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

A Murderous Fraud

June 3, 2013

A few days before the HotCat test was published, British businessman, Jim McCormick, was sentenced to 10 yrs for fraud. As I urge you to watch the following BBC clip, I also urge you to stop yourself jumping to conclusions. The purpose of placing this here is not to attach McCormick’s guilt to Rossi but to counter the tendency we have to fall to simplistic views of what is likely and what not.

Too often, I have found myself thinking that there are too many people involved with the eCat for it to be a scam. Too often, I lapse to the lazy idea that pictures Rossi as a man suffering unjust criticism. Surely the scale of this thing is beyond any charge of deception? If this is a scam, it must be the biggest ever perpetrated. None of that is true.

Before I continue, please be aware that I genuinely do not know what is going on. Unlike many sceptics, I found enough meat in the recent report to question my worry that this is all BS. Indeed, I was dismayed to read so many intelligent people give such a poor account of their objections as to bury useful comment among the crap. I truly hope that the eCat is about to change the world and that I will be able to say my worries were misplaced. I look forward to doing that someday but until then, I cannot balance the countless warning signs by making assumptions based on thinking there are too many people involved or that the fraud has to eventually be uncovered someday so, who would do such a thing?

It is not enough to believe that the signals do not make sense. In something like this, we simply need to see the device work repeatedly and divorced from Andrea Rossi’s influence before we can know for sure. We need to stop making decisions based on emotions and start using our heads.

When we do, the argument for and against eCat’s reality goes something like this:

  • If Rossi’s claims are true, they will change the world
  • He is selling licences
  • He has performed a number of interesting demonstrations that have persuaded some clever people and not others
  • The HotCat test results are compelling. If they are not fraudulent, most other concerns are redundant

The following beggars belief but there are others I could have used as examples. Selling primarily to security forces and police, McCormick’s device was used in over 30 countries and was likely responsible for many deaths. A scientific nonsense, he used BS and bribes to sell thousands to the Iraqi forces. The scam went on for over ten years and even when it was uncovered, the British police initially took no action. When they did, the International nature and the fact that his ‘detector’ was used in over 30 countries, meant that getting a guilty verdict was not as simple as you might think. All of this despite the fact that he bought a plastic gimmick that sells in the US for around $20, rebadged it and sold it for between $2,000 and $40,000 each.

One of my worst fears is to accuse an innocent man and so I repeat that I have no idea if the eCat is real or not. Before the HotCat report, my bet was on the negative. However, after years of following Rossi’s antics, I have to admit to being surprised by recent developments and will once more give the subject a cautious watch. In my opinion, the report can be considered credible evidence that falls short of proof. Given the enormity of the claims, the commercial potential and history of failed promises, we need to kill the notion that this would be the biggest scam ever (and therefore can’t be) as much as we fight against unjustified criticism of the report (there are some valid ones).

I hope that all those who are signatories to the paper were truly involved to a depth that gives credit to the weight their good names lends to it. To me, it is their association that leads to hope – that this time the world has beaten the odds through the genius of Andrea Rossi. Until we know for sure, remember that Jim McCormick is only one of countless such men. We are easier to fool than we think.

Posted by on June 3, 2013. Filed under Drama,Press/Blogs,Rossi,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

183 Responses to A Murderous Fraud

  1. stan

    June 3, 2013 at 7:26 pm

    Obviously he is a scam artist.It is easy to sell junk to the government,if you give a kickback

    • Jami

      June 3, 2013 at 8:26 pm

      Even easier is not selling anything at all but pretending to do so, promising products and taking money from people who pay just for the theoretical rights to resell your product. This guy exposed himself by delivering something that obviously didn’t work. Rossi isn’t THAT stupid – and will probably last a lot longer than ten years on nothing but the hope and belief of his followers.

  2. BillyGiuseppe Rosencrantz

    June 3, 2013 at 8:13 pm

    Self-promoters are not necessarily scammers.

    Like Edison, Tesla was a showman who actively cultivated an impression of wizardry in an age when electromagnetic phenomena still smelled of magic—an association that probably contributed more to Tesla’s status than Mr. Carlson credits. To demonstrate the safety of AC power, he staged public lectures in which he would pass 250,000 volts through his body, creating a glow of ionized air at his fingertips and the ends of his hairs. Despite being prone to depression and odd behavior, he was also, in his heyday, a socialite who could win over tycoons such as Westinghouse, John Jacob Astor and J.P. Morgan.

  3. Stephen

    June 3, 2013 at 8:15 pm

    10 years in jail for causing multiple deaths…

    Rossi has nothing to worry about.

    • Niccolo5

      June 4, 2013 at 6:22 pm

      Most people, including terrorist bombers, act according to their perceptions and beliefs, not acording to facts of actuality. Warfare is the physical resolution of conflicts of interest between political institutions. The War Colleges of all major nations teach that deception is a major strategic element of effective armed conflict of interest. During the Cold War major nations spent hundreds of billions on nuclear weapons systems they knew they could never use, but they had to seem functional to “the enemy,” else the MAD concept would have failed.

      No terrorist would suppose a cheap plastic gadget could smell out their explosives. But if cheap plastic gadgets are thought to be very expensive, it’s plausible to suppose they actually work. Hence, when terrorists see thousands of such gadgets widely deployed in public, they must invest much more effort to build and transport their explosives. Then they will have fewer resources to apply to their bombing efforts.
      It’s silly to say McCormick’s plastic bomb detectors cost lives. In all likelihood they saved many lives, because the terrorist bombers thought the gadgets could actually detect explosives. The persons that cost lives were those who publicly disclosed the gadgets couldn’t detect anything. It’s obviously impossible to honestly calculate the cost benefit ratio of expensive deception programs, but at some cost such programs are certainly effective. We should not be troubled by the fact that McCormick’s cheap passive gadget doesn’t detect explosives, we should be troubled that governments paid way too much for them, and that irresponsible scandal mongers informed the terrorists and insurrectionists that the gadgets were actually fake.

      I find it impossible to believe that the most senior officials of the national agencies employing McCormick’s fake explosive detectors didn’t know they were fake, or that McCormick himself ever told the senior officials his gadget could actually smell out explosive. This scandal should really be about corruption in high places, not about McCormick selling non-functional explosive sniffers.

  4. Michael from Italy

    June 3, 2013 at 8:17 pm

    in my primitive opinion the question is so immense and simple at the same time: if ECAT is really working (and i trust in this fact) the revolution which will start is unbelievable for the whole human being.Its obvious that it will touch so deep the actual godfather’s of energy, money interestst, that they will not riskto loose their dominant positions and so they are shooting with actually all possible arms including a possible risk of Physic elimination of AR.Remember TESLA and others…….So we must have a good balanced sense of critics and avoid histerical behaviours, but we are not so far, and if it reveals as a immense scam or a fraud most of us do not loose any money……so simply said…:-))

    • CuriousChris

      June 4, 2013 at 1:02 pm

      “(and i trust in this fact)”

      Please explain how Rossi’s claims should be considered fact?

      • michael

        June 6, 2013 at 10:33 am

        dear CuriousChris,may be that I am a “dream on” person, but as I’m supposed to be a good interdisciplinary analyzer (its not said by me)I believe that we have enough positive results from the whole LENR world: somebody is in pole position, somebody prudentially in the last positions, but the “endovulcanic” activity, and the fame of the worldwide LENR R&D involved people, is more than sufficient to allow a positive response towards the doubts, which, too many “Bar Sport”(italian way to define bla bla chitchating or gossip) experts, seed around.Its like the famous Galileo Galilei phrase “eppur si muove” [any way she (the earth) stirs] and it took till 2012 to rehabilitate GG from side of the Cath. Church…..Hope with Pons, Fleischmann, AR etc it will take less…..

        • CuriousChris

          June 6, 2013 at 12:22 pm

          So you rely on nothing more than a gut feeling?

          Not even a gut feeling from personal experience. but instead from reading the words on a few blogs. None of which I presume are scientific based.

          • michael

            June 13, 2013 at 7:50 pm

            dear curious, you are free to presume what you want, and its not me, who cares about that, as I’m also free to have my opinions which you have definitively established are not scientific based: don’t you thing to be a little bit presumptous dispensing titles and certfications basing on a few rows of a comment…….? Or do you belong also to the here well represented cathegory of negationists, just for fun….Take it easy and walk a while far in the nature… .

  5. Dennis Nilsson, Sweden

    June 3, 2013 at 9:27 pm

    @Michael from Italy

    Very good point. It’s to easy to direct a drone…

    Why don’t Hollywood make a movie of it?

    • Stephen

      June 3, 2013 at 10:07 pm

      “…and avoid histerical[sic] behaviours…”

      Like stating that “…It’s to easy to direct a drone… …”?

