such is the stuff of science and Motl might end up being substantially correct. However, it does appear to me that he has only skimmed the paper he accuses of sloppiness. Commenting on the use of unity as an approximation for the emissivity of the device, he points out that, rather than underestimating the final result, it overestimates it and on its own could account for much of the claimed excess power. However, the paper clearly states that in the December test, the approximation was plugged into the IR software to calculate the temperature from the measured colour map and that temperature was then used in the radiated power calculation. I am no expert and am ready to be proven wrong by someone who is, but it appears to me that since the emissivity would be used again in the actual  Stefan-Boltzmann formula, the net effect is minimal. Indeed, this is confirmed in the March test by using white dots of known emissivity supplied by the IR camera manufacturer.

My point here is not to slap Motl down but to demonstrate the tendency of smart people to read what they expect to find (this works both ways). I look forward to honest comment from scientists such as these and wish we would dump the habit of assuming someone an idiot because they are willing to admit a cautionary interest in wtf is going on.

With that in mind, I am encouraged by this paper and hope the coming analysis from mainstream scientists will be constructive even if it is critical . We are a long way from scientific proof but in business terms, I would not be surprised if this makes a few potential investors wonder if they should chuck some pin-money on the fire.

I’m not ready to abandon caution – I cannot dismiss the obvious lies and obfuscation surrounding this subject over the past two years and don’t think others should assume we have The Holy Grail. However, the report has definitely made me pause. I hope others do too. It is entirely possible to do so without switching off our brains and believing everything we are told.


[With thanks to Akira Shirakawa on Vortex]

Posted by on May 21, 2013. Filed under Bologna,Drama,Hands-On,Press/Blogs,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

83 Responses to HotCat Report – Thoughts And Criticism

  1. GN

    May 22, 2013 at 1:13 am

    Well Mr. Motl concludes that assuming an emissivity of 0.2 only 300 watts produce the colours that we see on the surface of the device.

    Now, here is where an engineer or a physicist should stop and think: is this possible?

    • AlainCo

      May 22, 2013 at 7:46 am

      moreover the paper seems to have checked the real emissivity in the paper, and showed something around 0.8, getting greater at high temp…

      it seems that many critics are, as usual, simply loose job, based on incompetence, overconfidence, and incomplete reading.

      I wait for the peer review feedback… and on the answers.

      pretending a COP above 5 require huge errors, like 5x error in emissivite, 50% on temperature, …

      it is above error…
      even Caltech did a better job on cold fusion experiments.
      and MIT could not have tweaked the experiments like they did to hide the results.

      • Tom H

        May 25, 2013 at 10:01 pm


        Could you help me understand why the outer steel containment shell would be such a trade secret that its properties could not be disclosed to the independent testers? The emissivity of the outer shell and the temperature would nail the radiative energy.

        • AlainCo

          May 25, 2013 at 10:45 pm

          the emissivity have been measured (around 0.8, matching thermometric camera with thermocouple) and the kind of paint was published by rossi.

          Rossi just protect access to :
          – gamma spectrum, informative on the secret ingredient (he claim some steal his recipe this ways already… dunno)
          – waveform of the signat between the control box and the reacto… anyway it is in the blackbox
          – content of the reactor

          all access to socket, to paint was allowed

  2. James P Lynch

    May 22, 2013 at 1:23 am

    While I’m one of those who hope Rossi’s E-CAT is a true breakthrough and not simply delusional, it’s pretty obvious that only a practical application, publicly demonstrated, will satisfy all the doubters. Something like his Hot-Cat generating steam to turn a steam turbine electric generator and running through a load.

    My guess is that this is not a scam because I don’t see how he could profit from such a public fraud, if that is what it is.

    • dsm

      May 22, 2013 at 2:14 am


      I don’t see it is such ‘simple’ terms. I believe a true 3rd party validation is as much needed today as it was 2 years ago.

      It is IMHO, a joke to call this report a ‘3rd party validation’ because it simply isn’t.

      Again we are fed a ‘tantalizing’ tit-bit that grabs a lot of people’s attention. It is IMHO only for the naive to believe someone would never have questionable motives for claiming a ‘new energy’ device that is world shattering. The false claims for ‘new energy’ far outweigh the true success stories.

      Andrea Rossi is simply not a person who attracts confidence and trust that his achievements and his motives are pure and honorable and totally above board. He has indulged in some appalling behavior in the past 4 years. What do you really think caused his DGT partnership (a company initiated by Prof Stremmenos) to collapse ? – do you think it was because Andrea Rossi never misled them about their ability to meet their own business objectives. That is simply one glitch in the history of this saga.


      • Ransompw

        May 22, 2013 at 3:13 am


        The tests weren’t performed by Rossi. They were performed by 7 professionals, 4 from Uppsala. The tests were funded independently, the equipment wasn’t Rossi’s and was calibrated by the authors. Rossi wasn’t present for the tests. Other than being performed at Rossi’s facility, they were pretty independent of Rossi.

        By the way Stremmenos supports Rossi in DGT/Rossi split, so I am not sure we know who did what to who.

        • dsm

          May 22, 2013 at 8:16 am


          Are you claiming this was a true 3rd party validation of an Andrea Rossi eCat as a LENR reactor conclusively producing over unity energy.

          If you truly are then there is nothing more we can share because what I would have to say to you is simply far too blunt and IMHO outside your intellect.

          You have already shown you do not have a blind clue about what acceptable business practice is in regard to selling agencies for resale of ‘new’ products (let alone global revolutionary and unproven new energy). You are so out of your depth it is embarrassing to read you.

          I have long believed you are a shill for Andrea and your most recent flood of posts confirms it to me.



          • R101 no longer an airship

            May 22, 2013 at 12:24 pm

            DSM, how could you sign that off with cheers? All you did is insult the poster.

            If you are who I think you are, you used to be a legend to me when I was growing up and making a lot of electronic devices. But unfortunately DSM you have destroyed all that in one post.

            Just because one believes the evidence, or wants to believe, that does not make him a shrill, nor should it open him or her up for insults.

          • dsm

            May 22, 2013 at 10:01 pm


            There have been endless posts from RansomPW on this matter – he simply ignores evidence he doesn’t like. He has spammed several blogs in the past week with what amounts to complete contradiction & ignorance of what Andrea Rossi has done vs what RansomPW says. I once said that RansomPW would try the patience of a saint – I am no saint.

            Sorry that post upset you. R-PW upset me.



          • Gregory

            May 23, 2013 at 12:24 pm

            Before being so blunt you should define “3rd party”. AFAIK a third party is a party that doesn’t share any interest with other parties in the chain. It is absolutely not a party of people who have no knowledge at all from either the matter or the people involved, because that would be totally impractical and there would be practically no 3rd party review in any way. Specifically a huge amount of publications would be invalid, because it takes a specialist to review specialised article, and because as specialist of the same field both author & reviewer are then part of the then small group of specialists, go to same convention, exchange info and often have some form of friendship.

