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

Criticism From Peter Ekström

May 28, 2013

Many people are frustrated when critics voice their opinions regarding eCat tests and that frustration is evident in the case of the May 2013 HotCat paper. However, when answering why the paper was published on Arxiv instead of a peer-reviewed journal, Andrea Rossi stated that he saw Arxiv as a first step where the paper would have its initial airing (and so peer reviewed of sorts). Preparing a proper scientific paper will take time and in time, such a step may follow. In other words we – along with Rossi – should welcome peer review. With that in mind, I am grateful to Peter Ekstrom of Lund University for his take on the report. A long-time eCat critic, it is no surprise that he is not convinced. The following thoughts and any errors are my own but it seems to me that Ekstrom’s justified observations are further coloured by his preconceived conclusions and embellished to amplify the result he expects.

He starts by pointing out that the test was not truly independent:

This report is advertised as an indipendent (sic) test of the functionality of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat. Rossi  has arranged a series of demonstrations of different versions of E-Cat since January 2011. The common feature is, however, that the demonstrations are completely under Rossi’s control, and that “testers” are very limited in what they are actually allowed to check.

While previous tests have been completely under Rossi’s control, this was not. True, by conducting it in his premises and setting the boundary conditions, he is limiting the tester’s options. However, this should not necessarily void a black box procedure.

It is very clear from the report that the authors had very limited control over the instruments and procedures used for the measurements. One even gets the impression that part of the report was written beforehand in Italian (by Rossi and Levi?):

The authors would like to thank …. Prof. Alessandro Passi for his patient work in translating the  text.”

According to Levi, they had full autonomy over the test and the equipment they used as long as they kept away from trying to examine the core itself and the control box.  The rest appears to be nit-picking.

In my opinion, the main purpose of the report is to prove that the output power is greater than the  input power. This purpose is not achieved.

Fair enough. Let’s see why:

Input power

The input power is measured with a PCE-830, which is probably a very sophisticated instrument, but  the authors do not provide an account of how the instrument was checked so that they knew it gave  correct values for the pulsed power input to the heating resistors. (In a test in September 2012 the  input power was shown to be incorrect by a factor of 2-3 [1]. A simple circuit diagram would have  made it clearer how the watt meter was connected. Moreover, the testers were not permitted to inspect the control box regulating the input power.

Although unable to look inside the box, they were allowed to pick it up (it was light) and check for hidden wires or other signs of trickery. Indeed, we are told by Torbjörn Hartman that he did exactly this. I do think it is reasonable to remind us that a potential investment involving Hydrofusion was pulled because their testers claimed erroneous input measurement. The story is here and the following is Google’s translation of the announcement:

Investor Group had instructed the SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, to monitor the measurement, and the researchers who attended measuring an input electrical power that was two to three times higher than Rossi himself measured.

Despite this, Rossi presented a measurement report September 9 based on earlier tests where a lower input power and an energy surplus reported.

I have no reason to doubt the current authors’ ability to check the input power and hope that the above incident made them mindful of the need for extra vigilance in that area. In my opinion, it is something worth keeping in mind without jumping to negative conclusions.

Continuing with the Ekstrom critique:

Output power

The output power is calculated from the temperature measured with an IR camera using Stefan- Boltzmann’s radiation law. This creates an uncertainty since the emissivity is not known, and the temperature varies considerably in different parts of the cylinder.

The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075 [2]. The lower value would  obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1. Furthermore, the paint  used has an unknown emissivity

The emissivity value was used by the IR camera software to calculate the temperature and then again (in reverse) by the SB formula. While exact cancellation cannot be guaranteed, the difference is likely to be minimal. Indeed, in the March test, by using patches of known emissivity supplied by the IR camera manufacturer, this was checked and the difference was indeed small. Furthermore, spot checks were made with a thermocouple which compared well to IR temperature measurements within 2 Deg C.

Since a correct measurement of the output power is crucial to the functioning of E-Cat, a more  unambiguous method should have been employed. The E-Cat could have been cooled with water  (directly or indirectly) and the flow rate and input/output temperatures measured.

Perhaps, but I suspect we would simply have a whole different set of arguments to ponder. Few experiments are perfect but there is no reason this method should not work to an accuracy capable of measuring such dramatic power differentials.

Null test

In order to prove that the E-Cat works as claimed, it is very useful to perform a null test. This is done  during the March test. Obviously, the dummy and the real device should be as similar as possible,  and only the fuel (nickel, hydrogen, secret component) should be omitted.

“The electrical power to the dummy was handled by the same control box, but without the ON/OFFcycle of the resistor coils. Thus, the power applied to the dummy was continuous.”

The testers thus decided, for a reason known only to them, to change the power supply to the  resistor coils. In my opinion, this completely invalidates the test. The dummy run should have been  carried out with everything the same as in the test run, except the fuel. Presumably, it would then  have run at a significantly lower temperature.

I believe that the testers made no such decision. They ran the null test in the same manner but, since there was no excess heat, the thermostat did not trigger the on/off cycle seen in the charged version of the run.

“The scope of the present work is to make an independent test of the E-Cat HT reactor under  controlled conditions and with high precision instrumentation.”

It is disturbing that a local author is the main author in a so-called independent test. Furthermore,  there is very little description concerning the control of the measurement procedures by the  international authors. They also seem to have had very little say in the experimental procedures.

That a local author appears to have been the lead on the tests is not ideal and it is fair for a scientist already concerned about the validity of the results to question it. This should only be relevant in relation to perception, unintended bias (or over-trust) or direct complicity in fraud. The damage to perception will vary. I expect some business people will take it as a cautionary measure while those already sceptical will be unable to look beyond it. For my part, I am reassured somewhat by Hartman’s checks and by the involvement of the other authors. As for the charge of complicity in fraud (made elsewhere and not by Ekstrom) – that does not sit well. Giuseppe Levi is a respected member of Bologna University. I doubt he would involve himself in a deception bound to fall sometime in the near future.

“Later, an experiment [3] was carried out by S. Focardi and A. Rossi using an apparatus with a sealed  container holding nickel powder plus unknown additives pressurized with hydrogen gas. When the  container was heated, substantial heat was produced in excess of the input heat.”

This self-reference does not unambiguously show that excess heat was produced. The report is of  poor quality, and the physical interpretation of the nuclear process is seriously flawed.

I’m not sure of the point being made here. There is no self-reference. The report was not authored by Rossi or Focardi and the context was purely historical. Further, as Ekstrom himself admits, the point of the paper was to determine if excess heat was evident, not to determine the nature of any assumed nuclear process.

”It was not possible to evaluate the weight of the internal steel cylinder or of the caps because the  ECat-HT was already running when the test began.”

The weight of the cylinder is not that important, but it is crucial that the test team was present at  startup to check the functioning of the device. In addition, it is stated that the non-local members of  the test team were not present at the E-Cat HT test in December. Thus the December test is based on  hearsay, and of very little value as an independent test.

The determination of excess heat can be made without being present at startup. In this context, the criticism is somewhat harsh. I do agree that the absence of non local members in December reduces the value of any claimed independence but once more, I think dismissing it as hearsay (the lead author was present) and of little value takes things too far.

“The E-Cat HT2′s power supply departs from that of the device used in December in that it is no longer  three-phase, but single-phase: the TRIAC power supply has been replaced by a control circuit having  three-phase power input and single-phase output, mounted within a box, the contents of which were  not available for inspection, inasmuch as they are part of the industrial trade secret.”

The fact that the reactor itself was unavailable for inspection is acceptable, since it should be  possible to measure the net power provided by a “black box” (especially using blackbody radiation),  but the fact that the control circuit feeding electric power into the E-Cat was not open to inspection  is very disturbing.

I was initially concerned by this but Hartman’s subsequent description of his own inspection reduces that concern. It is unlikely that anything significant could be squirrelled away in order to sneak extra power beyond that measured before the box.

“The authors of the paper noted that they weren’t in control of all of the aspects of the process, but  they concluded that there was an energy production one order of magnitude higher than a  conventional source.”

This statement is self-contradictory. If the experimenters were not in control of all aspects of the  process, they can make no statement on the functionality of the device.

This is another overreach. In their opinion, the elements they had control of were enough to justify their conclusions. They take great pains to point out that, where uncertainty existed, they picked the most conservative assumptions. The apparent excess energy was so great that even if you assumed the whole volume of the reactor core was involved in the process and considering the fact that the tests were actively stopped while heat production was still in full flow, their conclusions do not contradict the statement of control.

“The weight that may be assigned to the powder charges? is therefore on the order of 0.3 g.”

A weight of the powder of 0.3 g would yield a power density of 533/0.0003 = 1.8*106 W/kg = 1.8  MW/kg. This is an enormous power density, and the nickel powder would presumably melt and be  rendered useless.

They make no assumption about the mechanism driving this process. It is a physical test with measurable outcomes.  If and only if the results are verified, theory will catch up and we can match fact to it. If they are not verified then the point is moot anyway.

“The most important element of the E-Cat HT was lodged inside the structure. It consisted of an AISI  310 steel cylinder, 3 mm thick and 33 mm in diameter, housing the powder charges. Two AISI 316  steel cone-shaped caps were hot-hammered in the cylinder, sealing it hermetically.”