  6. blaze

    June 3, 2013 at 11:04 pm

    Maybe there were batteries inside the e-cat.

    It seem to me that some of the new advanced batteries we have could account for the high COP.

    It’s not like he’d have to treat them gently either, but rather could over charger them / etc.

    • Zedshort

      June 4, 2013 at 4:40 pm

      You either did not read the report or did not understand it. The energy density of the system was far beyond conventional chemical or mechanical means of storing energy. A battery is just a chemical reactor.

      • Al Potenza

        June 4, 2013 at 5:04 pm

        Rossi had complete control of the mains socket. He didn’t need to use batteries! The clamp on ammeters would not reveal any power provided at frequencies outside the range of 45 – 65 Hz. The measurement of input power was done incompetently. Rossi would have known it would be — he and Levi set up the measurement system!

        In the past, Rossi cheated with the output power measurements using first steam, then misplaced thermocouples. Now, he cheats with the input power measurement. It’s what scammers do– they change their methods from time to time to avoid discovery and they do not repeat demonstrations very much for the same reason. Just like Rossi.

        • John Milstone

          June 4, 2013 at 9:12 pm

          The clamp on ammeters would not reveal any power provided at frequencies outside the range of 45 – 65 Hz.

          There was no need for DC power, or high-frequencies.

          All it takes is a “special” power cord, with extra wires which carry the different phases parallel to each other. The phases cancel each other out and it appears that no current is flowing. Someone posted a schematic, and I’m almost certain that it is the secret of the “cheese” videos.

          A very simple solution would be for the testers to bring their own extension cable and measure the current flowing through that.

          Or, better yet, unplug the power cord during the supposedly “off” periods (4 out of every 6 minutes). I bet that if they suggested that, Rossi would come up with some excuse to not allow it.

          Here is a blog with the schematic of the rigged power cord:

          • Paul Stout

            June 5, 2013 at 4:35 pm

            There is some reason to believe that the testers used their own cord for the current measurments. Rossi has stated this, and none of the testers have stepped forward to disagree with his comment.

          • John Milstone

            June 6, 2013 at 1:26 pm

            There is some reason to believe that the testers used their own cord for the current measurments. Rossi has stated this, and none of the testers have stepped forward to disagree with his comment.


            All I’ve heard was Essen who said that it was an ordinary-looking power cord plugged in to an ordinary-looking outlet, so he and the others just assumed there was nothing unusual about the power cord.

            If you have actual evidence of something different, please post it.

  7. Roger Barker

    June 3, 2013 at 11:46 pm

    Look guys, we’re wrapping this under so many blankets of pro and con opinions that we’ve stopped looking at what is obvious. And what is obvious is if Rossi really had a device like he claims he does then a very simple black box test would prove it beyond any doubt.

    • ExPat

      June 4, 2013 at 3:46 am


      Instead we have demonstrations of an energy generating device that must be plugged into mains electricity.

      A simple black box test would also have gifted him a million dollars from Dick Smith, most probably accompanied by a Nobel prize of some sort.

      But no.

      • Zedshort

        June 4, 2013 at 4:45 pm

        It was a black box test. The only difficulty with an energy balance applied to the system (blackbox) is to accurately account for all the energy entering the system and all the energy leaving and to do so accurately enough that any error in measurements would not explain away the results.

        • Al Potenza

          June 4, 2013 at 5:04 pm

          Nonsense. The test was in Rossi’s lab, and run by his close associate Levi. That leaves a lot of ways to cheat.

        • Roger Barker

          June 4, 2013 at 10:57 pm

          I would have been happy with this test if they’d used an off the shelf 1 kilowatt diesel generator to provide the input power. Then there would be little doubt about tricking measurement devices etc.

    • CuriousChris

      June 4, 2013 at 1:07 pm

      This is the crux of the assertions he is a fraud. It would be so simple to prove otherwise instead of going to the elaborate lengths he does to avoid proof.

      The DC over AC theory has been around since the beginning but even physicists (assuming they are not complicit) don’t test for it.

      Why is that I wonder?

    • Niccolo5

      June 4, 2013 at 6:27 pm


      Just so. At least he might permit a few high school physics classes to try to melt a few plastic garbage pails of crushed ice.

  8. Dr Rudolphe Camsonne, PhD

    June 4, 2013 at 12:05 am

    Thank you for your precious and wise supports to
    A Rossi.

    • Zedshort

      June 4, 2013 at 4:47 pm

      Are you aware of the redundancy in your user name?

  9. Anonymole

    June 4, 2013 at 1:23 am

    What one also has to realize is that it was not just McCormick who benefited from this charade. He himself probably didn’t make the devices, he had a team of people building and selling them. These people were undoubtedly complicit in the scam. In fact, there was probably an entire hierarchy of people in on the scheme.

    I wonder if McCormick sold licenses to sell his device? I wonder if McCormick performed “tests” to prove that his device worked?

    Fortunately for us what Rossi is peddling is not like McCormick’s elephant repellant; “seen any elephants around? No? It must be working.” If Rossi would just relinquish his grip on half a dozen LENR cores we could put this whole thing to rest. But that’s not likely to happen now is it. Not unless Russia’s Rosneft wants to do a little checking of their own.

  10. Stewart Mitchell

    June 4, 2013 at 2:31 am

    the crop formations show something like e-cat, years before. That is why I continue to believe…not enough to invest.

    • CuriousChris

      June 4, 2013 at 1:10 pm


      You do know crop circles are human made don’t you?

      Perhaps rather than believing because its convenient you actually do a little research.

  11. Revgen

    June 4, 2013 at 4:34 am

    The difference between Rossi and McCormak is that McCormak partnered with corrupt government officials.

    Rossi is partnering with Siemens to produce his device. Siemens’ reputation would be ruined if they were involved in producing fraudulent equipment.

    I agree with the OP that a little healthy skepticism is good, but if Rossi is pulling a scam, it’s way more complex than what McCormak pulled off.

    • CuriousChris

      June 4, 2013 at 1:12 pm

      Siemans is not partnering with Rossi. Please provide proof of a partnership.

      Just because someone sells you something that doesn’t make it a partnership.

  12. Brad Arnold

    June 4, 2013 at 5:24 am

    People simply aren’t that good at judging what is true and what is not true, and here is why.

    Rossi is obviously true, but most people don’t know the whole story. Check this out:

    The heuristic that most people use to “discredit” Rossi is that it is much more likely he is a fraud than what he is claiming is true. Frankly, their logic is laughable, and here are some other laughable examples of the same type of false reasoning:

    • LCD

      June 4, 2013 at 10:05 pm

      These two are interesting

      “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932

      “The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine” – Ernst Rutherford, 1933

      • John De Herrera

        July 4, 2013 at 5:28 pm

        LCD “These two are interesting”
        All that tells us is that even highly intelligent “Geniuses” (Einstein & Rutherford) are NOT infallible – they CAN be WRONG about some things. Those remarks DO NOT tell us anything about the Rossi E-Cats and only independent tests or working reactors where the public can observe and test will finally settle the question, “IS THE ROSSI ECAT REAL.” jdh

  13. kwhilborn

    June 4, 2013 at 5:51 am

    – Andrea Rossi was very rich before worth $30 million USD. He did not run to hawaii (his Visa handed to him by The President of the United States), he continued environmental science.

    – When Italys mafia took his waste management business by making his storage illegal (mafia in Italy. Waste management? Who knew?) Andrea Rossi faced and beat all his Environment charges, when he could have hid in the U.S.A. (remember the VISA).

    – All of Andrea Rossi science is common theme of environmental science.

    – Many scam corporations think to raise money (scam) by selling shares. This scam was common with mining companies. Tell everyone you found a rich vein then sell shares then pay yourself a million in salary and go broke. Andrea Rossi has not sold or tried to sell any shares in Leonardo corporation. This would be easiest scam opportunity.

    – Andrea Rossi is immigrating to the US where anti fraud laws are extremely tough.

    – Andrea Rossi funded the first 5 years of this from his own pocket including hiring Focardi.

    Scammers have a history of using other peoples money for scams, and Andrea Rossi has used his own.

    Since Andrea Rossi made the Nickel/Hydrogen version of LENR popular in 2011, we have seen many unrelated labs confirm this is indeed possible and very effective. So he is on the right track according to many.

    – He seems to be logically progressing. His best demo was 18 hours on an unstable product and Defkalion bailed on him because he could not do a 48 hour run, but now he is running (confirmed) at much higher temperatuires for longer. If this was fake why did he not fake a 48 hour run with Defkalion or when he was demonstrating in 2011. Are skeptics suggesting he has advanced his fakery in this time?