            So because Levi knows Rossi doesn’t make him in any way other than a 3rd party, as long as he has no interest (ie money, career) to bias his results – wether the bias would be coming from the reviewed or the payer of the study. If there’s nothing at this level, the main interest shall be what this article could do to Levi’s reputation, and to that level it’s easy to see it’s not the easiest path for career path to actually validate Rossi.

            Unless you have clear evidence that at least some of the author have an interest bias in this, I consider your claims as unsubstantiated and actually pretty ill inform of how things work in the scientific community.

            That being said.

            While I don’t find legit to claim that this study isn’t valid 3rd party (until someone shows me relevant proofs it’s not), I also don’t forget that this report requires a peer review to get some weight. That peer review is badly lacking for now and I am surprised how little people are asking for it. We should all be asking for that peer review to happen, putting pressure on authors, sure, but quite possibly on journals as well. If a journal refuses to review the paper whe should let it know that this article actually matters to a lot of people.

        • MaxS

          May 22, 2013 at 9:22 am

          IMO, Levi the lead author(?) is certainly not independant and it is not clear what the other authors have actually contributed.
          Read this:

          • Ransompw

            May 22, 2013 at 12:16 pm


            Ethan Siegel really? That is who you are base your critique?

            By the way, science has never had the responsibility to prevent investment in what someone deems crackpottery. When did it assume this calling?

            I think it is abundantly clear that a segment of the scientific community will not believe results from any tests. No test can completely avoid fraud.

            Anyone doing them will either be labeled a shill or incompetent.

            And obviously since there are always going to be vocal people like Ethan Siegel saving the world from the above nothing short of commercial use will ever stop this nonsense.

            So either it will happen or it won’t.

            I will say this if Rossi’s ecat turns out to be true the world thereafter needs to stop listening to clowns like Siegel and just let the fools and the money part and get back to its actual job of investigating nature.

          • maxs

            May 22, 2013 at 12:51 pm

            Ransom, just focus on the subject rather than discrediting a priori certain sources.
            You have written not long time ago, you do not believe anything what Rossi is telling. Now you have twisted and insult people with different opinions.
            BTW, I have 20 years more experience than you in scientific protocols, I consider your opinion therefore as not helpful. This debate is pointless.

          • Ransompw

            May 22, 2013 at 1:24 pm


            My point is how does one respond to the accusation of fraud. Do you really think it can be ruled out, the only possibility is if Rossi just hands over his IP (assuming he has any) to everyone who wants it and let them at it.

            If that is what is deemed independent tests it isn’t going to happen unless and until a product enters the market that Rossi can’t control. I wouldn’t expect any entrepeneur to grant unlimited access. So it can fit scam or a legitimate business.

            What is the point of arguing about it?

            So what are you saying the scientific community should do?

            1) Accuse Rossi and the 7 professionals of fraud?
            2) Ignore the whole thing?
            3) Provide a qualified opinion such as “Either real or fraud but can’t rule out fraud”.
            4) Assasinate the character of the 7 who performed the test? This seems to be one most chosen so far which I find insulting.
            5) Consider that “Cold Fusion” may be possible and get off their ass and investigate it.

            It seems to me 3 & 5 are the only legitimate choices.

          • maxs

            May 22, 2013 at 2:02 pm

            I agree fraud involving all 7 is not very likely. whatever, incompetence, delusion, lack of diligence, anything is possible.
            how to respond to the accusation of fraud is not the issue. Leave that to a lawyers journal.
            The issue here is a scientific method to validate a technology.
            There are questions remaining: method of energy measurement, for example, why choose unconventional method of IR camera instead of calorimetry? Was it calibrated properly, by whom etc. many questions. Same for energy input. In a fresh experiment, why was the e-cat already running (how much energy was initially taken up and how is it accounted for)? These questions could have easily been avoided by moving the thing to a different location, take the test by a fresh team by well respected experienced people in energy measurement and physics, even in presence of a notary. Then a fraud would be ruled out, unless the examiners are part of the fraud with in my described setup in nearly impossible. But Rossi picked the same usual suspects (Essen, Levi, Bianchini etc) and sold us as 3rd party! Why? Was nobody else prepared to test it? Or was it the only way to get the desired result?
            All these things unncessessarily compromise the acceptance with peer scientists.

          • Ransompw

            May 22, 2013 at 3:04 pm


            I tend to disagree with some of your points.

            The one about “a fresh team by well respected experienced people” is the most suspect. Anyone who touchs this is criticized by members of the scientific community. You can’t even make comments about it like Dorigo did and escape criticism. Or Josephson. It is like a TAR BABY. So personally, I don’t think it would matter to those who have their mind made up about the subject and there are obviously many. It might give a few reasonable scientists pause but they aren’t the vocal ones crying fraud and incompetence.

            As to who Rossi allows to test the device and under what circumstances, this isn’t a university project, it is a business. The idea that an entrepeneur needs to throw his IP to the world to be believed is silly. It doesn’t happen and to call for it is unreasonable. If he has constrints they should be respected and the test should work around them to do as you suggest “verify the technology”.

            There should be a peer review process on this issue, which to my way of thinking isn’t to immediately start calling people incompetent and frauds but to write requests for clarification and propose modifications to the test if you think the controls inadequate. If the scientific community was acting correctly it would do peer review on the paper for publication. I don’t see the peer review process at work at this point. I see a bunch of childish behavior from people who call themselves professionals.

          • MaxS

            May 23, 2013 at 7:10 am

            why are there doubts about competence:
            Levi earlier claimed he had a successfull trial but lost the data. And did not repeat apparently.
            Essen disqualified himself in the 2011 demos, just a quote from Essen from that time “unfortunately we were too unprepared and unequipped. We checked as much as we could, and few magic tricks we could not notice any. We still hope that Rossi is set up on a proper experiment with full control eventually”
            Incredible, aren´t these signs for lack of diligence and lack of competence?
            Giving away IP? Nobody requested that.

          • Gregory

            May 23, 2013 at 12:28 pm

            “IMO, Levi the lead author(?) is certainly not independant ”

            Please explain why.

          • Gregory

            May 23, 2013 at 12:38 pm

            “why are there doubts about competence:
            Levi earlier claimed he had a successfull trial but lost the data. And did not repeat apparently.”

            I am sorry I never heard of that and it surprises me as I actually remembered the data being published online. After checking, here they are:

            Can you provide a source supporting your affirmation of Levi having lost data?