It would have been interesting to have documented how the endcaps of the cylinder were hot- hammered in the cylinder with 0.3 g nickel powder floating around in a pressurised H2 atmosphere.  But this is obviously a trade secret.

We know little about the core but I believe the Hydrogen is in solid form and not a gas.

Only Levi and Foschi were present at the December test, but all authors apparently claim that they have complete control of the test. How was that achieved? Since this is not documented, the tests in November and December should not have been included in the report with the Swedish authors.

The observation is well made but we know by subsequent comment that this is a preliminary paper created to illicit fast feedback such as yours. With that in mind and to allow us to view the tests in context, it seems reasonable to combine them in one place.

It is strange that the COP (coefficient of performance) of E-Cat decreases from the December  test (COP=5.6) to the March test (COP=2.9). One would expect the device to become more  efficient with time. Is this because the measurement procedure in the March test was more accurate? Maybe one could then expect COP=1 for an even more sophisticated  measurement?

The authors state that the March device was of a different design. This seems reasonable in an ongoing R&D situation. If the November HotCat melted, perhaps control was more important than output at that stage of experimentation. It is purely my guess, but it seems that the inventor did not design something for the authors but gave them what was on the bench at the time.

Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a coincidence that zero  feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3, but constant feeding would yield COP=1?

I noticed that too and it does make you pause to wonder. That said, if the input was measured correctly and proper measures taken to ensure no extra power was sneaked into the cylinder, then this is of no consequence.

If the results of the measurements are correct, it is obvious that some new physics is at play. The  complete lack of any kind of interpretation of the results in terms of physical theory is thus  surprising, to say the least. It is even more surprising that the authors have made no attempt to learn  what is going on by using efficient, high-resolution detectors (for instance germanium detectors).  According to the report, detectors were used, but the type was not specified, and no spectra were  reported.

As Ekstrom himself stated, this was about measuring excess heat. I have no idea why he thinks they should have made it about something else, particularly as we know there were limitations put upon them by Rossi. In a black box test, these limitations are reasonable when we consider the commercial implications if this turns out to be true.

I would forgive anyone reading the above for thinking me an eCat believer. I am not. I am simply trying to strip away what I see as a natural (and often unintended) bias in so many of the critiques out there. This can diminish genuine concerns. I hope the authors continue to talk freely within the limits of any NDA they signed and correct anything we have got wrong. In my case, I would welcome such corrections.

To dismiss the HotCat report as of no consequence, I think you have to start from the assumption that the results are false and work backwards. I believe that there are unanswered questions and we have not reached the level of proof required to conclude that the world is about to change – but this report has made me sit up and take notice. Unless you are trying to make an investment call, there is no need to conclude one way or another. I fully understand why many people have jumped with both feet into the negative camp but suspicion and prior conclusions should not blind us to evidence. There is so much BS surrounding the eCat but to truly falsify this report without assuming fraud among its authors, is pretty hard to do.

We have been calling for an independent report for some time. While this falls short of the gold standard, you have to be determined to dismiss it completely. That on it’s own is a pretty impressive achievement.

 

 

Posted by on May 28, 2013. Filed under Tests & Demos,Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

93 Responses to Criticism From Peter Ekström

  1. Frank Reply

    May 28, 2013 at 2:44 am

    • Shane D. Reply

      May 28, 2013 at 3:23 am

      And now comes the peer pressure to conform to the scientific mainstream.

      How insulting and heavy handed. This Guglielmi even states that he will report them to others in the Physics hierarchy! … How condescending. Like a parent talking to a naughty child.

      Just like 1989 all over again.

      • dsm Reply

        May 28, 2013 at 4:57 am

        ShaneD

        This is interesting because I see Alessio Guglielmi’s comments in quite a different light than you do.

        So this tells us we all have varying perspectives. I agree with Guglielmi’s point that what these ‘independent’ investigators are really doing is bolstering Rossi’s selling of agencies (they may not even know Andrea is doing that – Jed Rothwell admitted publicly last month he had no idea that Andrea Rossi was selling country agencies).

        I believe his points are spot on when it comes to the importance of such an invention to the history of mankind.

        So on this report we can agree to disagree.

        Cheers

        DSM

    • Ransompw Reply

      May 28, 2013 at 4:20 am

      Guglielmi’s letter is an embarassment. Where should I begin. Twenty-four years ago the scientific community turned its back on its ethical duty to invesigate nature. For 24 years the community of science has refused to do what this hypocrite claims it should be doing, replicating Studies.

      He asks who might benefit from the efforts of these gentlemen by investgating a discovery that may alter the history of mankind. Well how about Mankind? How about telling us how you live with yourself for even considering not investigating something that if true would alter the history of mankind.

      Rossi could turn out to be a fraud and these gentlemen may unwittingly help him but Mankind deserves a real answer concerning LENR and since science has turned its back on mankind and its ethical duty to investigate this potentially world altering issue, I for one applaud Essen and associates and condemn Guglielmi for science’s crime against mankind. Shame on you.

      • dsm Reply

        May 28, 2013 at 5:01 am

        RansomPW yourself you fit the bill of these very ‘independent’ researchers. Guglielmi’s criticisms could equally apply to you and your 2+ years of criticizing anyone who posted evidence that did not favor Andrea Rossi.

        You are an acknowledged embarrassment in some forums. Your repeated inability to undertake serious research blights you.

        DSM

        • Ransompw Reply

          May 28, 2013 at 5:27 am

          DSM:

          In your case I will no longer feed the troll. Responding to nonsense is tiresome and a waste of effort. Since You don’t have the grey matter to follow these issues, I am not going to bother responding to you anymore. I just wanted to let you know, maybe if you grow up I’ll change my mind.

          • dsm

            May 28, 2013 at 5:44 am

            RansomPW

            I have noted how in the past 3 months you have resorted to insulting everyone who disagrees with you on more than one forum. Especially on the Wave Watching Fringe Forum. Your current attack on Guglielmi is a good case in point. Can’t you just be rational and unemotional ? – state the salient points cut the ridicule – let us decide.

            Can I kindly suggest you take a break, have a rest, you have been posting non-stop on and about and in support of Andrea since this ‘indipendent’ test was published. It looks like 100s of posts !.

            You are simply losing your objectivity and need a break.

            Cheers

            DSM

    • Thicket Reply

      May 28, 2013 at 1:40 pm

      I think that Alessio Guglielmi’s criticism is bang on. I’m convinced that Rossi’s purpose in allowing these tests is so that he can scam more folks into giving him money.

      • Lcd Reply

        May 29, 2013 at 5:50 am

        Surprise surprise. Does your business card say that too?

    • Curbina Reply

      May 28, 2013 at 9:01 pm

      I wrote a reply to Mr. Guglielmi, I hope it passes moderation. I reproduce it here:

      I think that the technical questions have been adressed and will spur debate in the coming months. However, the questions about the advancement of knowledge and who benefits are really interesting per se: I’d like to state clearly that the paper does contribute to the advancement of knowledge: Those of us following the development of what is currently known as LENR are aware of the experimental evidence of the reality of the phenomena, but are also aware of what it implies for energy production if the phenomena ever gets to be well understood and engineered to be of practical use. The research on replicatng and understanding the effect is ongoing, and while there are some theoretical approaches, the practical utility is still in development. Along the way, comes an Italian inventor claiming mastery of the phenomena for practical purposes. We all want to know if this is a reality at least in part. But then arises the problem of the science vs the economic interests: the inventor does not want to reveal the exact mechanism, as its publication would mean the gift of his efforts. Hence, he performs public demonstrations and picks the curiosity of academic researchers (Mr. Levi and Mr. Essen among them as we all know). But these demonstrations of something alleged impossible only raise flags of fraud and scam. As the academics want to know, they propose to subject the new invention to scrutiny. They achieve an agreement with the inventor to test the device under the most independent conditions possible, without releasing to the mainstream the critical, yet unprotected, intelectual property. Then the scientists perform the tasks and publish their findings. Here there is a net advancement on the knowledge for everyone with access to nternet: There seems to be an invention that produces energy in a way that falls within the LENR field theoretical capabilities, but at a level that allows engineering for practical uses. I am happy to know that, as probably many more are. ANd for that, I thank the scientists involved in the realization of the report.

      Now, Who benefits: In the short term, off course Mr. Rossi, who is the inventor. But also all the people that is in capability of licensing his trade secret for developing applications of this new thermal energy source to everyday and industrial uses. In the mid and long term, all the world benefits of the availability of a new technology that allows cheaper energy and far less environmental impact for the production of this energy.

      I have to disclose that I am personally interested in developing applications of this technology for industrial use, and that’s why I’m folowing the LENR saga since I was a teen ager in March 1989. So please Mr. Guglielmi, stop acusing this people of unethical behaviour and realize that the advancement of science is not restricted to the academic world, but is a matter of utmost importance for the common citizen, too.

    • Thomas Reply

      June 16, 2013 at 7:01 pm

      One does not have to be a scientist in order to figure, that the report ‘Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device
      containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder.’has at least one severe flaw.LENR might work but:
      Calculate the weight of the ‘innermost cylinder’ cylinder on your own, and compare the values with that stated in the paper.Q:’It was then weighed (1537.6 g)’-including the 2 caps.Q:’Caps have a weight of ~0.236 kg.’ The difference is 1301,6g.
      Calculated weight of the ‘cylinder’ made from AISI 310 given the values in the paper: ~0.709 kg.
      A mass diffence of ~593g.This is far too much and -scientist or not- one can only wonder where this mass suddenly comes from?