    – He has demonstrated publicly in front of many skeptics and geniuses many times during 2011.

    – He did allow this recent team to evaluate the ecats with very impressive results, and DC input has also been ruled out. It appears we must think there is criminal conspiracy among very impressive verifying team with reputations at stake, or accept the reality of the ecat.

    – Andrea Rossi did publish a paper on this (see his website) in 2010 but it was basically ignored, and all patents for anything suggestive of Cold Fusion have been banned. How would a normal person proceed?

    -He cannot get patents on this because of ban , but also has secret catalyst that is his advantage in market. How would anyone protect it?

    Have aclose look at what NASA, George Miley, and others say about LENR. Look at the Zawodny videos.

    Rossi has never been poor. He could have gone to Margaritaville 20 years ago if he wanted to.

    As Forbes Magazine Mark gibbs says,”This is not, of course, the last word or even one anywhere near the end of this story but unless this is one of the most elaborate hoaxes in scientific history it looks like the world may well be about to change.”

    Andrea Rossi has always been an achiever. As a teen he held the world record for distance running for two years in a row.

    He is likely imho to go down in history as one of the men responsible for clean energy and will save millions of lives.

    I say we go easy on the guy. He has ALWAYS done what he said he would do. I think he is very, very, very, credible.

    • John Milstone

      June 4, 2013 at 11:04 am

      kwhilborn said:

      – Andrea Rossi was very rich before worth $30 million USD. He did not run to hawaii (his Visa handed to him by The President of the United States), he continued environmental science.

      Do you have any evidence for any of this? I’ve seen the more rabid “True Believers” use this argument, but AFAIK these statements are based entirely on “Rossi Says”.

      – All of Andrea Rossi science is common theme of environmental science.

      Does that include creating multiple toxic waste dumps with the sludge he was claiming to have converted into fuel? His waste dumps cost (last I heard) over $50 million to clean up, so maybe he should have used his alleged “$30 million” to clean up his mess.

      Scammers have a history of using other peoples money for scams, and Andrea Rossi has used his own.

      That’s not what AmpEnergo said. That’s not what Defkalion said. That’s not what TransAltec said. That’s not what Roger Green says. And that’s certainly not what Rossi’s “franchisees” would say, if Rossi actually published their names, as he promised to do for the “franchisee convention” he held last year.

      Andrea Rossi has not sold or tried to sell any shares in Leonardo corporation.

      No, he sold “franchises”. A difference without a distinction.

      Since Andrea Rossi made the Nickel/Hydrogen version of LENR popular in 2011, we have seen many unrelated labs confirm this is indeed possible and very effective. So he is on the right track according to many.

      There have been some interesting claims, none of which have been confirmed in any compelling way. In other words, the same nonsense that Cold Fusion has been producing for a quarter of a century.

      – Andrea Rossi is immigrating to the US where anti fraud laws are extremely tough.

      Which makes one wonder why every sign of his “work” is in the Bologna area. Rossi does indeed claim to be “based” in the U.S. (manufacturing, customers, testing), but there is no evidence of that. What we know is that he has a condo in Florida and two empty garages in Italy. Everything beyond that is “Rossi Says”.

      – He seems to be logically progressing. His best demo was 18 hours on an unstable product

      This one is interesting because it’s a “Levi Says”. Of course, Levi “lost” the data, so we can’t evaluate this alleged claim, but it does show that Levi is not an independent agent with regards to Rossi’s latest “demo”.

      – He did allow this recent team to evaluate the ecats with very impressive results, and DC input has also been ruled out.

      Only “impressive” to those who are desperate to find any signs of LENR. DC Input has not been ruled out; Essen has made that claim but has not provided any reason to believe it. And, the most obvious way to fake the power input (mis-wired power cord) doesn’t require modifying the building’s electrical service, and has not been ruled out. As the “Cheese” video shows, it’s simple to send power through wires that appear to be “dead”.

      The fact that the COP of this device just happens to match the inverse of the alleged “duty cycle” is very suspicious. Just as the “steam” E-Cats “just happened” to have a COP that perfectly matched the most likely fraud of using a tiny bit of steam to “percolate” the remaining liquid water out of the gadget.

      – Andrea Rossi did publish a paper on this (see his website) in 2010 but it was basically ignored

      Interestingly, Rossi has abandoned his claims from that paper, once it became clear that he couldn’t substantiate it. An initial analysis of the “ash” from his gadget showed no signs of transmutation (which was required by the Focardi/Rossi paper), and the “detailed isotopic analysis” promised by Kullander in 2011 was never released. Kullander also has never explained why he won’t release the report. What is he hiding?

      Look at the Zawodny videos.

      Look at Zawodny’s blog, where he explains what he really thinks about LENR (it isn’t anything like what the NASA pop-science video claims).

      BTW, what ever happened to Zawodny’s research to quickly find any interesting LENR or LENR-like reactions (using his new integrated circuit)? It’s been 18 months, and not a peep out of Zawodny.

      Rossi has never been poor. He could have gone to Margaritaville 20 years ago if he wanted to.

      Again, how do you know this? Because Rossi told you so? Do you not see the problem with simply accepting the self-serving claims of a known liar and criminal con man?

      As Forbes Magazine Mark gibbs

      Oh, well, if Mark Gibbs says something, we should just ignore the overwhelming majority of all those who have the competence to judge Rossi and are unimpressed.

      He is likely imho to go down in history as one of the men responsible for clean energy and will save millions of lives.

      Much more likely that he will end up in prison (again!) for his scam. But you keep drinking the Kool-Aid! It’s a lot more fun than facing reality.

    • psi

      June 4, 2013 at 11:31 am

      Excellent summary.

  14. quax

    June 4, 2013 at 5:55 am

    Yikes, what a disgusting human being. In comparison if Rossi’s a fraud he’s a pretty harmless one.

    • Al Potenza

      June 4, 2013 at 5:09 pm

      Yes, Rossi isn’t killing people. He’s only stealing their money, creating expectations that will never be met, and ruining the credibility of legitimate researchers in LENR. Not as vile as a fake explosive detector but pretty nasty on its own merits.

      • LCD

        June 4, 2013 at 10:13 pm

        Wait, there are legitimate researchers of LENR in your world Al?

  15. Renzo

    June 4, 2013 at 7:47 am

    an idiom phrase says “put your money where your mouth is”, since Intrade has closed I’ve searched for another prediction exchange. The only one I found works with bitcoins, if you use them you can bet on the following statements about the E-Cat 🙂

    • Anonymole

      June 4, 2013 at 3:44 pm

      Interesting site – thanks for that Renzo. I like BetsOfBitcoin’s model. With the bust of Liberty Reserve the likes of Bitcoin are now teetering tenuously. But something like BTC is rather like Pandora’s box. Once opened… (no it’s not a music box – ta ta ta dawww)

  16. spacegoat

    June 4, 2013 at 9:09 am

    Two game changing inventor styles:

    Selfish, paranoid inventors of real game changing inventions, such as Maurice Ward (wiki) of Starlite wish to attain fame and fortune. In Ward’s case the invention was authoritatively, conclusively and publicly tested. Confidence in its reality is extremely high. It is said he was too money grubbing to commercialize the product. Shame for him, shame for the world.

    Balanced, magnanimous inventors of game changing inventions see world fame, historical fame and a decent fortune (derived from the fame) as adequate. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, is such an example. He was honoured as the “Inventor of the World Wide Web” during the 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony. …He tweeted “This is for everyone”

    Maybe Tim Berners-Lee should impose a levy on Rossi’s blogging in protest for delaying Humanity 2.0

    Obviously Rossi does not fit the latter case. He does not fit the former case because no authoritative or conclusive test has been done in 2.5 years. The key question is why? The responses I have seen are:

    1. It is a scam.
    2. He fears corporate/government interference that will block delivery – thus he develops under his own steam (pun intended).
    3. He is hiding his product until the last moment before full scale commercialization.

    2. Appears to have been a false understanding, because now he claims to have signed up a battleship corporate.

    3. Is ridiculous. All corporates have marketing intelligence departments and thanks to Tim Berners-Lee, they can get the lowdown on Rossi at the click of a mouse.

    So without any additions to the list, only option 1. remains.

  17. MaxS

    June 4, 2013 at 11:22 am

    admin posted

    Too often, I have found myself thinking that there are too many people involved with the eCat for it to be a scam

    I never got this point which is frequently stressed by the believers camp. It assumes that crimes are unlikely when more people get involved. With the same logic, we may also conclude the mafia does not exist, JFK must have been shot by a single person and Auschwitz didn´t happen either.