        • MaxS

          May 23, 2013 at 7:46 am

          where do you find the information that it wasn´t Rossi´s equipment?

          • Gregory

            May 23, 2013 at 12:49 pm

            where do you find the information that it wasn´t Rossi´s equipment?”

            I have searched and found no clear information on this. The article is very specific about what was used but doesn’t state who brought it.

            That being I am not sure that the question is fit

            1. I understand that the initial affirmation made is that they’ve used Rossi’s measurement tool. If that’s so, it is the responsability of those claiming this to provide evidence of it.

            2. No matter who the tools belong too it seems standard procedure to me to check them individually, calibrate them etc. If this has been done properly (and it would be crazy such a team on such a test to get sloppy on this) then I fail to see what the problem could be about the measurement tools.

          • Ransompw

            May 23, 2013 at 1:18 pm


            Krivit inverviewed Essen and he stated it was their equipment. They also did calibration tests with the equipment.

  3. pachu

    May 22, 2013 at 2:57 am

    Paul it’s like you read my mind. I agree with your thoughts.

  4. Giancarlo

    May 22, 2013 at 7:49 am

    Scrivo pensieri brevi per facilitare la traduzione
    automatica in lingua inglese.
    Vivo in Italia a Roma.
    I media italiani non si stanno occupando affatto di questo evento.
    Una valanga di notizie spazzatura ogni giorno ci sommergono e per l’e-cat niente. Credo che questo fatto indichi molto bene l’apprensione di alcuni poteri riguardo all’e-cat.
    Il solo pensiero che l’e-cat funzioni per davvero deve aver terrorizzato tutti.
    Pensate ai miliardi di Euro o dollari spesi o in corso di spesa per i vari progetti di fusione calda.
    Pensate agli interessi connessi al petrolio, ai motori a scoppio, e a tutta l’industria dell’indotto che ne consegue.
    I giornalisti legati a tali poteri, cioè tutti, sono paralizzati.
    Pensate bene, anche se fosse tutta una truffa,
    ma quale situzione migliore per lavorarci su,
    per farci dei bei articoli, dei tormentoni nei talk-show; niente.
    Credo che anche solo questo ci faccia ben sperare,
    probabilmente è tutto vero.
    Un saluto a tutti,

  5. Giancarlo

    May 22, 2013 at 8:23 am

    I live in Italy in Rome.
    The Italian media are taking care not at all about this event.
    An avalanche of junk news every day overwhelm us and about e-cat nothing. I believe that this fact indicates very well the apprehension of some powers for e-cat.
    The very thought that the e-cat really works must have terrified everyone.
    Think of the billions of euros or dollars spent or being spent on various projects of hot fusion.
    Think of interests related to oil, to internal combustion engines, and the entire supply industries that follows.
    Journalists associated with such powers, that is all, are paralyzed.
    Think well, even if it was all a scam,
    but as a situational best to work on it,
    to make some “good” articles, talk-show of the summer hits, nothing.
    I think that this only makes us hope,
    it’s probably all true.
    Greetings to all,

  6. MaxS

    May 22, 2013 at 11:14 am

    More questions on methodology of energy measurements. Constraints set by Rossi and the available equipment did not allow other methods. Hhm….Maybe our lawywer can explain this better.

    • Ransompw

      May 22, 2013 at 1:11 pm


      At this point fraud is the only explaination for the paper released, so all those who before the paper were claiming fraud are still claiming fraud, without any proof.

      You can’t prevent fraud no matter how hard you try and since it can’t be proved one way or the other, no one is going to change their mind. For those that haven’t considered the issue, some will likely topple into either camp and the rest will see that it is meaningless to care unless and until it effects their lives, ie a product is actually introduced.

      Being a lawyer, I always thought you needed proof to accuse people of fraud, but apparantly not in the age of the internet. I would never be as reckless as Krivit, I deem him unprofessional.

      • maxs

        May 22, 2013 at 2:14 pm

        being a scientist, I always thought you needed proof to validate a technology, but apparantly not in the age of the internet.

        • Ransompw

          May 22, 2013 at 2:48 pm


          What does “validate a technology” mean?

          I have NO idea.

          • AlainCo

            May 22, 2013 at 5:39 pm

            a report ?
            like that one ?

            It seems that simply the reality is unacceptable to some. not even with low probability…

            As I forecasted few semester ago, it is a great psychiatric experiment…
            and wooohhh …

            Roland Benabou is right…
            Delusion is hard to break.

          • Stephen

            May 27, 2013 at 3:34 am

            “What does “validate a technology” mean? I have NO idea.”

            We noticed.

        • AlainCo

          May 22, 2013 at 5:30 pm

          if those report does not make you doubt on the fraud hypothesis, you are clearly delusioned.

          You can have prejudice that it is false, but if you are 1% honest, you have to admit 1% possibility it is true.

          Did you ever try to evaluate the simple theory that LENR is real, that Rossi have a reactor, accept that as an innovator he is crazy and paranoid…

          or do you prefer conspiracy theory involving all continent team of academic and corporate, scientist and engineers…

          can you sincerely believe in your theory without laughing?

          you make me think about those brain stroke victim who deny the ownership of their arm, and claim that it is the one of their doctor, who have 3 and sewed the third to their shoulder to make them a joke… (not invented story). left hemisphere trying to accept reality is so funny.

          I hope than anyone serious here will at least feel that something serious is happening and deserve to inspect further…

          • MaxS

            May 23, 2013 at 6:45 am

            I never said that I am 100% sure about fraud. I only stated it could be a fraud due to certain suspicious circumstances.
            I give it a 1% chance, even 10% to be real, if that pleases you. But that does not make it a reality. It needs more to be acknowledged as a fact, all doubts must be removed, clearly when it comes to a concept that is beyond common scientifc understanding.

          • Gregory

            May 23, 2013 at 12:59 pm

            “I give it a 1% chance, even 10% to be real,”

            This is interesting because admittedly if the result are wrong the report is either the result of extraordinary, abysmal incompetence or group fraud. I think it would be interesting for you to explicitly state what you think is the likeliness of those 2 hypothesis as well.

        • Gregory

          May 23, 2013 at 12:56 pm

          There’s no such thing as a proof and internet has nothing to do with it. If you truly are a scientist, you know how this work. Get published with peer review, get reply, get closure, get new articles by others based on experimental resultas so this is not just a sterile debate but actions are actually taken for science to make progres.

          Anyway if you ask for a proof you shall state what you would accept as a proof before a proof is submitted. Patholic skeptics, generally not concioussly, always move their line according to what happen to stay on the “good” side of it. If you agree this would be an impractical and unacceptable stance in a debate you’ll surely agree to define a point – not necesseraly a proof but something you’ll consider convincing.