  2. Shane D. Reply

    May 28, 2013 at 3:07 am

    Gosh Paul, that was good!

  3. spacegoat Reply

    May 28, 2013 at 5:26 am

    Good lead article that achieves its goal of indicating the bias in Ekstrom’s critique.

    “dismiss the HotCat report as of no consequence”

    The report provides more meta data – qualified scientists had the gadget on a bench in front of them.

    If the test had been performed in a different premises and if the input had been measured with greater rigour then we could have concluded “maybe there is a new effect here”.

    As is is, we have another inconclusive Rossi event.

  4. Deleo77 Reply

    May 28, 2013 at 5:49 am

    The criticism from other academics is a good thing, as long as it is constructive and they can have a good dialogue with the authors of the paper. Basically by authoring this paper these scientists are lending their credibility, and the credibility of their universities, to the work that Rossi has done. They are not fully validating it, but they are saying that they independently observed a working e-cat device. The scientific community is now trying to engage with them and validate their findings. This type of peer review should have happened before the paper was published, but now it is happening after.

    Let them fire off their criticisms and let the authors of the paper respond. If the e-cat is the real deal, it should and will stand up to this back and forth.

  5. Al Potenza Reply

    May 28, 2013 at 7:19 am

    @Ransom

    P&F had millions of research dollars, the eyes and ears of the entire world and the entire scientific community. That they couldn’t make it work isn’t because of persecution. That is a pernicious delusion characteristic of empty headed believers. There’s not a single shred of evidence that it’s true.

    The scientific establishment soured on cold fusion because it couldn’t be properly shown to work. Not at respectable power levels anyway and the levels claimed to work were and still are entirely arguable.

    That’s why Rossi and Defkalion and to a lesser degree Miley are interesting. They have large and easily tested claims. Unfortunately none have allowed the claims to be correctly tested including the current totally absurd and way overly complicated and obfuscated experiment.

    Rossi and Defkalion as I’ve said many times can not be distinguished from investment/distributor frauds/scams and Miley is, to put it charitably, mistaken or perhaps deluded. He has not shown respectable power levels either and has refused to talk about it when interviewed. Discouraging. ALL of it.

    • Ransompw Reply

      May 28, 2013 at 1:32 pm

      Al:

      Since this began most of the skeptics that bother to post to this and other blogs have demanded a independent test. They agreed it could be a black box and there was no need for the inventor to risk his IP.

      Now that a group is attempting such a test, the whole idea is no longer acceptable to the skeptic group and the latest from Guglielmi is an attempt to stop any tests hiding behind the issue of ethics.

      Since we don’t know the real identity of many of the posters on the blogs, their motivation can not be evaluated. Many could be motivated by other than good intentions, What is clear however is that Guglielmi is not motivated by an interest in determining whether this potentially world changing effect is real. That in my opinion far outweighs this notion that a few investors my loose some money. Protecting investors is not science’s job and performing these tests may in any event benefit those considering an investment in this technology. Predicting how this falls before they know is not sciences job.

  6. CuriousChris Reply

    May 28, 2013 at 8:11 am

    “We know little about the core but I believe the Hydrogen is in solid form and not a gas.”

    And how was this achieved?

    • admin Reply

      May 28, 2013 at 10:54 am

      I cannot comment on the veracity of the claim but, like DGT, Rossi has apparently gone down that route. There are a number of materials capable of such a feat, although I don’t pretend to know what he uses. Taken to its extreme, the following may fuel Hydrogen cars of the future should the eCat prove a bust:

      http://www.rdmag.com/news/2011/03/team-develops-portable-power-using-hydrogen-fuel-pellets

      http://txchnologist.com/post/48115530384/company-uses-nanotech-to-put-hydrogen-in-the-palm-of

      Paul

      • Asterix Reply

        May 29, 2013 at 2:16 am

        Both of these articles involve ammonia borane, which seems as if it’s not the right stuff for Rossi’s hot-cat.

        Release of hydrogen begins at 110 C, and then accelerates rapidly with temperature. Then nothing until 1170 C, where the remaining hydrogen is liberated, leaving boron nitride.

        It doesn’t look as if a long term sustained reaction involving hydrogen thus stored would be likely at 800 C.

        As an aside, note that the release of hydrogen from AB is exothermic.

        http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/technical-documents/articles/material-matters/recent-developments.html

      • CuriousChris Reply

        June 2, 2013 at 1:19 pm

        I am still perplexed. if the core was sealed by hot hammering wouldn’t the hydrogen have been released. Unless the hot hammering was more warm hammering.

    • Anon2014 Reply

      May 28, 2013 at 8:57 pm

      They hydrogen can be stored in, for example, palladium metal hydride, or even in nickel metal hydride, i.e. hydrogen loaded nickel or palladium.

      All the test that we know says that the release of hydrogen is endothermic, much like evaporation. Heat in -> hydrogen out. In most cases, it is reversible: hydrogen in -> heat out.

      The hydrogen itself could be combusted.

      So they may have heated the ECAT electrically to release hydrogen which then combusts in some kind of yet unknown reaction with something. Maybe this is the LENR, or some other kind of condensed matter physics.

      The heat output and heat input certainly behave this way, as if the electrical input releases something like hydrogen which then combusts.

      This is why volumes and masses matter, and it is why this experiment falls short. I am not sure of the volumes and masses of the “fuel”. It could be the entire device. If they had a lot of fuel, it could just be burning conventionally. It could be liberating the hydrogen from the internal metal hydride, to be re-absorbed by a different metal in a more exothermic reaction.

      Who knows. It is all hidden behind the curtain. And all the criticisms of selling agencies and the Florida robot assembly line continue unaddressed.

      Who knows what we have here?

    • RonB Reply

      May 28, 2013 at 3:20 pm

      Wow… someone put quite a bit of effort into that document. Good for them.

      Paul, thanks for making this site available again and thanks also for continuing to give an unbiased account of what you see and hear during these exciting times.

      I would have loved to see direct evidence of gamma radiation as that would go quite a long way to show something unique was happening.
      One thing I don’t see getting much attention from this latest validation effort are the graphs that show the expected heat/cooling signatures of pure resistive loads. To me this indicates something unique is happening.

      I wish that all the folks discussing this would just stick to AH (anomalous heat) as that term doesn’t imply any kind of scientific theory associated with the effect.

    • Pachu Reply

      May 28, 2013 at 7:02 pm

      Very nice write.

    • CuriousChris Reply

      June 2, 2013 at 1:50 pm

      When it says “elaborate scam” Its not so elaborate and the grand scheme of things It lends more to people who want to believe. including the testers. they want to believe so overlook the probable. DC on the power cable.

  7. Yury Kissin Reply

    May 28, 2013 at 5:05 pm

    At the present moment, the farther the discussion of the recent tests’ outcome goes, the more clear it becomes that the technical issues raised by different critics are becoming more and more like flea catching on a dog in a dark room. The issue is: is there a dog or not?

    With this in mind, all current criticism of the recent tests can be reduced to a single statement. These critics regard both Mr. Rossi, and Professors Focardi and Levi, and all the professors from Sweden as a gang a frauds who deliberately falsified all the results of all their tests with the implicit goal to milk potential investors. These critics see their task in exposing the fraud. This is an impenetrable position for now.

    But as soon as a critic starts arguing that he or she did not have this in mind at all but only wanted to address some legitimate problems, the previous statement can be turned 180 degrees. One can state then that these critics are themselves frauds and their implicit goal is to kill everything related to e-cat and to Rossi and to LENR in general.

    PS. “Solid” hydrogen – can be any thermo-unstable metal hydride.

  8. Dale G. Basgall Reply

    May 28, 2013 at 5:21 pm

    Two years of development and it doesn’t seem like much has changed for proof of concept of the ecat. A cylinder setting on a shelf is still not sufficient to patent it is not useful yet, very non obvious. Also the best method to use the ecat has not been stated by the inventor Mr. Rossi.

    Are they just claiming AH in a tube or a product to use? If a patent was applied for on this e-cat there needs to be a disclosure on what the best method to manufacture as well as the best method for someone to use it.

    It’s hope at best after the claims of the first e-cat never happened, the automated factory never happened and now the new hot cat is on the shelf red hot!

    I want to see the product not the proof of concept, does anyone know of a new patent filed by Mr. Rossi? The United States is now in a “First to Patent” system so as soon as this works many should file for patents on their own work in this field. It’s a race now to product development for many but it seems nothing has exhibited to be better than any other LENR method.

    So it appears the next heat energy device may be the hot cat but if all the stuff that controls it to work is top secret then it most likely will not be affordable in a homeowner situation. That said would point to large scale hot cat plants producing heat, that’s it for now and when electricity is not available to put into the device, good luck at milking some extra heat out of it. So for now it’s grid power on the e-cat which does not make sense unless you could use PV panels and dc batteries to power the device up to get heat.

  9. Shane D. Reply

    May 28, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    The letter from Prof Guglielmi is threatening in tone, punitive and disrespectful of well pedigreed colleagues. That some here, and elsewhere find his letter acceptable should come as no surprise, given that our many skeptics also include the same lack of professional restraint in their posts.