  18. Donald

    June 4, 2013 at 11:34 am

    According to the news report, the sales pitch appears to have relied on the credibility of the Royal Engineers Export Support Team. Ergo, they were either bought off or were totally gullible idiots who failed to rationally examine and test the device themselves. This endorsement led naturally to further endorsement from other parts of the UK government (shades of climate science!) and thus to apparent gold standard credibility.

    Given that police and military around the world are rolling in money to spend, and $40,000 is nothing for a piece of military equipment, the rest was probably pretty easy.

    On the other hand, the Rossi tests are quite public. That is, they are performed in a hands-on way by supposedly independent scientists and their hangers-on who make public reports, and indirectly by the world peanut gallery (ie us) via the Internet.

    So I would ask, if Rossi is trying to sell a cold fusion fraud to the military or big corporations, why all the publicity? Why not just do it privately out of the limelight like McCormick. Going public just makes the inevitable crash landing worse and the escape to Rio de Janeiro more difficult when the scam is eventually revealed, if it is one.

    • Jami

      June 4, 2013 at 12:05 pm

      “So I would ask, if Rossi is trying to sell a cold fusion fraud to the military or big corporations, why all the publicity?”

      Because he isn’t trying to sell a cold fusion reactor (there is none). He is trying to sell reseller licenses and he is trying to sell them in small chunks to ordinary people to which stuff like a cheering crowd on the web (people like you and the bunch on e-catworld) matters and who can’t think for themselves. Or did you see any generals, politicians and Fortune 500 CEOs at his Zurich “convention”? Me neither.

    • CuriousChris

      June 4, 2013 at 1:23 pm

      “This endorsement led naturally to further endorsement from other parts of the UK government (shades of climate science!) and thus to apparent gold standard credibility.”

      An odd thing for you to say because I would have thought it was more shades of climate denial. take one itsy bitsy fact ignore the preponderance of other facts and use that as your basis of “truth”

      P.S. I WAS a climate change denier. But my own investigations have now swung me the other way.

  19. CuriousChris

    June 4, 2013 at 12:12 pm

    “Surely the scale of this thing is beyond any charge of deception? If this is a scam, it must be the biggest ever perpetrated.”

    I congratulate you Paul you are saying its wrong of you to fall into this thought.

    This thought is often the catch cry of believers on this forum and others. The thinking appears to be “Surely Rossi isn’t that clever that he could perpetrate such a colossal scam.”

    Think about that last line for a moment. People are crediting Rossi with being so clever as to bring to the world “New Fire” but isn’t clever enough to hoodwink a few physicists and others who already believe it is possible.

    Does that sound like reasonable logic?

    Rossi can be so clever as to bring together hydrogen and nickel and heat with nanospheres and microfractures to create fusion without Gamma Rays. But surely surely he is not clever enough to be able to lay DC over AC to hide his real power source.

    Do you wonder why some of us are sceptical?

  20. CuriousChris

    June 4, 2013 at 12:53 pm

    I wanted to say this as well. I hope it resonates with some.

    In a court of law there is a phrase. “Beyond reasonable doubt”

    That phrase marks the demarcation between human law and science.

    In science the reasonable is dropped and the phrase becomes “Beyond doubt”.

    In science we don’t consider something as reasonably true or possible. If something is beyond reasonable doubt. It is a theory, nothing more, just a theory. Like the theory of relativity (which we are still testing today )

    That is the basis of our scepticism. If there is doubt even if its beyond reasonable doubt then alternatives must be still be sought.

    “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth”

    In this case, a person previously found to act fraudulently discovering “new fire” is closer to the impossible than a fraud effecting another fraud.

    Or do you think otherwise?

  21. Thomas Baccei

    June 4, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    I have still seen no real proof of Mr. Rossi selling franchises. Only statements made by individuals I have no more reason to believe than Mr. Rossi himself.

    Also, I find it curious that half (sic) of those “defrauded” by Mr. Rossi have gone into competition with him. Too bad Wiley Coyote didn’t offer an “Acme Bomb Buster” to the pinheads who fell for McCormick’s insane device. Gee, that kind of scam is so fun I think I should offer up the “Dowsing Pathoskep Locator”. Ahh, but they’re so easy to find without one.

    The point is this: The bunko brigade thus far have no more proof of fraud than the believers have in a working HotCat. If either side has the required “proof” than send it to the D.A. in Florence (or where ever) and let’s watch Rossi defend himself, or perhaps watch the dawning of a new age blossom forth.

    In my opinion, based solely on trying to understand the “psychology” of the claims, and the timing of the demonstrations etc. that Mr. Rossi, et. al. are on to something, but that no one has thus far found the magic formula which would allow full control, and a reliable and repeatable demonstration of the phenomenon. Further I think they would need to have a complete engineering of it in order to make any real money. Once the basic energy source is understood, ANYONE will be able to make devices. You cannot patent FIRE. You can only patent STOVES.
    When Rossi , or DGT or any of the others has perfected a product, and have solved the problem of legally selling it all over the world, then it would be in their interest to “prove” that LENR is as real as fire. Failing to have a PRODUCT, and MARKETING certainty why wouldn’t they tease and provoke in order to interest the financial partners that a legitimate R&D effort would need? So you see, the “real deal” and the “scam” would very likely look just the same to those of us on the outside. That’s why scam artists are able to dupe otherwise smart people. They appeal to greed, which can cloud the thinking of almost anyone if done right.

    Like Paul, I can only hope that the struggle to perfect the engineering and marketing machinery is the true state of affairs, but I simply do not know. I would certainly not risk money I could not afford to trivially lose, but you know their are a lot of Fat Cats out there and if I had enough chips I might well want to be in this pot. As for those of you who “know” this is a fraud – ho, ho.

    • Anonymole

      June 4, 2013 at 4:19 pm

      Well that’s just it – after two and a half years none of us really “know” anything more than we did in January 2011 (or P&F’s 1989 for that matter).

      Oh sure, we’re not completely ignorant, we have all come to understand the many possibilities of LENR, but we still don’t “know” that it is commercially viable as opposed to being a curious novelty or a high school science experiment.

      With this in mind I step back and wonder, who would benefit from the truth and who would benefit from cover-up?

      Would someone who truly had a solution not benefit from the immediate exposure of the truth? To gather the quickest and most intense publicity and excitement so as to incite major investors? If fear of loss of invention was my primary concern then that’s what contracts and lawyers are for.

      And then the flip side, who would benefit most from a drawn out, truth defying cover-up? One perpetrating a falsity perhaps?

      So the ongoing question remains: how long do we accept this absence of truth before the specter of cover-up consumes all other possibilities?

    • Thicket

      June 5, 2013 at 1:20 am

      Australia’s Roger Green was interviewed. He talked about his eCat licenses and how he had sold some of them. I suppose he could be lying. Maybe he’s selling eCat licenses without actually owning any. That’s unlikely because Rossi would be screaming bloody murder. Maybe Rossi and Green are in it together but I really don’t think so. Green could have spun some BS about the eCat but instead he admitted that he hadn’t seen one. i think he’s just a fool that threw away a lot of money.

      Then there’s the German cadre that publicly went on record as saying they gave money to Rossi for licenses. Frankly, I found the spokesperson so incredibly naive that I doubt he’s lying.

      • Thomas Baccei

        June 5, 2013 at 3:25 pm

        Very astute skepticism at work here! Do you use a dowsing rod to determine who lies and who speaks the truth, or the more scientific method of evaluating their naivety?

        Bah! Humbug!

        • John Milstone

          June 6, 2013 at 11:34 pm

          Do you use a dowsing rod to determine who lies and who speaks the truth, or the more scientific method of evaluating their naivety?

          Just the person’s history.

          Rossi was convicted several times for business fraud. In spite of the unsubstantiated claims of the “True Believers”, no one has ever provided any actual evidence that his criminal fraud convictions (in particular, the 2000 conviction and 8-year prison sentence) were ever overturned. (If you have actual evidence, please post it.)

          Rossi has been caught lying about almost every aspect of his “business”. He lied about the Universities of Bologna and Uppsala doing independent tests of his gadget in 2011, and again in 2012. He lied about National Instruments “working closely” and “building a controller” for him.

          He lied to either the public, or the Florida nuclear regulators about building a factory and selling E-Cats in the United States.

          In short, the question isn’t whether Rossi lies. The question is whether Rossi ever tells the truth.

          • Thomas Baccei

            June 7, 2013 at 11:09 am

            The question is also whether Mr. Green lies. You in your various aliases, have a selective belief system, as you must in order to support a fantasy view of the world. The conclusions you so firmly hold are no more grounded than are those of the true believers. Not very persuasive, at the end of the day.

            Fact is, the ball is still in play, and you can scream “liar” and “fraud” all you want, but it is only another cheer coming from one side of the field – totally drowned out by the general din. I still enjoy the contest, and, since I am an actual skeptic, I’ll wait to decide until there is conclusive evidence.