          Also, it has to be practical. Asking for something that has no chance to happen would be a clear indication of wanting never to change your view on the matter rather than making fact based analysis.

          • Stephen

            May 27, 2013 at 3:36 am

            “…Get published with peer review, get reply, get closure, get new articles by others based on experimental resultas…”

            Which is exactly what rossi does NOT do. Your point?

    • freethinker

      May 22, 2013 at 1:18 pm

      Max is such a clever and funny guy 🙂

      Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.

  7. DvH

    May 22, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    so, what does it mean? why was it written?
    to me, it just stirrs up the ecat-soup for another few months. it may keep the believers to the flag – but does it PROVE something? this paper? would someone change it’s mind and say ‘ok, i was skeptic in the past – but after this report i will try to get a license, a device or some other way to help AR with my money’ ?

    is anything known about how the ‘indipendent researchers’ were chosen? did AR ask them to write such a thing? or did a number of teams from all over the world approach AR ‘we are the most qualified team to write such a report’ – and AR picked exactly that team…

    the next thing to happen is the delivery of a blue container to some place in USA – unless it falls off the freighter on the way across the atlantic…

  8. Ransompw

    May 22, 2013 at 3:43 pm


    One further point, the authors suggested that they planned a longer term test (six months). If the scientific community was really working correctly, they would propose suggested changes to the test procedures to alleviate concerns but still respect the wishes of the inventor. A week are so into the test of 6 months should give the authors data to add to their paper and satisfy reasonable doubts. Why doesn’t the scientific community take those reasonable steps?

    Isn’t that the proper peer review procedure, not immediately calling the authors incompetent and the inventor a fraud? Or in the case of the ivory tower publications, ignore them so none of the above can ever happen.

    I just have a serious problem with the status of our current scientific community. I seriously question whether the current system still works.

    • Gregory

      May 23, 2013 at 1:01 pm

      You can’t blame the scientific community on its lack of reply to something that simply isn’t published yet – and I mean in a scientific journal that will guarantee a peer review process. Scientists hardly have time to read every pr stuff they should, so it’s unfair to expect them to also read “random internet stuff” on the top of it.

    • Stephen

      May 27, 2013 at 3:38 am

      “I just have a serious problem with the status of our current scientific community. I seriously question whether the current system still works.”

      Fancy that, I have the same thoughts about the Canadian legal system in particular, and the one at large in general.

  9. Yury Kissin

    May 22, 2013 at 6:49 pm

    Concerning criticism of Luboš Motl:

    1. The true internal temperature of a hot body with the emissivity coefficient lower than 1 is higher than that of a hot body with e=1. If for example, e is very low, you can stand next to the very hot (inside) object and do not feel any infrared heat at all.
    2. The argument about the expected emission profile from a hot cylindrical object measured perpendicularly to the cylinder’s length is flawed. It does not account for the spatial distribution of the emitted IR energy from a cylinder. If one looks across the diameter of a uniformly heated cylinder, its sides do not radiate heat stronger than his central part.
    3. Whoever talks about a possible chemical source of the extra energy: the chemistry of nickel + hydrogen system is well known. There is no possibility of extra heat there.

    Yury Kissin

    • Anon2014

      May 23, 2013 at 8:40 pm

      “3. Whoever talks about a possible chemical source of the extra energy: the chemistry of nickel + hydrogen system is well known. There is no possibility of extra heat there.
      Yury Kissin”

      Sure. Let us see your calculation. I roughed it out and it says that there could be enough energy to provide a few hundred extra watts for the duration of this test by combusting both the nickel and the hydrogen, and the iron in the chamber. That is rough. Let someone (not me) do the calculations in scientific detail to rule out chemical or hydrogen/metal interactions for the mass and volume of this apparatus so we can rule out chemical.

      The problem I see is that the mass and volume estimates by Levi et al are way off assuming that the fuel inside the device is being converted into energy. How about that second test — we assume that only 1 gram is being combusted by a weight differential measurement. I am assuming that the +/- 0.3 grams is measurement error. So this says that the weight different of the unit before and after is zero. But if we combust something (iron, nickel) that leaves the residue in the unit while exhausting the water vapor into the air, will we see a weight gain or loss. And what else could have been put in the unit to burn?

      I’d like to see this part of the paper re-written with attention to detail and with calculation rather than pointing to the Rangone chart of power density vs. energy density (per unit mass) where only one axis (energy density per unit mass) has any bearing whatsoever. (One chart came from Wikipedia — let’s use a pseudoanonymous encyclopedia for our scientific paper references.)

      And with regard to COP — who cares. The COP (spark energy to heat output) of an oil burner is really high, because we are combusting oil. The energy density of the oil would prove there that we are burning oil and not plutonium.

  10. nzalias

    May 22, 2013 at 11:13 pm

    Hi, well I have been watching this stuff for a couple of years now and have never contributed to any discussion. I am no physicist so the nitty gritty of the technology is beyond my ken. However, my general feeling of the validity of Rossi and co’s work is very positive. I can understand the passion involved with desiring definitive news or confirmation of the truth, but the “I beleive” and “It’s a scam” arguments have not changed since day one. What has changed however is the continuing, albeit slow movement toward the aforementioned confirmation. In my mind, the scam theory is ridiculous and becoming more so with each development. In any nefarious exercise, who stands to gain? Certainly not Rossi and these other chaps. My advice is to simplify your views and you’ll see things more clearly. Oh, and leave the juvenile personal attacks in the schoolyard.

  11. David

    May 23, 2013 at 1:02 am

    Im not a scientist, I’m an aerospace manufacturer. As such, I lost belief in Rossi the moment he began speaking of his automated factory. It was clear to me at the time that the cost and complexity of such a plant would be immense and that it was impossible for him to set one up in secrecy.
    As far as the test go, I find it intriguing but as others have said it really proves nothing. The only proof will be when Rossi actually sells one to someone who is willing to talk about it. Rossi must know this so if it works at all it should not be more than a year or two from now before this happens. In the meantime I can afford to be hopeful. We who watch have nothing to gain or lose. If we don’t shoot off our mouths we have no pride to bruise. My advice, make popcorn, place your bets and watch the floorshow. Getting angry over what someone else believes is silly and discredits the poster. We have nothing but time and as long as Rossi keeps working, the possibility exists that he will surprise us. The only certainty is that if e stops, it will never work.
    Go ahead and blast me. Science has been wrong before and will be again. The market won’t be wrong for long.

    • RonB

      May 23, 2013 at 1:50 am

      You make good points David and welcome back.
      It is interesting to watch the big-brains duke it out. I learn quite a bit in the process.