    There are some legitimate questions in this letter that are worth consideration, but the parental tone and assault on the testing teams integrity invalidates those concerns.

    After a letter like this, in my book, Guglielmi has so exposed his bias and pettiness he deserves condemnation from the LENR researchers and followers.

    • CuriousChris Reply

      June 2, 2013 at 1:54 pm

      This is the scientific method. Shape up or ship out. He is right to be upset about the cavalier attitude of the testers. They threaten to bring the scientific community into disrepute and should be rebuked.

      Science works because of rigor, and while you may not appreciate it I certainly do.

      Only today I watched a show about the polio vaccine and how the lack of rigor cost many people their lives and threatened the life saving work done in developing it.

  10. Jay Reply

    May 28, 2013 at 5:56 pm

    “The output power is calculated from the temperature measured with an IR camera using Stefan- Boltzmann’s radiation law. This creates an uncertainty since the emissivity is not known, and the temperature varies considerably in different parts of the cylinder.

    The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075 [2]. The lower value would obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1. Furthermore, the paint used has an unknown emissivity”

    I don’t understand Ekstrom’s complaint. The testers didn’t take readings from the steel cylinder. They took readings off the painted ceramic. Further, the testers didn’t know the emissivity of the paint so they assumed a worst case emissivity of 1. Lower emissivity would result it higher output power; not lower.

    If the testers couldn’t easily quantify the amount of heat produced (such as from the end caps) they disregarded it. They assumed direct radiation from all portions of the cylinder as if it had flat sides instead of curved. This is another very conservative measurement approach.

  11. Deleo77 Reply

    May 28, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    I agree that when he asks the researchers what their stake in this is, he is implying that they may be in on the fraud. That is a pretty tough accusation.

    But as I said above, I do think it can lead to a good result. Let these skeptics and the authors of the paper have their exchanges about their methods and association with Rossi. And let their recommendations for additional measures in the 6 month test be implemented. If Rossi allows the 6 month test with their input, then it will be that much better for Rossi in the long-run. I actually like seeing people weigh in and try to explain how this is a hoax, because those ideas can be examined in the next test. Many theories seem to point to an external DC power supply. So the researchers can go into the next test with that in mind. If Rossi allows the 6 month test, I would tilt the odds in Rossi’s favor that he actually has something because the stakes will be going up that much more. He needs to make the tests as independent and transparent as possible, while keeping his trade secrets to himself. If he does that the skeptics will start running out of things to say.

    • CuriousChris Reply

      June 2, 2013 at 1:59 pm

      The researchers have always been aware of the DC component. yet they still failed to take that into account.

      So if they ignored it this time around why wont they ignore it the next time around. A simple isolating transformer would rule that one out.
      they are found in most electrical workshops. at that wattage very cheap too.

  12. Methusela Reply

    May 28, 2013 at 6:10 pm

    Looks like we have some nice criticism from a friendly Australian too:

    http://iplocation.truevue.org/175.35.77.15.html

    Very rude words, so don’t visit if easily offended:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Rossi_%28entrepreneur%29&diff=557152335&oldid=557058015

    • Anon2014 Reply

      May 28, 2013 at 9:02 pm

      This Wikipedia comment is clearly from some high school student who thinks it is humor.

      There is no way it is from a reputable adult.

      It may be that someone has it in for Rossi, or that someone thinks they can frame someone else for liable-ing Rossi. It is just garbage.

      It does make me think that some idiot is out to get Rossi.

    • dsm Reply

      May 28, 2013 at 10:24 pm

      Methusela

      Disturbed mind & might be an autistic leaning and fixated individual with no social graces.

      Pity there isn’t a way to apply .5, 1, 5 or 10 year bans from using the Internet. Such punishments would surely lead to a drastic drop in such behavior :)

      DSM

  13. Deleo77 Reply

    May 28, 2013 at 8:12 pm

    Seems like the DC current theory is falling by the way-side. The skeptics will probably stick with it. But they will have to continue to question the authors of the paper to do so.

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/essen-corrects-we-can-definitely-exclude-dc-current/

    • Framk Reply

      May 29, 2013 at 3:00 am

      In order to convince sceptics ( and I attest that I’m a sceptic – and I don’t feel bad about that ) that foul-play with electrical supplies was impossible, he supposed to explain what measurements they did in order to rule out DC current supply to the hot-cat.

  14. spacegoat Reply

    May 29, 2013 at 1:11 am

    There is no reason why the power supply and location should not be controlled by the testers. A location in Rossi’s home town, unknown to him prior to the test.

    Until this is done, scepticism will remain very high.

    • Methusela Reply

      May 29, 2013 at 7:09 am

      Even after this is done, scepticism will remain high.

      You don’t accept it and will never accept it.

      Therefore, all your opinions should be disregarded.

      • spacegoat Reply

        May 29, 2013 at 8:40 am

        “Even after this is done, scepticism will remain high.”
        No it won’t.
        Input/Output needs to be measured in an independent place to rule out fraud. Output measurements are reasonably credible. The same needs to be done with Input.

        “You don’t accept it and will never accept it.”
        Wrong.
        If the electrical signal is supplied independently and measured taking into account frequency and phase, then Input measurements will be reasonably credible.

        Simple.

        • dsm Reply

          May 29, 2013 at 9:46 am

          This is not at all that hard to grasp.
          .
          The potentially greatest advance since fire that will transform mankind and the history of mankind – needs to be totally proven by 200% independent evaluators.
          .
          That has simply not happened. In fact it is a travesty that such a stunningly potential change is being screwed up in such royal fashion while Andrea Rossi keeps selling agency rights for pathetically trivial sums of money to people who simply don’t realize what they are doing with their money. But believers appear to be ‘willfully’ ignoring that damning evidence.
          .
          It is unethical by any measure to sell resale rights to simple folk when there is no proven product let alone any (ANY) marketing plan by the manufacturer.
          .
          We will all be attracted by the aspect that most appeals to our best judgement – those who have latched onto the dream vs the antics, and at the expense of the reality, are simply doomed to keep dreaming.
          .
          We must question and challenge messianic claims. What Andrea is claiming transforms man into gods. It MUST be challenged and proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Andrea Rossi is not the person to inspire such confidence – but the dream he peddles is just so fantastic.
          .
          DSM

      • MaxS Reply

        May 29, 2013 at 5:46 pm

        Even after this is done, scepticism will remain high. You don’t accept it and will never accept it.

        well, that is really not true.
        What would change the picture completely for me, is
        1. customer testimonials of industrial users of the 1 MW e-cat (the product they claim to sell since 2011) after several months of continuous operation, assuming that it is not an Italian company associated with Mr Rossi. Then the market will eventually decide, independent of any tests
        2. a thorough examination by professionals without e-cat history, on neutral premises, with equipment provided by the examiners
        I prefer strongly that Rossi, Levi, Focardi and Fabiani (or anybody else with an e-cat history) should not be involved in any of the tests. To protect IP, let it be monitored by surveillance camera, and under NDA.

      • CuriousChris Reply

        June 3, 2013 at 12:35 am

        You think we are sceptical for the sake of it. You are in fact 100% Wrong.

        We are sceptical because the claims are unbelievable and because every opportunity to provide evidence of the claim as stated is left sorely wanting.

        If the proof is provided we and I include all of us sceptics in this sweeping statement will accept it.

        So please if you have some inside knowledge we don’t have please provide it. Until then.

        Sceptically yours

  15. Al Potenza Reply

    May 29, 2013 at 5:53 pm

    “These critics regard both Mr. Rossi, and Professors Focardi and Levi, and all the professors from Sweden as a gang a frauds who deliberately falsified all the results of all their tests with the implicit goal to milk potential investors.”
    -
    Complete nonsense. Rossi is the one who appears to be committing fraud. If he were not, he would allow proper and independent testing of a SIMPLE low temperature table top ecat. He never has!

    The problem with Essen and the Swedes is that they don’t consider deception and misdirection. They need advice from a clever magician and some heat transfer/fluid flow engineers. They had neither. Essen is particularly gullible. He said nothing critical after being subjected to previous idiotic Rossi “demonstrations”.

    Levi is an enigma. He is close to Rossi. Is he “in on the con”? I don’t know. If he’s not, he’s incredibly incompetent. I guess he gets to tell us which it is.

    I don’t think Essen and the rest are crooks. They’re just not very good at testing claims to LENR like Rossi’s.

    Anyway, testing the so-called hot cat is simply idiotic when it is so much simpler and less arguable to do properly designed, controlled and calibrated tests on the steam-making small early ecats. Has everyone forgotten about those? Or the “Ottoman” sized ecats with the heat exchangers? Retest those but do it right, for a change.

  16. Al Potenza Reply

    May 29, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    @Ransom

    The motivation of the critics and skeptics and their identities are never the issues. That’s misdirection, stupidity and silliness. Plain buffoonery. What matters is what tests were done, how they were done, and who supplied the instruments, methods, power input and venue. And all of that was wrong in the current tests.

    “Now that a group is attempting such a test, the whole idea is no longer acceptable to the skeptic group and the latest from Guglielmi is an attempt to stop any tests hiding behind the issue of ethics.”