          • John Milstone

            June 8, 2013 at 3:44 pm

            Thomas Baccei said:

            The question is also whether Mr. Green lies.

            Absolutely nothing in my comment depends on whether Mr. Green is telling the truth or lying.

            To believe Rossi you have to believe that these organizations/people are lying:

            The University of Bologna
            The University of Uppsala
            National Instruments
            The Swedish Standards Institute
            The Florida Bureau of Radiation Control

            I have no trouble deciding which groups are worth trusting and which are not.

            Sorry you’re having trouble with this.

          • Thomas Baccei

            June 9, 2013 at 5:43 pm

            There you go again, defending “your post” as it pertains to Mr. Green. I could care less about your repetitive and pointless self defense, based on your predetermined notions. The point is that you have no more “proof” of your rigid belief in the lying of Mr. Rossi, than do the true believers in their idealistic hopes in his veracity. This repetition you find so unavoidable speaks only to a stultified and cringing grasp of what real skepticism entails, and at times I can only picture you as a tired spirited professional debunker going through the motions. I will continue to watch this great farce play out, the experience heightened by watching you thrash about on the sidelines, so outraged at having been insulted time and again, not by me, but by your own failure to make a dent in anyone else’s convictions. I, and the other real skeptics on this blog will continue to wait for the inevitable truth in it all to be found out, and til then I can only thank you for adding to the amusement.

  22. Thicket

    June 4, 2013 at 3:08 pm

    It was an obvious scam, except that there were a whole lot of people and governments that thought it was real.

    A comment skeptics often make is that believers are naive. The Jim McCormick fraud is a glaring example of how naive and gullible people can be.

    Rossi is just a small-time piker compared to some of the frauds that have been uncovered.

    The Jim McCormick fraud is particularly nasty in that it killed people. Sniffex was a very similar fraud, claiming to detect unseen explosives.

    I continue to find the psychology of true belief a fascinating tale. Here are some of the true believer beliefs in this thread.

    * Rossi is partnered with Siemens. — Oh really? There is no evidence of this except in some people’s minds.
    * Rossi is obviously true. — No. Rossi is an obvious fraud.
    * Rossi had a visa handed to him by an American president. — This one is so laughable that no further comment is needed.
    * Rossi was rich. $30 million dollars rich. — It doesn’t matter if he was rich or not, but there is no evidence that he had a lot of money. Besides, a lot of frauds are rich. Any guesses where they got their money from?
    * Rossi demonstrated publicly. — No he didn’t. Rossi tightly controlled who attended and what they could see.
    * Rossi has a secret catalyst.– Not anymore. His latest patent application claims that he can get energy without catalyst.

    Believers conveniently disregard that Rossi is a convicted felon and a pathological liar. It’s fascinating how far cognitive dissonance and absence of critical thinking can affect the beliefs of human beings.

  23. Sheridan Martin

    June 4, 2013 at 3:21 pm

    Hi All,

    I’m a science buff and follow many developing technologies just for the fun of it. This blog is tiring and dissapointing. Many members satisfy their need to disparage others rather than to contribute, suggest alternatives, or to just comment on what has been presented. Instead most of the members go on about the history, personality, and past behaviors of the inventor.

    What if this all works out in the end. Are the naysayers going to identify themselves as disbelievers then? No they’ll sink quietly into the background as so many naysayers have in the past.

    Rock On!

    • Thicket

      June 4, 2013 at 5:21 pm


      Disparaging others? Sort of like you disparaging ‘naysayers’? Pot, kettle, black.

      History doesn’t support your view. It’s believers that fade away. This has already happened with Rossi’s eCat.

      Where are the believers for Steorn, Blacklight Power, Dennis Lee, Perendev (Mike Brady), Sniffex, Jim McCormick etc.? They were very vocal until the scam became obvious. Still, even proven frauds retain some supporters.

  24. Thicket

    June 4, 2013 at 3:25 pm

    This deserves a ban IMO.

    • admin

      June 4, 2013 at 3:38 pm


      • LCD

        June 4, 2013 at 10:27 pm

        why are all the messages coming out at the bottom

        also who attacked whom?

        • Methusela

          June 5, 2013 at 6:03 am

          Paul deleted a post rather editing its content, so messages arrive at the bottom now (bet this one doesn’t!)

          BTW Popeye/Cude/Schroeder was just banned from vortex-l.

          William Beaty posted a definition of the trend towards unswaying naysaying that masquerades as scepticism:

          …today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one’s opponents’ points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one’s own stances and findings, misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth.

          That perfectly sums up Thicket, Milstone, Jami, and to a lesser extent Al Potenza/Maryyugo/Hody.

          • Al Potenza

            June 5, 2013 at 8:37 am

            Right. Beatty’s writing is idiotic. He doesn’t understand what a scam is. He will when Rossi is exposed.

          • Stephen

            June 6, 2013 at 8:11 am

            By Al Potenza, somewhere above,:”…He will when Rossi is exposed.”
            Another thing I sincerely doubt…

          • John Milstone

            June 5, 2013 at 12:31 pm

            BTW Popeye/Cude/Schroeder was just banned from vortex-l.

            Yes, the group that constantly complains that LENR is being “suppressed”, suppresses any dissenting voice.

            The irony is delicious.

          • LCD

            June 5, 2013 at 2:24 pm

            If your bunch is being supressed Milstone I’d hate to see you have free speech.

            Methusela, is Popeye really Cude or is that just speculation?

          • Thicket

            June 5, 2013 at 4:02 pm

            Popeye is Cude. No speculation.

          • AB

            June 5, 2013 at 6:13 pm

            See maryyugo et. al. in in their natural habitat where they show their true nature:

            No wonder these guys get banned left and right.

          • Roger Barker

            June 5, 2013 at 11:51 pm

            LOL! So true.

    • Al Potenza

      June 4, 2013 at 5:12 pm

      The offending message seems to have been removed. Care to give us a hint what it was about and why it deserved a ban?

      • Thicket

        June 4, 2013 at 5:15 pm

        It was an offensive personal attack (not directed at me.)

        • Al Potenza

          June 4, 2013 at 7:39 pm

          ok, tnx.

  25. Revgen

    June 4, 2013 at 5:31 pm


    Type “Rossi Siemens turbine” into google. It’s not that difficult.

    • John Milstone

      June 4, 2013 at 6:01 pm

      Revgen said:

      Type “Rossi Siemens turbine” into google. It’s not that difficult.

      That turns up thousands of references to Rossi fan sites, all regurgitating some comment made on Rossi’s vanity web site.

      I don’t see anything supporting a claim that Siemens is actually working with Rossi.

      Do you have any real evidence? Or is it just another “Rossi Says”?

    • CuriousChris

      June 5, 2013 at 2:28 am

      No you are absolutely correct. Its not that difficult to see these sites just parrot what Rossi Says.

      Time for a little critical thinking perhaps?

  26. Dale G. Basgall

    June 4, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    An e-cat in the hand that does something is better than all the claimed e-cats that were supposed to be made to work and on sale a couple years ago and claimed to be going to exist in the future.

    Any person with any common sense at all would not invest in a phantom product, none of our writers on this site did. Energy is a bad invention for a small independent inventor like a Rossi. Anyone inventing knows for sure the best products that supply a need for many people like an energy device with the claims of the e-cat will be taken by big business like the auto industry has shown for years.

    You don’t see patents on the new cars because the industry is so large that if your not improving the features and operations of the car on a daily basis the manufacturer falls behind in development. That is exactly how the LENR will end up developing.

    Point being we can’t test drive the e-cat. Generating electricity has been well known for many years, i.e. it takes one horsepower to generate 745.7 watts and inversely requires 745.7 watts to produce one horsepower of work and depending on the efficiency of the primary mover produces heat as a by product.

    Once you attempt to “tap out” the energy of the hot cat the question remains “will it remain lit” and how much actual thermal energy can be pulled out before it goes out or requires more electricity input.

    We are no farther along than bla bla woof woof by those attempting to make money from claims and not results of the LENR possibilities.

    • John Milstone

      June 5, 2013 at 1:59 pm

      Dale G. Basgall said:

      Any person with any common sense at all would not invest in a phantom product

      And yet the world is full of con men and their victims, and every one of those victims thought they had “common sense”.

  27. LCD

    June 4, 2013 at 10:24 pm

    The problem with this line of reasoning is that by now it is not enough to say that Rossi fooled people you must now say that they (Levi, Focardi, All of DGT) are actually knowingly committing fraud.

    • CuriousChris

      June 5, 2013 at 3:30 am

      Yes it would seem that way.