      We had “True believers” before and now we have “True 3rd Party”. *rolls eyes*

      I wonder if AR knows that this puppy spits out gamma rays on start-up but shortly after those are gone and you just get heat. Those reactors were running unshielded by lead and apparently can blow up or melt down if not treated correctly. He may have some worry that people will panic about gamma rays and just didn’t want the validation effort to include that detail.

      It’s fun to speculate on this and if true, in the end, all that we’ve seen/read will come into focus and it might be possible to understand all the stuff that’s gone on to date.

      I believe that AR is quite the optimist and that what he thinks might be possible and he shares, ends up biting him where he sits. I envy the man for his optimism and it’s a trait that we seem to see less and less of by some who frequent this board. Another board was talking about AR’s accomplishments. I had never read them here before but if true, they put a new light on the man. We seem to only hear bad things about him here. That’s very curious. This other post had said that AR’s been richer than 99.9% of the population. Curious factoid if true.

      If I were to tell you I was working on a giant factory to build widgets and all I had really done was to draw some lines on a dinner napkin would I be telling a lie? Some people use their visual image of what they hear/read to judge what the other person is really saying rather than just ask.

  12. Shane D.

    May 23, 2013 at 2:24 am

    Good to see ECN back in the hunt!

    Back in it’s day, ECN was LENR (cold fusion for you skeptics) central, with a balanced, engaging approach to the topic. ECW was a distant second. Then the skeptics took over. Then no balance. Then darkness. OK that is my poetic side… bad hey?

    It will be interesting to see if ECN can regain it’s former glory.

    Of course, that means we believers will have to make convincing arguments to prove our beliefs. I can’t say that the past 7 months has provided much more material for our defense, but then again, neither has there been anything to strengthen the skeptics argument.

    We are at somewhat of a standstill… just like last November. But then again I could argue that the time frame (2 1/2 years now), without proving fraud supports me, but then again, it also supports you bad guys… sorry, I mean skeptics.

    By the way: Jay (2011, 12 or 13)… are you still here? I’ve seen your name on ECW as a voice of reason. I would be very interested in hearing what you have to say after a 7 month hiatus.

    Like I said: good to see some of my old friends, and foe alike.

    • dsm

      May 23, 2013 at 8:59 am

      I am willing to bet very quickly that Paul will regret this decision.
      I am a great fan of Peter Gluck – I admire his energy for a man close to blindness and not in his youth any more. He has a very interesting history, one to envy. He to me is something of a father figure, but as fond as I am of Peter, I cannot agree with him that this test tips the balance from lack of proof of eCat, to acceptable and overwhelming proof for the greatest leap forward since man tamed fire.
      Sadly I see this report as almost a replica of Andrea Rossi’s use of Profs Kullander and Essen back in 2011. It is in *no* way definitive and ignores far too many quirks going on behind the scenes that it seems a lot of folk are either ignorant of or just turn a blind eye to.
      The methodology is simply not definitive serious science.
      Andrea Rossi keeps taking $100,000s from people who utterly and stupidly believe they are buying the resale rights for a product that is real but in reality does not exist (by this I mean a serious saleable tested and proven technology device that they can attend sales conferences for in order to sell these non existent devices. I have run too many such events around the world to be in any way less than appalled that Roger Green in Andrea Rossi’s name is taking in $millions for resale rights of eCats & home eCats around the globe. I regard it as simply criminal that so many people defend the litanies of ‘pork pies’ Andrea has told about sales and customers and partners, but never offer any rational commentary on this ‘undercover’ fund raising he has been conducting since start of 2011. Many people I pin down simply say ‘I don’t believe it’ and that indicates strongly to me their level of competence at doing any due diligence. None !. Zilch !. It isn’t happening “Andrea would never do that” or “so what they will all do OK in the long ru” – whaaat! – but they are buying rights to resell a dream that has no tangible product ?.
      Ohhh well, some of us can only but try to point out the blatant alerts & serious alarms but if people generally are too sexed up by the dream & the promise, to see these flaws, so be it.
      .Currently I read it as 7 points to the dreamers, 3 to 4 points to the serious questioners.


      • Shane D.

        May 23, 2013 at 2:57 pm


        You do have a point about Rossis’ distributers. They seem a rag tag group of slick personalities with questionable integrity. Of all Rossis mistakes, I’d have to say that this is his biggest.

        Were I a customer that wanted to buy the ecat… the middlemen Rossi has accepted to represent his product would be a deal killer.

        Going forward I can’t see an Edison type empire built on the distributers network he is establishing.

        • John Milstone

          May 25, 2013 at 9:16 am

          It’s also worth remembering that Rossi’s first “partner” (TransAltec AG) was claiming to sell (alongside the E-Cat) their own perpetual motion magnet motor (LINK)

          According to them, all one has to do is spin it up to speed and it will generate Megawatts of electrical power forever (or at least until the bearings wear out)!

          With such a wonderful machine, it’s hard to imagine why anyone would bother with something as limited as the E-Cat.

          (FYI, they also claim that the effect only works at a large scale, and for a pre-payment of at least $4 million they will be happy to build one for you.)

          With “partners” like that, is it any wonder that people have trouble taking Rossi seriously?

  13. Donald Duck

    May 23, 2013 at 8:24 am

    Speaking as a person who made investigations of various undergound alternative energy schemes some years ago, I’m quite comfortable to accept that Rossi’s effect is genuine.

    In this field, if any particular scheme is a scam, then as a rule it NEVER gets to the stage of demos of the product. The idea is to relieve the victim of his cash before it gets to the stage where the scammer has to figure out how to make the product look like it is actually working.

    Nothing that Rossi has done so far in terms of propaganda seems out of the ordinary in my opinion. Firstly it is obvious that he is an entrepreneur first and a scientist last. Therefore he is going to come out with all sorts of half-baked promises of one kind or another that do not eventuate. This is normal in this situation.

    The issues for Rossi are that

    1. The secret catalyst is the reason the whole thing works. However the secret catalyst may not be patentable which is the reason for all the secrecy. If it were patentable then Rossi would have patented it already.

    2. Nobody, including Rossi, actually knows how the process works. Even at this early stage it is obvious that it is dangerous in that the reaction can easily go out of control. Additionally, it is virtually guaranteed that (assuming it is real) the effect will only be the tip of the iceberg as far the range of phenomena that are eventually possible.

    If nickel is actually being transmuted into copper, as claimed, then we can assume that, when understood, processes to easily transmute any element to another are possible. The sociological effects of this cannot be underestimated. It would have an utterly apocalyptic effect on world society.

    So far, Rossi seems to be doing very well and proved himself to be an extremely astute operator. He promised consumer products Real Soon Now but this was always going to be bullshit for reasons given above. He has obtained substantial backing or sales for further research. It would not surprise me if Rossi will take quite a long time to develop a ‘commercial’ product. A product for the ‘consumer’ may not in fact be possible for many years. It really depends on the amenability of the physics.