    The problem is not that it’s a black box test and it is incorrect to assert that. The problem is that it was directed and implemented by Rossi friends and associates, in his lab, using equipment chosen by a friend of his (most likely with Rossi’s knowledge and approval) and done with Rossi’s power source. That wrecks all claims to independence and proper precautions to avoid fraud.

  17. Ransompw Reply

    May 29, 2013 at 9:07 pm

    In response to the last batch of posts.

    Conclusive proof is not the issue. Even changing the mind of confirmed skeptics is not the issue.

    The issue is whether the recent tests should raise the level of awareness in the scientific community and whether this community should support the next set of tests discussed by Essen and strongly encourage further controls to eliminate the opportunity for fraud.

    Any complaints by the skeptic community on those issues?

    • MaxS Reply

      May 30, 2013 at 9:49 am

      The issue is whether the recent tests should raise the level of awareness in the scientific community and whether this community should support the next set of tests

      Ransom,
      Rossi and his associates are looking too suspicious, therefore the world of science keeps silent and waits for what happens hext.
      If the scientific basis would become more conclusive, awareness would build up ultimately.
      But so far we have not even seen substantiated comments from the opinion leaders and high calibers in LENR, such as McKubre, Hagelstein, Celani et.al. So what do you expect?

  18. Anon2014 Reply

    May 29, 2013 at 9:47 pm

    All,

    I think that Rossi et al think it is a real effect.

    However, I we do not have sufficient information from this additional demonstration to tell if it is bonafied LENR or chemical, or even cheating. That is because the test was setup with only 90% of the things done right. The other 10% leaves it open for doubt. Specifically 1) issues with the “secret” power supply waveform (I think Rossi is doing modulation of the power input on the order of minutes to prevent thermal runaway, nothing else) 2) issues with using a thermal camera to guestimate the radiated power (instead of flow calorimetry); and 3) issues with the secret mass in the secret tube not being weighed before and after, and leaving it open to potential plain old combustion or plain old (chemical) metal hydride absorption/deabsorption; and 4) keeping everything secret so it cannot be reproduced independently.

    This is unprofessional of both Rossi and the professors and I am disappointed.

    In short, who is the clown?

    Certainly the digs in Physics Today are uncalled for. Clearly this could be something that big oil wants to discredit or worse, the defense establishment wants to discredit to prevent the technology from falling into the hands of an “enemy”. Who knows.

    But the open issues with this test, even if the testers believe in good faith that they have a working LENR device, makes it so unprofessional as to be a waste of time.

    I call on Rossi himself to improve Leonardo’s professionalism in demonstrating his device; and to specifically put the entire testing, communications, and marketing of his product in the hands of experienced testing, communications, and marketing professionals. Please.

    With regard to the arguments pro and con on this group, please keep it civil. Mr. Roger Barker’s impolite physical threat (“I’d do some interesting things to you in person”) is not amusing. I’d rather hear the unfiltered commentary of both sides without the written barbs going back and forth. Everyone has their belief. Let us just leave it at that, Gentlemen!

  19. dsm Reply

    May 29, 2013 at 9:59 pm

    I must commend everyone expressing their views here who have managed to do so in a non-abusive manner. That is an excellent sign that people are able to put their POVs and judge for themselves what others say, devoid of emotional rhetoric.
    .
    Paul – if this tone can be maintained then your web site will rate as a highly valued place to express views and opinions. That is certainly not the case at ECW (where some of us can’t even post ‘happy birthday’ without it being moderated into oblivion :) )
    .
    Thanks
    .
    DSM

  20. John Milstone Reply

    May 29, 2013 at 10:14 pm

    I find it interesting that everyone seems to be ignoring the previous test by the SIS (Swedish Standards Institute).

    HydroFusion admitted that they did not find any excess energy. Supposedly, they left after only a short time, which would suggest that they found something which indicated there was no reason to even attempt to continue. But that’s just rumor.

    Rossi made a tactical mistake (IMHO) when he tried to trash the reputation and competence of the SIS, saying that they couldn’t even measure the power used by a light bulb. That suggests that they had cause to hook a light bulb up to the circuit and measure it, and that they found something wrong. A gimmicked power supply is at least as reasonable a conclusion as Rossi’s claim that the SIS was utterly incompetent.

    HydroFusion should release, or ask their former potential investors, to release the SIS report. If they found signs of fraud, that should be made public, both to compare to the just-released report, and to allow the testers to make sure not to overlook such possibilities in any future tests.

    • Methusela Reply

      May 29, 2013 at 11:11 pm

      Silence.

      Speaks volumes.

      • John Milstone Reply

        May 30, 2013 at 12:04 am

        I’m not sure what point you think you’re making, but you’re not.

        SIS almost certainly can’t release the report without the permission of whoever paid for it.

        HydroFusion has a conflict of interest, since they are trying to make money off of Rossi’s “invention”.

        And the investors may not want to publicize that they fell, even temporarily, for a scam.

        But, if they have nothing to hide, they should release the report and prove it.

    • Deleo77 Reply

      May 30, 2013 at 2:45 am

      I agree the bad reports should come out right along side the good ones. I don’t know whether Rossi’s device is real. I hope it is. But I would consider two things:

      1. The device he created, even if it is real, hasn’t always worked in demonstrations. In a Krivit article, Krivit refers to a demo of it for Preston and Dunn where it didn’t work. I would say that the fact it didn’t work in that demo for Preston only lends more credibility to Rossi. Preston was going to write him a check for $500k if it worked. If Rossi was operating some fraudulent device, why wouldn’t he just flip the switch on in that investor meeting and collect the $500k? Krivit likes to say how the device failed in that meeting and how that kills Rossis’s credibility, but how does a failed demo lend towards it being a hoax? A failed demo is not a hoax, it is a failed demo. Rossi said soon after that he only wanted to do demos for customers and not investors. But if it is a hoax, why solicit customers who could easily come back and sue you if the device was a fraud? You would solicit investor money and force them to come after you. That is was scammers do. They scam investors, not potential customers. If Rossi is scamming investors, he is doing a terrible job at it.

      2. In terms of the LENR device, no one, including Rossi, understands how it works. Many of the underlying ideas of the e-cat are Focardi’s, and he is a highly respected Italian physicist. Rossi went to Focardi with an idea in 2007 that was essentially the secret sauce that would make his LENR work. Focardi helped Rossi over the next couple of years, and after thousands of prototypes they got to a formula that worked. But neither Rossi or Focardi may understand how it works. They only know that it does. If Rossi or Focardi knew how it worked they could write a paper and collect a Nobel Prize. It may sound crazy that they don’t understand the science behind it. But it wouldn’t be the first time something like that happened. People don’t understand quantum computers, but they know that they work. The e-cat could be out there doing its thing for years before anyone understands the science behind it.

      • Al Potenza Reply

        May 30, 2013 at 2:53 am

        Rossi’s device has NEVER been shown to work in a proper test because such a test has NEVER been done.

        Deliberately setting up a test with improper measurements, misplaced thermocouples, and improper latent heat of steam calculations *is* very likely to be fraud. Rossi was given every chance and help in setting up a proper test and each time he refused with lame ridiculous excuses. Honest people do not behave that way. Sane ones don’t, anyway.

        Most people don’t give an eel testicle for *how* it works as long as it works and that has never been shown. First show it works. THEN, if you can do that, worry about how.

        If it worked, it would be trivial to demonstrate that properly. Rossi has been told time and again by friends and critics how to do it. He has never done it. Guess why.

      • RonB Reply

        May 30, 2013 at 2:56 am

        Del, I think that’s the way it is with high temp super conductors too. They work, but no proven theory why.

        You make some good points. There’s the Oct demo where he had that huge generator that was capable of 1MW of power but his cat was only putting out half that because it wasn’t working right or he was afraid to push it that hard for fear it would melt down. He already had some failed 10kw cats (as I remember) maybe those had failed when he was pretesting it for the demo.

      • John Milstone Reply

        May 30, 2013 at 9:54 am

        Deleo77 said:

        In a Krivit article, Krivit refers to a demo of it for Preston and Dunn where it didn’t work. I would say that the fact it didn’t work in that demo for Preston only lends more credibility to Rossi. Preston was going to write him a check for $500k if it worked. If Rossi was operating some fraudulent device, why wouldn’t he just flip the switch on in that investor meeting and collect the $500k?

        You’re leaving some important points out of the story.

        Preston and Dunn, by their questions to Rossi about possible ways fraud might have been used to fake the demos showed that they were on to him. That’s why he kicked them out rather than let them stay for another try.

        Also, Rossi tried to convince them to buy the E-Cat, sight-unseen, for $15 million. Hardly the behavior of someone who trusted in his work.

        And, don’t forget that Rossi rejected out of hand Dick Smith’s offer of a million dollars for a credible demo. Smith even specified that he would accept any reasonable judge Rossi picked, and he specifically mention Kullander as an acceptable judge.

        Again, not the behavior of someone who really has a working device.

        • Deleo77 Reply

          May 30, 2013 at 4:36 pm

          He did say $15 million to buy or $500k to invest, but trying to convince someone to buy something as opposed to invest in something is a huge difference. If someone sent a check to Rossi for $15 million to get an e-cat, and the device never showed up, or the one that did show up was some scam, that would put Rossi in indefensible place. He would be sued, shown to be a complete fraud, and the device would be in the hands of another party where they could have it examined as evidence for their lawsuit.