      Self delusion is not uncommon. People believe what they want to believe with no regard for the facts often turning a blind eye to those things that trouble the rest of us.

      • Lcd

        June 5, 2013 at 4:06 am

        Huh? self delusion is not knowingly committing fraud

        • CuriousChris

          June 5, 2013 at 10:05 am

          My Self Delusional comments were a counter point to deliberate fraud.

          I cannot say what Focardi or Levi’s motives truly are. They are not as transparent as Rossi. perhaps they are self delusional. Perhaps they are just gullible.

          • LCD

            June 5, 2013 at 1:48 pm

            im pretty sure self delusional was rules out of the last rest. or if not how would you propose that fits?

          • CuriousChris

            June 5, 2013 at 2:16 pm

            @LCD I am not sure exactly what you mean with your comment maybe a typo, or word or two missing?

            How do I propose self delusion fits?

            Self delusion is fooling oneself into seeing something that isn’t there or not seeing something that is there.

            By not testing the power source properly. By not checking all the possible ways that the test could have been rigged even though every one of them has been made aware of such potential issues they have arrived at the answer they wanted.

            So either they knew it was fraud or they unconsciously ignored the potential problems and ‘assumed’ they would be ok.

            Thus they may have deluded themselves.

            Victims of their own desire to see the tests succeed.

            Or perhaps you can explain why they ignored the power supply. Why they didn’t insist on calibrating the amp meter. Why they didn’t insist on an isolation transformer, why they didn’t simply unplug it for a few minutes while it was in “self sustain” mode. Why they didn’t check the waveform with a common CRO, why they didn’t insist on a regulated filtered power supply?

            Siemans or UL could have supplied one. I mean they are in partnership are they not?

          • John Milstone

            June 5, 2013 at 3:11 pm

            im pretty sure self delusional was rules out of the last rest. or if not how would you propose that fits?

            In comments after the report was released, Essen makes it clear that all the testing protocols and equipment were supplied solely by Rossi and Levi. Essen (and apparently the others) were just observers, not allowed to do anything other than what Rossi/Levi allowed.

            The other authors seem to have just watched from a distance, accepting whatever limitations Levi supplied. Since Levi was working with Rossi on what would or would not be allowed, it’s clear that they only saw what Rossi wanted them to see. (It’s also worth remembering that Levi was the one who “lost” all the data for what would have been the most compelling demo of the E-Cat ever, requiring us to “trust” in Levi, rather than having the data to examine.)

            I also read (but don’t have a link handy) that one or more of the authors have refrained from claiming that this test was definitive, and that they are waiting for further testing before drawing any conclusions. One has to wonder, if they were not convinced by the test they were watching, why they didn’t do additional testing right then to clear up any doubt?

          • LCD

            June 5, 2013 at 4:03 pm

            I don’t know why I wasted my time responding to you Milstone. You use these absolute terms as in “clearly there was fraud” NO its not clear.

            Here you say “Essen (and apparently the others) were just observers, not allowed to do anything other than what Rossi/Levi allowed.

            The other authors seem to have just watched from a distance, accepting whatever limitations Levi supplied.”

            But that is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM CLEAR. Only in your head is that clear, which clearly shows that you are self delusional in that you interpret whatever you want to interpret.

            I have a real problem with your lack of rigorous logic in your absolute ultimatum conclusions. I’m pretty sure everybody else does too.

          • LCD

            June 5, 2013 at 4:42 pm

            yeah sorry Chris, smartphone. I’m pretty sure that self-delusion is ruled out for Rossi. The effect is too big.

            Your points about the power supply I think have been adequately answered in after statements to limit the possibility of a hidden source to low levels.

            I don’t get the impression that all the testers badly wanted the effect to be true to lose objectivity. At the very least that’s not obvious. At this point one is more scared of being fooled by Rossi than anything else.

            That is why they did not say it was a definitive test because they would not sign up to it until they had complete control over the test environment. The group agreed to it along with Rossi and they also agreed along with Rossi to do more tests.

            Additionally in all the interviews afterwards not a single group member said that they did not have the freedom to check whatever they wanted to check so long as they stayed away from a few items which is all within ip protection reasons (and no legitimate businessman would have any problem with that as NDAs are hard to enforce). So they could have checked anything (and they did) including the power source which they did and found nothing out of the ordinary. Would have been nice if it was put in the report. A lot of people have suggested that to them including me and they are amenable to it and will highly likely do it next time or even make an addendum to this one.

            To be truly skeptical is fine, but your insistence on this board that it was FRAUD and/or Self Delusion is so contrary to the atmosphere in which these scientists are working in. Knowing that Rossi has a checkered past, knowing that their careers are on the line. It’s shades of SciAm and the wright brothers.

            It’s true that the test needs follow up testing and we have every reason to believe we’ll get that now BUT FOR YOU CHRIS TO SIDE WITH MILSTONED and be so certain that it’s self delusion and/or fraud is silly and laughable.

            A true skeptic at this point would say, show me more you’ve got my attention. A patented pseudoskept would immediately conclude fraud and self delusion.

            It’s true that science demands proof. And it’s okay to ask for proof. What’s not okay is to presume (and actually state it as fact on a public website) without evidence, that something is impossible because the laws of physics prevent it…specially when you don’t even fully understand IT.

            Bottom line is pseudo-skepts (like you) seem to confuse themselves with the burden of protecting the public and the burden of providing skeptical analysis.

          • John Milstone

            June 5, 2013 at 5:04 pm

            I don’t know why I wasted my time responding to you Milstone. You use these absolute terms as in “clearly there was fraud” NO its not clear.

            If you’re going to attack me, at least get what I say right.

            Anyone who thinks that after all this time and activity that Rossi is “fooling himself” is out of touch with reality. Perhaps Rossi really has what he says (although that is very, very unlikely) or he is a criminal con man. Anyone who thinks it’s all an honest mistake is a fool.

            The relevant comments by Essen is HERE:

            > 5. Did the Ni powder also melt when in the test of November the
            > performance of this device was such that the reactor was destroyed,
            > melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers?
            > If the Ni powder melted was the reaction still running despite the Ni
            > melted or did it stop running when Ni melted?

            I do not know this since only the Bologna group was there when that
            happened. I take for granted that also the Ni melted and that the
            reaction stopped, but the interior physics is still an industrial
            secret that we do not have access to. Sorry.


            > 7. Will you test the power supplied to the device with oscilloscope during
            > the next test?

            This is a question for Prof. G. Levi who provides the instrumentation.

            So, according to Essen he wasn’t even there for the first test, and Levi provided the instrumentation.

            You can twist that anyway you want, but it still shows that Essen wasn’t seriously involved in the test.

          • LCD

            June 5, 2013 at 5:20 pm

            In the first test! He was not there. He was not there in the second test. In the third test he was there.

            This is openly known and clearly stated. What is your point? Do you ever have a point? What does that prove?

            If Levi “provided the instruments” is your implication he was committing fraud? If not why bring it up, it’s a who cares.

            Lastly did i not cut and paste your quote right? Did you or did you not say

            Essen (and apparently the others) were just observers, not allowed to do anything other than what Rossi/Levi allowed.

            The other authors seem to have just watched from a distance, accepting whatever limitations Levi supplied. Since Levi was working with Rossi on what would or would not be allowed, it’s clear that they only saw what Rossi wanted them to see.

          • LCD

            June 5, 2013 at 5:23 pm

            You know scratch that, I don’t really care to waste my time arguing with you.

            Any fool can see that you twist words and see whatever you want to see then go out and state opinions as fact to make a cheap point.

            I’m done with you.

          • John Milstone

            June 5, 2013 at 7:10 pm

            In the first test! He was not there. He was not there in the second test. In the third test he was there.

            Since Rossi was claiming “7 independent experts” for the first test, I wonder who was taking the place of the “non-Italians” who didn’t show up for the original and followup testing?

            Perhaps the anonymous “experts” from the first two tests had to be replaced for asking too many questions? Or for insisting that they do reasonable testing of things like the input power?

            In any event, Rossi apparently replaced those people with more friendly and gullible “testers” like Esses, who admitted that he didn’t know what he was doing when he “tested” Rossi’s steam kettle.

            Please do ignore me from now on. Maybe you should limit yourself to places like the Vortex, where they just banish anyone who doesn’t share your delusion.

          • John Milstone

            June 5, 2013 at 10:08 pm

            A true skeptic at this point would say, show me more you’ve got my attention. A patented pseudoskept would immediately conclude fraud and self delusion.

            I know you’re ignoring me, LCD, but I’ll respond anyway.

            If someone credible produced this report, we would take it far more seriously. There are numerous problems, which have been discussed in detail. But any credible claimant would be taken seriously.