    As for Mr Motl, he is more obssessed with his shiny mathematician’s supersymmetry toys than anything of practical use. He is therefore not particularly reliable when it comes to concepts which threaten the importance of his toys.

    • dsm

      May 23, 2013 at 8:40 am

      I bow to your the quality and depth of your intellectual insights and wisdom on this matter.
      Ouch ! – hmmmm bashed my head on some obstacles while taking the bow.

    • DvH

      May 23, 2013 at 1:33 pm

      would you mind to enlighten us about your investigations of ‘various undergound alternative energy schemes’ ?
      any results ? names ? technologies ? anything came into the daylight?

    • Stephen

      May 27, 2013 at 3:51 am

      DonaldDuck, for which country do you have the Ecat distribution’s rights for?

  14. Donald Duck

    May 23, 2013 at 10:22 am

    Thank you dsm.

    However my comment ‘if it (the secret ingredient) were patentable then Rossi would have patented it by now’ is a bit glib.

    In the market where the money is (the US) the US Patent Office is hostile to cold fusion and similar free energy claims. Therefore Rossi would be struggling to get a US patent even if he revealed his secret ingredient. But let us assume that if the process was verified by a 3rd party then they will grant a patent. In this case Rossi would have gone about this privately, but instead has chosen a more public route. This indicates to me that his secret is not patentable, or at least this is a tricky area for Rossi.

    Currently therefore Rossi’s interests (ie to make a shitload of money) are best served by some middle ground between secrecy and openness. By being too secretive he is unknown and cannot get enough money for serious research and development. If he is too open he will get heavy competition trying to pry out his secret.

    Therefore he offers demos that are proof enough for the believer, but never enough for the hardened skeptic. If he did offer proof enough for the skeptic, public interest would go through the roof and his secret would soon be outed.

    The secret will be outed sooner or later, it is too important not to be. Rossi’s best bet is therefore to build up his little industrial empire as much as he can while he can and develop enough industrial secrets such as reaction control methods to keep him ahead of the pack.

    Even if small consumer products were not viable in the long term because of possible inherent dangers being insurmountable, Rossi could still make vast amounts of money selling power supply products to the military and larger commercial installations such as by analogy commercial nuclear power plants.

    Lastly I would also comment that Rossi’s emphasis on small consumer products has an ulterior motive in my opinion. This makes him a popular and well-known figure with many followers, and he therefore gains a level of ‘protection’ so to speak from being bumped off by any hypothetical or otherwise agency that might want to suppress him.

    • DSM

      May 23, 2013 at 11:04 am

      Do you know how many LENR reactor patents Piantelli has had granted and how recently ?.

      Those grants contradict any claim of patent bias. 100%. Actually more like 200%.


    • Shane D.

      May 23, 2013 at 3:00 pm


      Excellent point you make here:

      Currently therefore Rossi’s interests (ie to make a shitload of money) are best served by some middle ground between secrecy and openness. By being too secretive he is unknown and cannot get enough money for serious research and development. If he is too open he will get heavy competition trying to pry out his secret.

    • quax

      May 24, 2013 at 2:55 am

      Apparently the US patent office is so anti-LENR that they even allow patent trolling.

      Very underhanded of them 😉

  15. Donald Duck

    May 23, 2013 at 11:21 am

    I don’t know precisely what you mean by ‘patent bias’.

    The only things I know about Piantelli are what I have read on Krivit’s New Energy Times website.

    Piantelli was the original discoverer of anomalous heat from nickel loaded with hydrogen in the 1980s. I believe he was granted an Italian patent for this in 2008, but according to a recent comment from Piantelli on the website this lapsed due to non-payment of fees.

    Rossi is using the same concept but with the difference of his secret ingredient. I assume therefore Rossi could obtain an Italian patent on the grounds that his process is sufficiently different from Piantellis. However undoubtedly he would have to divulge the nature of his secret ingredient in order for an Italian patent to be granted.

    Let us assume that Rossi obtained an Italian patent by doing this. What would this mean for Rossi chances of later obtaining a US patent? I don’t know enough about the international patent granting process to know what would happen in this case.

    • dsm

      May 23, 2013 at 12:46 pm

      Andrea Rossi has an Italian patent for his reactor. !.

      He filed for it in April 2008 and was granted it IIRC in 2010.
      The problem with Andrea Rossi’s patent is that he tried to file the same one at the EPO and the USPTO. He was notified by the EPO 3 months ago that they planned to reject his patent for a wide range of reasons.
      He filed for an extension & was granted 2 months (ending 19th April IIRC). On 18th April Rossi filed his rebuttal to their reasons for rejection & several days later made the so called ‘3rd party report’ public.
      There is a lot to this story. There is a lot to Andrea Rossi’s tactics. There is so much more to be found by those who look deeply enough.

      • Donald Duck

        May 25, 2013 at 11:52 am


        Sorry, I am a bit behind on all the patents, applications etc. by Piantelli & Rossi.

        However the take home message seems the same.

        Rossi’s patent applications have no chance of success because they don’t disclose the secret ingredient. The closest he gets in the US patent application in the Summary of the Invention is:

        “while said high temperature generates internuclear percussions which are made stronger by the catalytic action of optional elements”

        Here Rossi is saying that the catalytic ingredients are ‘optional’, which is perhaps his way of trying not to disclose them in the application while still mentioning their presence.

        Others have suggested that these applications are worthless because they don’t provide the necessary details. It seems hard not to agree with this assessment.

        I would say therefore that you can forget about Rossi and patents. If he was going to disclose the catalyst he would have done so already in these applications. I can’t see why it could not be done at that time rather than at some future time.

        Piantelli has apparently had more success with his recent applications. But these are irrelevant since his processes don’t work. If they did we would all be ogling at Piantelli’s demos instead of Rossi. Probably Piantelli is trying to set himself up to get a slice at Rossi’s future billions.

  16. Tom Baccei

    May 23, 2013 at 2:10 pm


    No doubt Rossi is quite clever in a Machiavellian way. He has engaged a large number of us in fruitless debate for some time, and the beat goes on.

    But I do fear that he must be blatantly stupid if either one of the two main interpretations of the goings on turns out to be true.

    Had he been merely a scam artist with the goal of collecting lots of money, there is no way to explain the agonizingly slow pace from the setup to the payoff. He already has a sizable fortune it would appear, and if it has all been technical “magic tricks”, why would have been unable to produce the closer, the final illusion which would have gotten him his payoff?