          According to that meeting Rossi became “enraged” when Dunn and Preston brought up the idea of an internal reservoir. But the lastest observations by the independent team dispell that.

          The problem I have with the fraud theory, is no on right now can say what the fraud is? How is Rossi pulling it off? The ideas for how the fraud is taking place are getting more outlandish. The external DC power supply was the best theory, but the researchers have knocked that one down. No one can say how Rossi is doing it.

          Second, why is he conducting fraud? Surely it was not to make money, because Rossi is going about that the wrong way. I have seen a company in the US scam investors with a breakthrough device in medical imaging. They kept taking investor money but never did any live demos of it. They always said that it was under development and close to being ready until time ran out on them, and now they are being sued for fraud.

          So the reason for fraud could only be for a limited period of false fame and notoriety for Rossi. That is possible, because Rossi is a bit of a crackpot. Perhaps he just loves the attention. Actually, I think he does. But that argument starts to weaken a bit when you see how heavily Focardi and Levi are involved. If it is fraud it would be difficult to see how they wouldn’t be in on it with Rossi. Levi and Focardi would lose everything if they got implicated in this. And if you look at their bios, both are very accomplished scientists. Why would they go along with Rossi’s hoax for fame plot? Focardi worked for years doing all of the groundwork for what is now the e-cat. Would he let someone take his idea and use it for a hoax, and sit quietly by and watch him do it?

          Sorry for the long post, I understand the e-cat doesn’t make sense scientifically but the fraud argument doesn’t make sense logically.

          • John Milstone

            May 30, 2013 at 7:09 pm

            Deleo77 said:

            If someone sent a check to Rossi for $15 million to get an e-cat, and the device never showed up, or the one that did show up was some scam, that would put Rossi in indefensible place.

            But this is exactly where we are! Lots of people have purchases “franchises” to resell Rossi’s gadget, but there’s no sign of one outside of these dog & pony shows. These Franchise purchasers were told by Rossi that the “Megawatt E-Cat” would be shipping a year ago (May 2012, according to the ecat.com web site).

            But the lastest observations by the independent team dispell that.

            How so? Are you assuming that it’s impossible for Rossi to use a variety of tricks to fake excess energy?

            I have seen a company in the US scam investors with a breakthrough device in medical imaging. They kept taking investor money but never did any live demos of it

            Then you haven’t been paying attention to high-tech scam artists.

            Carl Tilly ran public “demos” of his bogus self-propelling automobile.

            Joseph Newman gave numerous public demos, and had a long list of experts who supposedly endorsed his gadget.

            John Worrell Keely gave numerous demos (but only in his facilities), and ran a successful scam for over 20 years. It was only after he died and they found all the gimmicks built into his “laboratory” that it was proven he was a scam artist.

            Madison Priest gave numerous demos (but only in his facilities, sound familiar?), and convinced companies including Intel and General Dynamics to invest, and all he had was a half-mile long secret coax running under a river between his two “laboratories”, and gimmicked electrical wiring in the building (sound famillar?).

            So the reason for fraud could only be for a limited period of false fame and notoriety for Rossi.

            And millions of dollars from gullible investors. And since numerous other groups have managed to keep this sort of thing going for decades without “getting caught” (in particular Blacklight Power), there’s no reason for an egotist like Rossi to think he can’t do so as well.

            I understand the e-cat doesn’t make sense scientifically but the fraud argument doesn’t make sense logically.

            If it doesn’t make sense, then why are there so many con men who have done exactly this?

            Some people just can’t help themselves. Let’s not forget that Rossi spent years in prison for various criminal fraud charges (and in spite of the claims, I’ve never seen any evidence that Rossi was ever exonerated on the business fraud convictions, only the convictions for creating toxic waste dumps, although there is no dispute that he actually did that, and it cost over $50 million to clean up his mess).

          • John Milstone

            May 30, 2013 at 8:02 pm

            Deleo77 said:

            He did say $15 million to buy or $500k to invest,

            That’s not what the article said, either.

            NASA agreed to test the E-Cat if Rossi paid for their expenses ($50K, IIRC).

            Then, when they showed up, Rossi suddenly changed all of the terms they had agreed to.

            In other words, Rossi repeated his farce with the University of Bologna: He started with an agreement to pay the University $500K to test his gadget, but then never paid them. But he did lie about it for almost a full year, until UniBo issued a press release disputing his claims.

            And then he pulled the exact same stunt in 2012, and again UniBo had to release a statement calling Rossi a liar.

    • Donald Reply

      May 31, 2013 at 10:44 am

      Carl Tilley is the classic example of a scam in which the inventor could not do any demo at all. He attempted to drive around a racetrack in his free energy car but a bearing ‘failed’ before he could prove his claim. He was successfully sued for $26M.

      Joseph Newman appears to be a nutjob who believes he has a real effect. The engineers etc who have endorsed him probably have never thoroughly tested the device. Anybody who goes near these ‘free energy motors’ is asking for disappointment.

      John Keely was extraordinary. Either a real psychic master who failed to recognize that the forces under his supposed control were not commercially viable or else a really good fraud. His believers insist that widgets discovered hidden in his workshop after his death had nothing to do with the effects he demonstrated. I’d say in this case fraud not proven but on the cards.

      Madison Priest clearly a fraud extraordinaire. However he eventually came unstuck when he couldn’t come up with working prototypes.

      None of these, with the possible exception of Keely (who lived in another age) is in Rossi’s league in my opinion. Allegedly the investors have had devices demonstrated which they could independently test and are apparently happy with. This is more than these other examples were able to do.

  21. Roger Barker Reply

    May 29, 2013 at 10:54 pm

    Professor Dr Ingenieur Roger Barker would like to sincerely apologise for his earlier tirade. The truth is I really do love you guys. I love you all!

  22. Tom Baccei Reply

    May 29, 2013 at 11:05 pm

    I agree with the call for civility.

    Mr. Rossi’s claim are as full of holes as a lace curtain at a shotgun range, but neither I nor anyone else has a smoking gun with which to convict him. I still watch all this from curiosity, and the faint hope that I, at 70, still might live to see the dawning of a new age for humanity. I also long to get, in the end, some well done exposition of the truth behind the curious case of Mr. Rossi and the Ecat. In this instant gratification world of tweets and twits, this is playing out like an exquisite Kama Sutra meditation, but it will, I believe, in the end have its conclusion. In the meantime, with an audience that is sometimes hostile and unruly, I just want to enjoy my popcorn.

    Thanks to Paul, and all of the relentless debaters for the brilliant insights, but, in the end we are all no more than an audience for Mr. Rossi’s dalliance.

    • dsm Reply

      May 30, 2013 at 12:44 am

      Tom
      .
      Very well put :)
      .
      “but, in the end we are all no more than an audience for Mr. Rossi’s dalliance.”
      .
      DSM

      • RonB Reply

        May 30, 2013 at 2:48 am

        So far it’s been a great show. I remember when there were smoke monsters. That was exciting.
        It’s like a mini-series on steroids.

  23. RonB Reply

    May 30, 2013 at 2:44 am

    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg81778.html

    Very interesting post on Vortex today. If all I read there is true, for me it sheds quite a new light on the idea that we could have AH with NiH.

    • Al Potenza Reply

      May 30, 2013 at 2:50 am

      What’s AH? NiH is an extremely well studied technology and has been for decades. There is NOTHING nuclear about it.

      • RonB Reply

        May 30, 2013 at 3:04 am

        No one said there is.
        What’s with the attitude? *glares*

  24. Al Potenza Reply

    May 30, 2013 at 2:49 am

    “Any complaints by the skeptic community on those issues?”
    -
    Essen has failed to notice EVERY major possibility of fraud. He never called for dummy runs and none were done until now and that one was done incorrectly! Essen should NOT be involved. Nobody who screwed the pooch on previous Rossi tests should be involved. It should be a whole new crew, preferably at a national lab like Sandia or by a major university OFFICIALLY by their physics department as a university project and not off site and with only a few junior members participating.

    They should use heat transfer specialists and an electrical engineer. They should consult with a stage magician interested in technology, for example Banacek.

    No component except the ecat should come from Rossi. NOTHING should come from Levi. The experimenters should choose their own methods and provide their own equipment.

    If all that is done, then yes, I am in favor of additional tests. Although it would be better to test older simpler and equally powerful ecats using the above methods and personnel constraints.

    Repeating the same crappola with the same inadequate people but for six months is unlikely to reveal anything new so no, I don’t favor that.

    As if what we on the internet favor made a rats asshole diameter of difference to Rossi and his buddies.

  25. Asterix Reply

    May 30, 2013 at 4:13 am

    Doesn’t anyone think that we’ve been here before?

    For those of you who were following events closely in 1989 and succeeding years, do you remember the various “discoveries” of neutron or gamma radiation, reports of helium creation, reports of tritium..? All done by very qualified people in their field. All of whom wanted to be one of the pioneers in the greatest thing since the discovery of electromagnetism.

    Do you remember how Nathan Lewis from Caltech was viewed as the enemy because his group did careful tests–and found exactly nothing?

    Finally, do you recall how things turned back to sanity when Steven Koonin came right out and said that the Utah blunder was the result of “the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann.”