            But Rossi isn’t credible. He’s been caught in numerous lies related to the E-Cat. He has a long criminal history, with a number of convictions (and no evidence of reversals on the most serious ones, except for Rossi’s claims on Rossi’s vanity web page). He can’t (or won’t) name a credible partner (although he’s lied about it several times). He can’t (or won’t) name an actual customer (although he’s claimed to have sold, and shipped the same box several times).

            It isn’t a blanket rejection of LENR. It’s the realization that everything about Rossi points to fraud, to all but a tiny handful of Kool-Aid drinkers.

          • CuriousChris

            June 6, 2013 at 5:11 am

            @LCD Said: “Additionally in all the interviews afterwards not a single group member said that they did not have the freedom to check whatever they wanted to check”

            My point exactly. They chose not to check and admitted to that fact.

            The question is, given the freedom to check why didn’t they? Personally I believe that was Levi’s main task to herd the others to make sure they stayed within prescribed boundaries. To supply the tools so no-one would get in in their heads to do some of the things I suggested. and they let it happen.

            Why did they let it happen? Because they are deluding themselves.

            Every magician needs a stooge in the crowd. in my opinion Rossi’s stooge is Levi. I have been sure of that since the black t-shirt affair

    • Thicket

      June 5, 2013 at 1:35 pm


      I don’t agree. Belief and faith are powerful especially when there is a charismatic person like Rossi involved. I personally don’t think that Levi and Focardi are knowingly committing fraud. In any case, we probably should leave Focardi out of it now. I have no direct information, but another website said that Focardi is seriously ill with terminal cancer. I hope that isn’t true.

      • CuriousChris

        June 5, 2013 at 2:20 pm

        That is sad to hear, I was in contact with Focardi last year.

        When I asked him about the appropriateness of the tests conducted he only responded with a copy of the paper he and Rossi Co Wrote.

        But still I was pleased with his willingness to respond to my email.

  28. Al Potenza

    June 5, 2013 at 8:36 am

    Hey Paul,

    Looks as if Krivit exposes fraud by Rossi and perhaps Kullander and Essen. Here:

    (full reading requires subscription)

    Maybe you can find out more by talking to Krivit?

    ETA: this ended up in a weird place… I meant it for the bottom.

    • John Milstone

      June 5, 2013 at 7:13 pm

      I’m not surprised to see Kullander named.

      He claimed to have a “detailed isotopic analysis” of the ash from a Rossi E-Cat, which he was going to release in December 2011.

      He never released the report, and he never explained why he failed to do so.

      The most likely explanation is that it exposed Rossi’s fraud, and Kullander decided to bury it.

      If that is true, then Kullander (and possibly Essen) may be at risk of criminal liability from those who invested in Rossi based in part on their endorsements of his “demos”.

  29. LCD

    June 5, 2013 at 2:21 pm

    Thicket and Curious you both have stated that Rossi is a fraud but you think Levi and Focardi have been duped.

    Just so that I understand, your scenario essentially is Rossi fools Focardi because he wants to believe and is therefor self delusional.
    Focardi (with Rossi’s help) unknowingly deludes Levi who respects Focardi greatly. Levi and Focardi are repeatedly fooled by Rossi over a span of over 2+ years.
    Then Levi in his full self deluded state, invites half a dozen other scientists over to test the ecat and once again with a little fraudulent trick from Rossi the puppeteer, Levi unknowingly sells the act hook line and sinker and fools the rest of the scientists. Since they were predisposed to believing any way i.e. self deluded, they were easily fooled…over a span of a week by all accounts having relatively free reign to test the device.

    How does DGT fit into your picture? Surely Hadjichristos and the whole lot are frauds right?

    • Thicket

      June 5, 2013 at 4:31 pm


      I chuckled at your sequence of events. It’s not likely to be a domino effect. Rossi fooled the whole lot of them combined with their desire to believe him.

      I think Defkalion is fraudulent. I don’t know the players well enough to put the fraud at the feet of a specific individual. It’s likely to be a single person.

      From my experience, pseudoscience frauds are usually perpetrated by one individual. On the rare occasion you have an accomplice.

      There are countless examples of apparently talented and intelligent people following a charismatic leader. An example from a few days ago is John Miller of Kingsroy Queensland. He says that he is Jesus. His partner, Mary Luck, claims to be Mary Magdalene.

      The two have attracted 30 followers who moved to Kingsroy to be close to Miller. Included are Louise Faver, a British neuroscientist, and George Hamel a California businessman who left his wife.

      Belief in Rossi is less of a stretch than belief in John Miller. Rossi has weeded out the folks he can’t easily manipulate. With his latest ‘demonstration’ he has a hand-picked group of believers with scientific qualifications.

      • Paul Stout

        June 5, 2013 at 5:03 pm

        I think that it is very foolish to think that the testers are idiots and that you know more than they do. You have no direct knowledge of the extent of their testing. And that means that you have no way to be positive that adequate testing was not performed.

        It is fair to question the extent of their testing. However, until you have a lot more knowledge than what is available on the web, it is NOT reasonable to assume that they are idiots and that their testing is inadequate.

        As an engineer, I am very hesitant to use absolute statements. True absolutes are extremely rare.

        • Thicket

          June 5, 2013 at 5:31 pm

          I didn’t say they were idiots. I said they were fools. There is a difference. A trained intelligent scientist can be a fool. I get fooled by magic acts. The testers were fooled by not realizing they were victims of a Rossi stage act.

          I’m an engineer too, and I know that you need to look at all the evidence. You fall into the common believer trap of looking at only the latest shiny object that Rossi creates. There is a mountain of evidence that Rossi is a fraud and that the eCat is not real. That evidence is a major part of passing judgement on the latest test. You simply ignore past evidence and take the myopic view of one test.

          Also, Levi has shown himself to be incompetent. His test a couple of years ago was apparently definitive in showing that the eCat is real. Too bad he lost the data. He and Essen have also demonstrated their ignorance of steam chemistry. I remember a picture of Levi wearing a black shirt holding a tube with a puny amount of wet steam puffing out of it. He thought that this was ‘evidence’ that the eCat was a functioning cold fusion machine.

          • Paul Stout

            June 5, 2013 at 8:37 pm

            Since you were not present, how do you know that the testers were fooled?

            I look at this based on how I, as an engineer, would react if I was hired by an outside agency to test this device.

            If I was being paid by somebody to give an honest report and I know I’m going to sign my name on it, it means my reputation is on the line. When my reputation is on the line, friends, preconceptions, hopes, and dreams are all thrown out the window. I’m going to make sure my report is absolutely honest and that slipping a hoax past me is just not conceivable. Given the controversy around this subject, absolutely everything would get a fine scrutiny.

            I looked at the way the report was written, and it sounds like something I would write. They avoided the use of absolutes, and they tested everything.

            The energy output eliminated the possibility that the extra energy was somehow stored in the device. There are physical limits that even a magician cannot get around.

            There are only so many ways to get power into the eCat. This means the extra power has to come in through a mechanical or electromagnetic connection of some sort. The amount of energy involved makes it much more difficult to hide.

            The use of the testers own test cables, ruled out the possibility of transmitting the power through some weird wiring scheme.

            Multiple witnesses, 360 degree access to the reactor, and four days of testing makes hidden wires really unlikely. I do not believe that any magician could pull that trick off.

            The use of the IR cameras ruled out several possible ways to transmit energy to the device. The temperature across the reactor and the radiation from the support structure did not show any anomalies that would indicate external electromagnetic induced energy. There is just no known way of transmitting that much energy without visible evidence or something showing up on the IR images.

          • Jami

            June 5, 2013 at 9:03 pm

            “Multiple witnesses, 360 degree access to the reactor, and four days of testing makes hidden wires really unlikely. I do not believe that any magician could pull that trick off.”

            Doesn’t need a magician. A coaxial cable isn’t something you can identify by looking at it – even from 360 degrees and for four days. Short of cutting through them or following them from the wall outlet through the walls with hammer and chisel to the main feed, there is almost no way they could have identified any input power trickery. And isn’t it strange, that Levi chose the exact same equipment (including the camera and the ammeter) which Rossi used before? Is it not likely that Levi didn’t independently buy any equipment but used Rossi’s stuff? Is it not likely that Rossi dictated they mustn’t use the wave analyzer and built-in datalogger but set up a clumsy video camera for them to make sure his “industrial secrets” were protected? Considering all of that, it was probably child’s play rather than magic.

          • Paul Stout

            June 5, 2013 at 9:46 pm

            A coaxial cable would have been painfully obvious when doing the voltage measurements. Unlike the current measurements, you are down to the bare copper. That theory just does not hold water.

            According to all reports, the testers supplied their own test equipment and test leads.

            An engineer typically uses the equipment that he is familiar with.