    If his gizmo is real, then he is an even greater idiot. The only way for him to have even a faint chance of “containing” the technology he has created, would be to collaborate with some large, powerful (wealthy) worldwide organization with the capability of solving the engineering problems, and rapidly developing a mature, second generation application set derived from his basic but primitive first steps. Even then, once released to the world, patents WILL NOT MEAN A THING! The roll out after the first non debatable demonstration of this “energy source” will be a complete free-for-all. All he can possibly aim for is a significant industrial head start, which could only result from having an “Apple” or “Google” or “Microsoft” or “the U.S. government” etc. as a partner. In that scenario he would be wealthy, famous and powerful beyond measure.

    So, my money is on the idea that he is simply enjoying the carnival and the great farce for its own sake, with no plans to steal a billion in some final clever sting, and with no possibility of producing the greatest invention of all time.

    No: I think he is just a big time joker, having a good laugh at the rest of us. And – why not? He was pretty well F’d over when he tried to create a genuine technology squeezing energy out of trash. I for one, am just staying tuned so that I too can marvel at the relentless intensity of the pathoskeps, and the sweet honey idealism of the true believers. Ho ho.

    • Giancarlo

      May 23, 2013 at 3:37 pm

      Dear Tom Baccei,

      Andrea Rossi has not collected money. He mortgaged his house to start his empirical evidence and be able to sell its product.
      He slowly perfected its product on the basis of the available money at the time. Given the skepticism that surrounds him he has all the time he wants to improve his product.
      Since He can not absolutely protect his invention with a patent, he is using the only possible strategy. Secrecy is his only ally. Rossi is not easy to understand the operation of the reactor, so it can protect it with a patent valid, and anyway, even if he understood the theoretical basis on which the operation of e-cat, once disclosed, others may find a thousand other ways to bypass a possible patent and saw that the principles and inventive ideas are not patentable …
      As for the scam, it’s been so long, that the whole world has been warned and I believe that anyone, without evidence, would buy or invest anything.
      Let peace, e-cat really works, and like most of the great inventions was made by people with few skills.
      (eg Marconi, Meucci, Edison)
      Regarding the cooperation with large industrial groups…
      in Italy we have a proverb: “there is no tripe for cats” (very appropriate proverb).

      • spacegoat

        May 23, 2013 at 3:45 pm

        “Andrea Rossi has not collected money.”
        Not true according to posts by DSM and others. They state his proxy in collecting money is Roger Green.

        • dsm

          May 23, 2013 at 9:01 pm

          Tom like Ransom simply ignores such evidence & makes no effort to do any serious resea4rch but has no hesitation in expressing is uninformed view on a global forum.

          We have to get used to this king of ‘blind’ support.

          I’ll even bet Tom has an excuse for why he never saw this video …

          Ans so the bevy of less than informed supporters clamor to the world how awful those are who question the questionable.


          • Tom Baccei

            May 23, 2013 at 9:43 pm

            Mr. DSM

            Like the rest of the skeptics, in spite of your overwhelming and enviable reliance on “evidence”,
            you have made no more progress than I or anyone else in determining the truth in all this.

            How in the world can you call me the “king of blind support”, when I am in fact calling Rossi a jokster, and folks like you the target of his foolishness. I do not support him, and any fifth grader who bothered to read my comments would clearly understand that.

            You simply did not read what I said, so I suppose that makes you the “king of fantasy”.

            The wonderful shenanigans of Mr. Green are not well documented either, and his claims have not stood the test of time (where is he now?) Why should we believe him any more than we do Mr. Rossi? You, DSM like so many imagination driven skeptics have not a shred of factual negative evidence. You simply correct naive term papers and because of your belief system think you have proven something, when you find errors in them. Where have you furthered the quest for a rational conclusion to this great charade?

            What I am saying is that there is no claim of fraudulent gains being made by Mr. Rossi in any court or legal system in the world, and the rest of your self serious certitude is just as much blah, blah, blah as what I say. Difference is that I see it as an ongoing amusement while you seem to react with all the pompous seriousness of a Charles Dickens barrister.

          • dsm

            May 23, 2013 at 10:49 pm

            Lets agree to disagree on what research each of us has each done. IMHO you show no evidence of having done any serious research on Rossi’s claims and what else he is doing.
            That is where I remain on you and your views no matter who you call a joker. So let us leave it at that.


          • dsm

            May 23, 2013 at 10:56 pm

            Also Tom, I do owe you an apology. You are quite right in that I didn’t & haven’t read all your posts in detail.

          • John Milstone

            May 25, 2013 at 9:20 am

            Tom Baccei said:

            The wonderful shenanigans of Mr. Green are not well documented either, and his claims have not stood the test of time (where is he now?)

            As of a week or two ago, he was doing an interview on his money-making efforts:


      • DvH

        May 23, 2013 at 4:23 pm

        the argument about secrecy might be true during the development stage. but somewhen he MUST let the thing out of the door. and others will open and inspect it.

    • spacegoat

      May 23, 2013 at 3:42 pm

      The same analysis applies to DGT. The possibilities are:

      1. Scam.

      2. Real gizmo but refuses global player co-development. The “secret sauce” may be so simple that a global player would probably give the brush-off as soon as they learnt what it is.


      There is another possibility:

      4.Delusion with power measurements. Due to restrictions imposed, no third party has had the possibility of discovering the error.

      1 and 3 would require both Rossi and DGT to be acting together. Is this likely?

      4. Would mean both Rossi and DGT and all their associates to be incompetent. Is this likely?

      Even though it is unlikely from a physics standpoint, my money is on 2. This is the reason for delay.

      • DvH

        May 23, 2013 at 4:29 pm

        “4. Would mean both Rossi and DGT and all their associates to be incompetent. Is this likely?” – why not ???

      • Tom Baccei

        May 23, 2013 at 6:43 pm

        I believe that he could easily create a dog and pony sufficient to convince any skeptic, without revealing the “secret sauce”. At that point stocks, cash etc. placed in escrow would insure his “payback”, and only after he had “seen the money” would he need to reveal any “secrets”.

        • RonB

          May 23, 2013 at 11:09 pm

          There’s some opinion that he wants to stay just short of absolute proof since that will bring him a ton of trouble. He would gain rock-star status overnight.

    • Anonymole

      May 24, 2013 at 3:18 am

      Tom’s argument is one I’ve adopted as well. An argument I’ve tried to make in various post around the web.

      Rossi’s behavior is enigmatic.

      • He continues to plod along.
      • He continues to reject criticisms and follows his muse.
      • He continues to make progress and is expanding his research and apparent quality of output.
      • He continues to gather investors and supporters.


      • Rossi has lied, misdirected, inflated and obscured his endeavor from day one.
      • He’s failed time after time to produce on his claims and projections (these recent excluded).
      • He’s failed to approach the entire project in a forthright and direct manner. A manner, given the intense controversy and contention surrounding the topic, would call for the utmost in sincerity and transparency to be thought of as legitimate.