    Finally, I think the article from 1993 penned by David Goodstein sums the attitude up:

    http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html

    In my view, it seems as if we’re reliving the past, but it’s a TV soap opera version of the movie. We now have the World-wide Web.

    • spacegoat Reply

      May 30, 2013 at 6:36 am

      “reliving the past,”
      Except that “licences and products” are in the mix this time.

      In addition the main actor is not a world renowned electro-chemist:

      Rossi’s Italian Financial and Environmental Criminal History

      http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Rossis-Italian-Financial-and-Environmental-Criminal-History.shtml

      Looking at the information at the above link, one is struck by the question:

      Is someone convicted of Tax Evasion, Forged Invoices, Toxic Waste and Illegal Gold, likely to be playing straight and narrow during the test of ecats?

      The testers would apparently answer yes.

  26. Donald Reply

    May 30, 2013 at 8:14 am

    It is fascinating to observe the inanity of the skeptics in relation to the Rossi claims. They all seem to have read too much CSICOP and imagine all sorts of secret tricks and conspiracies, which in most cases don’t exist. The tricks are either too much work or are too easily discovered. One therefore cannot expect too much in the way of rationality from the skeptics in the same way as one cannot expect much rationality from the believers.

    Both types are looking for behaviour patterns which accord with their beliefs and expectations. Neither is happy because the real world is just a little bit more complicated than the tidy categories they have in their minds.

    In reality the frauds are always much cheaper and they never seek the limelight. If Rossi is a fraud then he must be the most consummate of scam artists. And to what purpose? Perhaps it is all a surrealist hoax like Rennes-Le-Chateau. If Rossi is a fraud then where can he go? Shortly he will go to jail obviously. It is preordained since at some stage his products must work or even the most gullible of his clients will figure out they have been conned.

    Meanwhile I been alleviating my ignorance of Rossi’s Euro patent application and what is interesting is that mention of the secret catalyst has been removed from the updated versions of the application. Also I have read a comment attributed to Sven Kullander stating that the catalyst is no longer necessary for the reaction.

    It seems therefore that the catalyst is becoming a deep secret. It is being disappeared before our eyes. It is of course absolutely necessary since otherwise you just have the normal old unreliable and mostly unreproducible cold fusion. But pretending it is not there at all is certainly a cunning method of hiding it in plain sight.

    If Big Science wants in on cold fusion, which as yet is some years away, it needs to figure out what the secret catalyst is. It is the mystery of mysteries indeed.

    • John Milstone Reply

      May 30, 2013 at 10:06 am

      Donald said:

      imagine all sorts of secret tricks and conspiracies, which in most cases don’t exist.

      You mean like the cheese videos? It shows just how simple it is to fake out ammeters (both claim-on and in-circuit) to show zero current flow when in fact full current is flowing. Those videos show the exact same “care” in testing for fraud as did Levi, Essen et. al.

      Remember that the Swedish Standards Institute tested this same test setup, and they found no signs of excess power. Not only that, based on Rossi’s attempt to smear them (and other comments by those in the know) they found a serious problem with the electrical power being used by the E-Cat.

      Also, remember that Essen has admitted that he didn’t do a proper job of testing the “steam” demos in 2011. He admits to not having the time and resources to properly test it, and that he was “new to steam”.

    • Deleo77 Reply

      May 30, 2013 at 5:14 pm

      Good post, it is a mystery. Could it be that the secret catalyst was removed from the patent application because that is what was keeping the patent from being granted? The US patent office doesn’t patent secret things. That is why the formulas for Coke or Kentucky Fried Chicken are not patented. They are just secret formulas. So Rossi is now trying to patent everything but the secret formula. I am not an expert in patents by any means, just putting that idea out there.

      • Dale G. Basgall Reply

        May 30, 2013 at 6:55 pm

        I did not ever see the “catalyst” written anywhere in text, even the original filing in Italy made no mention of the formula for the catalyst.

        The “catalyst” or “secret sauce” as many would refer to is not the fuel and it is required to make the fuel mix work “better” per say. Or it may be required to make the fuel work.

        Essentially the hot cat needs to be useful on it’s own because the art is split, as in fuel/device.

        If Mr. Rossi files for a patent on a device that requires a specific mixture of fuel to make it work as he needs to disclose, and has not or can not as of this time then he will risk the fuel catalyst in an additional patent because it is of different art form.

        So in his claimed hot cat it falls within a specific art classification and that is the first patent to seek, the catalyst needs to be in a different patent application or it will “cloud” the hot cat patent and allow loopholes for others to patent behind when their mix is also found to work in the “hot cat” after this develops to that point.

        The US patent office will send the application back and ask for amendments which cost more money to answer to and also delays the patent review process.

        Mr. Rossi has the requirement however to disclose the best method of using the hot cat and also the best method for manufacturing it before he will be allowed a valid enforceable US Patent.

        • Donald Reply

          May 31, 2013 at 9:32 am

          Rossi’s original Euro patent application dated 15-October-2009 contains the following text in the Claims section:

          “2. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that in said method catalyzer materials are used.”

          The materials of the catalyst are not described. The mention of the catalyst is dropped from the updated versions of the patent application.

          If Piantelli can be granted a Euro patent for nickel-hydrogen fusion I don’t see why Rossi cannot also be granted one, he just needs a better patent lawyer. Probably Piantelli’s device does not work so why should Rossi’s device have to work for a patent to be granted. All Rossi has to do is sufficiently distinguish his process enough from Piantelli, say by stating that a copper tube is essential to the process.

    • Thicket Reply

      May 30, 2013 at 9:29 pm

      Donald

      You clearly have very little experience with pseudoscience scams. You think that if Rossi is a fraud, that he is the most consummate of scam artists. I don’t see it that way. I think that he is one of the most obvious, blatant frauds that I’ve seen. Sometimes I wish I could shake the believers and yell, ‘just what are you thinking?’.

      Rossi demonstrates once more that with a large enough group of people, there will always be a small number of naive, credulous believers that will accept outrageous and transparently bogus claims.

      • Donald Reply

        May 31, 2013 at 9:05 am

        Dear Thicket,

        I have had a great deal of experience in looking at alternative energy schemes over a period of about 10 years. I have been witness at close range to at least one ripper of a scam involving a ‘paranormal laser’.

        I can assure you that most scams never go to the stage of multiple public demos with scientists involved. The idea is to rely on the victims willingness to believe and trust in the scammer rather than actual demonstrations of the product that can be tested.

        Can you name for example, a case of proven fraud where the scammer has gone to the lengths of Rossi to participate in public demos? I can’t think of one offhand but you may know of one.

        On the other hand it is easy to see why there is a great deal of skepticism concerning Rossi’s claims. Ultimately this all boils down to the supposed total impossibility of the alleged phenomenon. If the phenomenon is totally impossible, then it must be a scam, no?

        • Thicket Reply

          May 31, 2013 at 3:13 pm

          Donald

          I too have had a great deal experience with pseudoscience schemes. They include scams, delusions and plain bad science.

          I agree with some things you say. I don’t think that Rossi’s trickery is very complicated. He’s shown great technical ineptitude in past demonstrations. These include
          * Claims of producing dry steam when the steam was clearly very wet.
          * Clsims of cold fusion with the eCat protected by radiation shields. He submitted an obvious bogus sample of spent catalyst for analysis by the Swedes.
          * A 500 kW diesel compressor running continuously during a 500 kW demonstration.
          * A thermocouple installed in the wrong location to give the impression of high heat generation.

          What did he do this time? It’s hard to say for certain since there are so many holes in the demonstration. He’s learned from his past blunders. He’s avoided every single one of them. He’s a lousy stage magician continuously trying to perfect his act.

          You ask about examples of a proven scammer doing multiple public demonstrations with scientists involved. Would you like to specify if it was at high tide or low tide? You imply that the conditions you specify somehow are criteria for credibility or lack of it.

          Nevertheless, there are examples meeting your criteria. The classic one is John Worrel Keely. A more recent example is Steorn with their public demonstrations at Waterways and the Docklands.

          But you miss a major point. Rossi’s demonstrations aren’t public. The participants in his latest stage show were hand-picked. Rossi has learned. He has had multiple bad experiences picking the wrong folks in the past (NASA, Krivit, Brown, the other Swedes). I don’t recall one Rossi demonstration which was open to the public.

          Blacklight Power fits the Rossi model although Randy Mills is much slicker scamming people. He had Rowan University do several tests and reports on BLP’s bogus hydrino scam.

          You state that if Rossi was a fraud he will soon go to jail. I disagree. In fact, Rossi is one of the few fraudsters that has been jailed. There are other examples, such as Mike Brady’s Perendev magnetic motor scam. These are exceptions. Most pseudoscience fraudsters don’t end up in jail. I doubt Rossi will again see the inside of a jail cell, but I can always hope.

          You state that if Rossi doesn’t deliver, even his most gullible of supporters will realize they’ve been conned. This is not true. True believers often suffer a cognitive dissonance that makes it impossible for them to accept that they’ve been scammed. This is especially true of folks that have lost money to a fraudster. Has anyone every sued Steorn or Blacklight Power? Has any investor ever publicly complained? Nope, although investors have lost tens of millions.