      Rossi is an enigma. I cannot reconcile his behavior.

      I hope he has the goods. I hope for the world he has the goods. But from what I project as the world’s response on the subject – he does not. The worst inconsistency I face is trying to understand why such a discovery, a breathtaking, world shifting discovery has toddle along seemingly under the radar for so long. There are just too many planetary system shocks that should be taking place were Rossi to truly be representing what he says he is. To me this makes no sense. It may be that I’m just disconnected in some way not to comprehend the schism in how I would expect the world to react.


      the entire energy sector should be either clamoring for this or squashing him. Dozens of governments should be doing the same. Russian gangsters, the Italian Mafia, eco-terrorists should be breaking down his doors and stealing his secrets. All of this I believe, should be occurring. Yet why isn’t it? Is it because there just isn’t anything to steal?

      Why are we even having these discussions? Why should there be so much contention on this subject? Why is Rossi’s apparent discovery causing so much angst?

      The lack of charity and clarity ails me and leaves me unpleasantly suspicious.

      • Giancarlo

        May 24, 2013 at 9:16 am

        The answer is simple.
        He managed to get this far just because it is not credible, both for its past and for as presents his invention, as this story of the catalyst as a mysterious, it is clear that he can not believe anyone. Is for this reason that no one takes him seriously.
        This fact is our salvation.
        Fleischmann and Pons had a reputation to lose, they have not been able to show something valid and have lost it, Rossi does not have a reputation to lose so it does not need to prove anything. He can get to the bottom. Do not you realize that with him, as soon as a minimal confirmation, we always tend to raise the bar from the target, we do it with the discoveries at CERN? But let’s be honest, but who could seriously check the existence of the Higgs boson. We believe, rightly, that those who have great means, a purpose and a reputation to preserve telling the truth.
        And then there is the political and military reasons. it is evident that the area of the Middle East has become a ball and chain for the world and especially for the United States who may not make more massive interventions to preserve the area of ​​the oil.
        Then somehow, without showing it, not to knock the oil companies, keen to see the possibility of replacing existing energy sources with those that do not involve oil.
        Keep in mind that the United States has used small nuclear bombs in the wars in the Middle East just from studies on the heels of the 1989 F. and Pons, so they know that there really is the possibility of a new energy source of nuclear type. Except that Rossi got there by accident, like Fleming with penicillin.
        is so unacceptable that this is just the reality?
        P.S.(sorry for my terrible English helped by the automatic translator)

  17. Dale G. Basgall

    May 23, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Nice to see things are heating up again, same crowd-different day. At least were through the demonstrations now and have something observable.

  18. DvH

    May 23, 2013 at 4:38 pm

    i have (at least) two annoying points in the report:
    1.) no schematic of the test-setup.

    2.) the area of the surface is
    Area ? 2pi * r * l = 1036 * 10^-4 [ m^2 ]

    everybody i know with a minimal exposure to technical education would have written
    .. 0.1036 [m^2]
    or 103.6 * 10^-6 [ m^2 ]

    to me it seems these guys have never written a paper like this.

  19. Thicket

    May 25, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    Donald Duck says

    “In this field, if any particular scheme is a scam, then as a rule it NEVER gets to the stage of demos of the product. The idea is to relieve the victim of his cash before it gets to the stage where the scammer has to figure out how to make the product look like it is actually working.”


    What a bunch of nonsense! Demonstrations of the ‘magic’ is often part of a pseudoscience scam. You can go back to the 19th century demonstrations of Keely to more recent ones by Steorn and Blacklight Power. A stage act is an excellent way to convince the gullibles.

  20. ts

    May 25, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    The above is a link to the sampling theorem. To summarize, the sampling theorem states that in order for any test invoolving AC or transient signals to be valid, the bandwidth of all the measuring instruments must over twice as high as the highest frequency component of the signal measured.

    This applies to the Ecat “independent test report” in two ways. First, the “test report” did not give neither a complete equipment list nor the highest frequency of the signal to be tested. These two omissions make it impossible to determine whether the test met the sampling theorem criteria to be considered.

    The second way this applies to the Ecat is that the first thing the Swedish testing team apparently did when they performed their independent test of the hotcat was to take measurements to see if the measuring equipment used for the hotcat measured all of the inpt energy, ie to see if it passed the sampling theorem criteria. They determined that the ecat measuring equipment did not measure all of the input power/energy as the measurement bandwidth of the meters used was too low. This test does nothing to refute that finding by the Swedish national test team.

    Since this test does nothing to refute the findings of the Swedish test team, I still agree with them that the ecat “excess energy ” effect is due to measurement error.

    For example, say someone has a free energy/lenr device that they claim to put in Power P0 and get out power 2.8 times P0. However, the sampling frequency of their measuring equipment is too low so they only read 1/4 of the actual power input. So the actual input power is 4 times P0 and the “energy gain” is actually 0.7 ( a loss) and not a 2.8 gain.

    It is even possible, intentionally or unintentionally, to add resistive, capacitive, or inductive elements near the input to a measuring device that meets the sampling criteria to reduce the effective bandwidth below that required by the sampling theorem. This gives the impression that, because one component in the measuring system meets the sampling theorem, that the entire measuring system meets the sampling theorem, which is does not after the modification.

    It should come as no surprise from what I’ve wrote above that the first step the Swedish national test team did last year to try to prove that the ecat worked to Hydrofusion’s investors was to show that it met the sampling theorem. When their tests showed that the Ecat failed to satisfy the sampling theorem bandwidth requirement and that all the excess energy was due to input energy missed by the ecat’s limited measuring equipment, they seemed to immediately stop trying to prove that it worked.

  21. eboireau

    May 26, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    The way thermal released energy was estimated, notably the irradiated IR energy, looks not academic.
    how radiated energy can be calculated by using only the camera-measured temperature (of radiated light/reactor surface): is there no need of knowing the IR radiation flux? Imagine a reactor emitting 300W at 400°C and another one (same surface) emitting 100W or another emitting 1200W also at 400°C. Will the IR camera detect in each case 400°C, and will you calculate the same released energy?

    Before going ahead that these experiment prove that the ecat effectively produce exces heat, many other things should be validated by physicist form the incomplete data that are provide. For exemple the report do not talk at all of initial and consummed hydrogene (cited 4 times, only in page 1, not took in coinsideration for input energy), nor about the duration of operating and electric input before the control by testers, the camera settings,…

  22. Ancle

    May 28, 2013 at 11:59 am

    Rossi scored a team of scientists who are not able to measure the electrical power and heat. For several years Rosii made ​​a thousand cells (in his words), but was not able to make a only one good cell in which to spend the thermal measurement.