          I think that the ‘secret catalyst’ is not the mystery of mysteries. Rossi could use nickel hydrides, hydrogen over NiMo or CoMo catalyst, hydrogen over Raney nickel catalyst, hydrogen over tungsten and other formulations. He might even be able to use sand or no catalyst. Catalyst jiggery-pokery is too complex for Rossi. Keep the fraud simple

  27. Paul Stout Reply

    May 30, 2013 at 12:02 pm

    Although it is conceivable that there is some trick to supply external power, that does not explain the temperature versus time curves that are shown in the report. Or has everybody completely forgotten about those?

    • John Milstone Reply

      May 30, 2013 at 1:01 pm

      Paul Stout said:

      Although it is conceivable that there is some trick to supply external power, that does not explain the temperature versus time curves that are shown in the report. Or has everybody completely forgotten about those?

      In what way is the time/temperature inconsistent with additional electrical power being supplied by a gimmicked power supply? Or are you suggesting that it is possible to supply full power at all times, but it’s impossible to supply (for example) 1/2 or 1/3 the power when the system was supposedly turned off?

      We know that naive use of ammeters won’t detect intentional fraud, and that’s all they reported doing (Essen offers a 2nd-hand report that we shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads with the issue, but he doesn’t explain why we should believe him).

      One simple suggestion for the “next” test (if there really is one): Pull the plug out of the wall for the “off” time (4 out of every 6 minutes), and see if the behavior of the E-Cat remains the same.

      I bet it won’t.

      • Paul Stout Reply

        May 30, 2013 at 1:15 pm

        It is not impossible to supply 1/2 or 1/3, but that would not create the temperature curves that were reported.

        The most straight forward means of creating those curves from external power would be to use a processor controlled variable voltage power supply.

        This could be done, but now you are adding a lot of complexity to the scam, and a good scam is never complex

        This would also be the first scam I have every seen a perpetrator allow nearly free access to the device in question to multiple knowledgeable investigators

        • RonB Reply

          May 30, 2013 at 2:47 pm

          You make good points Paul. I too was surprised that there wasn’t more discussion around these aspects of the data collected.
          Curious how the folks at Vortex are trying to reverse engineer the setup based on the limited amount of data gathered at the demo. It makes me understand a bit more how careful one would have to be to protect the intellectual property.

        • John Milstone Reply

          May 30, 2013 at 3:55 pm

          Paul Stout said:

          This would also be the first scam I have every seen a perpetrator allow nearly free access to the device in question to multiple knowledgeable investigators

          You have a very different notion of “free access” than I. In particular, the limits on the examination of the input power is very suspicious.

          For example, the test meter they used just happened to be the exact same model (perhaps even the same device) as was used in the 2011 demos. The claim that the power cord was somehow a “trade secret”. The willingness to do a half-assed review of the power in (especially since that appeared to be the problem with the SIS test).

          And, the fact that they didn’t do a proper control run, but then tried to claim that they had. If you want to discuss the time/temperature curves, the first thing we should do is compare them with the “control run”, but there isn’t one to compare.

          Isn’t it interesting that the one area that would expose a gimmicked power supply (what the dummy unit did while the power was supposedly turned off) just happens to be something the “knowledgeable investigators” didn’t bother doing in their supposed control run?

          • Paul Stout

            May 30, 2013 at 8:34 pm

            Based on reports from the investigators after the fact, the written report is not a detailed and comprehensive list of all of the checks that they made on the device or the power input.
            -
            As an engineer, I would really like to see all of the details, including a drawing detailing the connections that were made for power and voltage measurements.
            -
            However, based on the credentials of the investigators and the information that I have seen to date, I have no reason to doubt the thoroughness of their examination.
            -
            So far, the only data item that I have found in the written report or any other data coming from the investigators after the fact, that even hints at fraud, is that the power out exceeds the power in.

          • John Milstone

            May 31, 2013 at 10:53 am

            Paul Stout said:

            Based on reports from the investigators after the fact, the written report is not a detailed and comprehensive list of all of the checks that they made on the device or the power input.

            It’s a shame that they didn’t bother to properly record their investigations originally. It makes one wonder what else they “forgot” to mention.

            That they are now changing their story after they know which valid criticisms have been produced is dubious at best. Especially since they still haven’t explained how they eliminated the possibility of fraud.

        • Thicket Reply

          May 30, 2013 at 9:20 pm

          Paul Stout

          You must not follow many scams. Steorn had very public demonstrations. The Waterways ‘demo’ had live, round-the-clock Internet feed. Heck, you could even see ‘Tacho-Man’ replace the batteries that kept Steorn’s perpetual motion magnetic motor running. It’s similar to the Rossi demonstration with a honking big diesel generator running continuously in the background.

          Blacklight Power had Rowan University do tests and write reports on the bogus hydrino claims. These tests were eerily similar to Rossi’s. Rowan University used hydrogen over nickel catalyst and discovered… wait for it… anomalous heat.

          • Deleo77

            May 30, 2013 at 9:41 pm

            But this device doesn’t have a diesel generator in the background. Your post only points to the idea that scams are obvious. If this is a scam, it is so elaborate, that the ideas for how Rossi is perpetrating it are getting more and more outlandish. If you rule out an external supply, it really becomes difficult to speculate on how he is pulling this scam off. The scientists who went in to conduct the third party observation (without Rossi there) looked high and low for any external power supply. They didn’t find any.

          • Thicket

            May 31, 2013 at 12:56 am

            Deleo

            Of course this one doesn’t have a diesel generator. You don’t get it do you? There have been so many lies and obvious fraudulent activities, and they pile up into a huge mountain.

            Believers try to forget these and are attracted by Rossi’s newest bright shiny object which they ooooo and ahhh over. They say ‘but this one doesn’t have a diesel generator’ so maybe there’s something to it’.

  28. RonB Reply

    May 30, 2013 at 7:00 pm

    Looks like AR has no problems with the test team going at it again. This is encouraging! Hopefully this time the team can address issues that others have brought up. It would be great if they could bring their own power supply too.

  29. LCD Reply

    May 30, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    From the physics today comment section

    A number of people have commented adversely on Krivit’s blog New Energy Times. For my own experience with Krivit, see http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/articles/NET1.html. His title, ‘Rossi manipulates academics … ‘ provides an instructive example of this genre. But to get to the science … . Calorimetry means measurement of heat and, not withstanding Krivit, heat measurements were done. Hot bodies radiate heat, and if one knows the temperature and the emissivity factor of a body then the amount of heat radiated can be determined. It is not a very accurate method, but should have been accurate enough to confirm the presence of an anomaly, and indicates that the e-cat could be a useful source of energy. The fact that the device contains components that for commercial reasons are secret in no way alters these conclusions. The author is right to characterise LENR as being ‘widely disparaged’. But this is a matter of sociology, not science. The sociological factors are discussed in my letter in Nature (http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/articles/Nature_re_Fleischmann.html), and in our video re the e-cat at http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1150242. This would not be the first time that important advances were generally ignored or dismissed.

    Written by Brian Josephson, 30 May 2013 06:47

  30. Harry Reply

    May 30, 2013 at 9:39 pm

    I would believe a Nobel Prize winning physicist before I would believe Krivit who has no scientific training.

    • John Milstone Reply

      May 31, 2013 at 1:37 am

      Harry said:

      I would believe a Nobel Prize winning physicist before I would believe Krivit who has no scientific training.

      Most Nobel Prize winning physicists who have expressed an opinion on LENR/Cold Fusion have dismissed it, including Gell-Man, Weinberg and Glasgow.

  31. Bob Reply

    October 9, 2014 at 1:55 pm

    Al P, John M, Jami, Popeye, Thicket, et al….

    You MUST immediately get on the phone and call Elforsk AB! Especially their CEO Magnus Oluffsson.

    This criminal, lying, inept, retarded CEO is going to cost the world billions and lead all innocents astray! This large corporation of “so called experts” needs your sage advice immediately as your expertise far surpasses all!

    Publicly published, Elforsk AB’s response to this “Cheesy”, stupid, clearly scam test was:

    “Elforsk takes now the initiative to build a comprehensive Swedish research initiative. More knowledge is needed to understand and explain. Let us engage more researchers in searching this phenomenon and then explain how it works.”

    Oh my! Great Guardians of truth and wisdom… please immediately call the authorities to enlighten them that Elforsk AB has joined ranks with known, PROVEN fraudsters, criminal and CHEESY video producers! Oh my!

    How could ANY respected CEO of a major organization be so stupid and blind not to see how cheesy the video was. How he was so uninformed of the testers ineptness! How his company provided funds for such a clearly STUPID group to conduct such a clearly STUPID test AND THEN BELIEVE THE RESULTS!

    Oh my! We are SO fortunate to have the SHADOW group protecting us! For only they, not knowing the testers at all, not being at any of the test sites, not having any hands on information at all, can determine what evil lurks in the hearts of men! :)

    Call the board of Elforsk AB and enlighten them of your great knowledge so they can change their corporate strategy to fight the evil Dr. Rossi.
    That they will fire Oloffsson immediately because he was so easily taken in by the wiley coyote Dr. Rossi! Worse yet, be sure to tell them that Oloffsson is a liar, fraudster and UGLY!

    You MUST be sure to tell them how ugly Dr. Rossi is because we MUST heap all deserved insults as possible on such a vile creature!

    IT CANNOT BE TRUE BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS UNTHINKABLE!

    Thank you… thank you…. thank you….:)

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>