          • John Milstone

            June 5, 2013 at 9:56 pm

            A coaxial cable would have been painfully obvious when doing the voltage measurements. Unlike the current measurements, you are down to the bare copper. That theory just does not hold water.

            Where did you get the idea that they were “down to the bare copper”? And if that was true, at exactly what point was it “bare copper”? The tricks already in the public will easily fake out someone who uses clamp-on (or even direct-wired) ammeters, and will show only “normal” voltage and frequency at various points in the circuit.

            Please review the “Cheese” video, and explain, if you can, how he faked it. Then, if you can, explain how it would have been impossible for Rossi to use a similar technique.

            Near the top of this thread, I posted a link to a blog that has the wiring diagram that was probably used, to help demonstrate just how easy it would have been for Rossi to fake a zero-current measurement when in fact he was feeding full current through his gadget, all without exposing the fraud to any of the testers.

          • Paul Stout

            June 5, 2013 at 9:58 pm

            The testers claim that they were free to use their own test equipment. Any attempts by Rossi to influence this choide would have raised a huge red flag in the mind of any competent engineer. Personally, I would have not accepted any such restriction, and would have refused to run the tests under those circumstances.

            Again, your theory makes no sense at all to me.

          • Jami

            June 5, 2013 at 9:58 pm

            “A coaxial cable would have been painfully obvious when doing the voltage measurements. Unlike the current measurements, you are down to the bare copper. That theory just does not hold water.”

            Actually it does. “Down to the bare copper” in a coax means you’re going to the outer layer. The inner cables can carry whatever voltage and waveform you want and it’d never be detected using a PCE830.

            “According to all reports, the testers supplied their own test equipment and test leads.”

            Not really. The report says nothing about either. Essen said he didn’t know because Levi was in charge of getting the equipment. As far as I can see, nobody ever said anything about “test leads” (apart from Rossi himself, probably).

          • Jami

            June 5, 2013 at 10:09 pm

            “Any attempts by Rossi to influence this choide would have raised a huge red flag in the mind of any competent engineer.”

            And so using PCE830 and DI160 was a coincidence or because Levi was familiar with them????

            And Rossi DID influence what they could test and what they couldn’t test (i.e. NOT the AC waveform – despite having a power measurement readout that doesn’t make sense for a regular 3phase power supply). Now it is good that you think stuff like that should raise a huge red flag – but apparently they didn’t.

            One more thought. When you trust Levi so far that you don’t think he would turn a blind eye (let alone participate in a fraud) then WHY did you ever doubt anything at all? According to Levi, the e-cat ran happily for years in Rossi’s office. It had a COP of 200 or so in 2011 – only Levi accidentally erased the data. So if this fine scientist can’t possibly be fooled or corrupt, then why would you ever doubt Rossi?

          • Paul Stout

            June 5, 2013 at 10:16 pm

            Basic electricity. When you want to measure voltage, you cut the wire in two, add a third wire and splice the three ends together. You then measure the voltage at the end of the third wire. No coaxial wire scheme survives this most basic test.

            This is the easiest and most common way to measure voltage and the means that any competent engineer or scientist would choose. Any attempts by Rossi to influence a different means would have raised lots of red flags.

            Again, your theory does not convince me.

          • Jami

            June 5, 2013 at 10:23 pm

            “When you want to measure voltage, you cut the wire in two, add a third wire and splice the three ends together.”

            Sorry Paul, but that is preposterous. When you want to measure voltage, you use an un-insulated spot in the wiring (typically a connector) and if one isn’t available, you remove the outer insulation at a convenient and safe point in the cabling and clamp your voltmeter on there.

            Have you found the text where they claim they used their own cables or is that one of those assumptions that they’ve done everything imaginable to exclude fraud?

          • John Milstone

            June 6, 2013 at 12:36 am

            The testers claim that they were free to use their own test equipment. Any attempts by Rossi to influence this choide would have raised a huge red flag in the mind of any competent engineer.

            But Essen made it clear that Levi was responsible for the test equipment. And Essen wasn’t even there for the first two runs, including what they claimed incorrectly to be a “control” run (that used an entirely different power profile. That so-called “control run” is particularly interesting in that it would not detect the obvious mechanism for cheating: supplying power when the controller was supposedly “off”.

            I guess you won’t bother watching the cheese video, and explaining how he got a piece of cheese to power a 120v light bulb? And, I guess you won’t bother to explain why it is impossible that Rossi used the same wiring trick to fool the testers?

            Until you do those two things, your opinions mean nothing.

          • John Milstone

            June 6, 2013 at 12:46 am

            Basic electricity. When you want to measure voltage, you cut the wire in two, add a third wire and splice the three ends together.

            It’s hard to see from your description if you have a clue and just can’t explain yourself, or if you really know nothing about basic electricity.

            One measures voltage on “opposite sides” of whatever part of the circuit one wishes to measure. There is no need to “cut” and “splice” wires.

            Measuring current directly does require putting the ammeter inline in the circuit. In other words, to measure voltage, you “wire” the meter in parallel with the circuit, to measure current, you “wire” the meter in series.

            A clamp-on meter derives the current flow through the magnetic field produced by the current. Typically, they only measure A/C and they have to be “told” what the RMS voltage is in order to give a reasonably accurate measurement.

            But, as the creator of the cheese video shows, even the inline ammeter will be fooled by the wiring trick he was using.

            It’s a simple wiring trick that allows full power to flow while the ammeter shows zero power. It’s trivial to implement. And nothing in the report, or in the comments since then, suggest that the testers would have ever noticed such a trick.

          • CuriousChris

            June 6, 2013 at 5:19 am

            @Paul Stout

            Please read about the power meter used. They did not cut the wires. its an inductive meter. If you don’t know what that means then you are not qualified to discuss this.

          • John Milstone

            June 6, 2013 at 8:58 am

            Paul Stout said:

            The use of the testers own test cables, ruled out the possibility of transmitting the power through some weird wiring scheme.

            Multiple witnesses, 360 degree access to the reactor, and four days of testing makes hidden wires really unlikely. I do not believe that any magician could pull that trick off.

            You really are missing the point.

            There was no need for “hidden wires”. The “wires” were in plain sight. Their is no evidence that those wires each only held a single conductor.

            All of the tests described in the report, and all of the test equipment could be entirely normal, and they would not detect the type of wiring fraud being discussed.

            The claim is that the E-Cat was producing “excess” energy because it didn’t cool down as fast as it should when the power was allegedly turned off. It’s been demonstrated that it is easy to fake out the test instruments and procedures described in the report.

            The so-called “control run” might have been useful, but in that case they left the power on the entire time, which means it never tested the most likely fraud scenario. If the wiring was gimmicked, the control run would have demonstrated the same “excess” power as the “real” E-Cat if they fed it the same duty cycle.

          • CuriousChris

            June 6, 2013 at 10:08 am

            ” If the wiring was gimmicked, the control run would have demonstrated the same “excess” power as the “real” E-Cat if they fed it the same duty cycle.”

            Not necessarily I could draw you a wiring diagram where an “inactive” cylinder drew substantially less power than an active cylinder.

            The active element could well be a resistive powder that acts as a heater. It could also be conductive. being removed the actual high temperature element is isolated or simply one of the end caps could be the connector to a hidden heating element.

            So easy to do.

          • John Milstone

            June 6, 2013 at 11:16 am

            Not necessarily I could draw you a wiring diagram where an “inactive” cylinder drew substantially less power than an active cylinder.

            You’re right, I over simplified.

            The point is that it is easy to allow some, or all, of the current flow through a gimmicked power cord in such a way that ammeters won’t detect it.

            It doesn’t require generating high-frequencies, nor does it require imposing a DC bias. It doesn’t even require any active electronic components, just a multi-pole multi-throw switch (or equivalent) and multiple conductors in a sheath that is assumed to have only one conductor.

      • LCD

        June 5, 2013 at 5:11 pm

        You think Defkalion is fraudulent.

        So Rossi fools them, they catch on and say wait why don’t we just play our own con, it’s more money. And so they invent their own fraudulent device and pull the same hidden wire trick on everybody they meet.

        I hope you are hearing how silly that sounds.

        I am well trained in physics. There are a lot of things we don’t understand. Higher temp Superconductivity, quantum gravity, sonoluminescence, dark energy, dark matter, dark flow, CMB anisotropy, locality, proton decay issues, proton spin, ultra cold electron emissions, fractional hall effect, BEC systems, etc. So I do not live in a reality where I’m sure I know everything like you.

        If you think they are fraudulent then in my opinion you have infinitely weaker evidence to base your belief in that than people have in believing something like LENR+ is real let alone plain old LENR.

        • Thicket

          June 5, 2013 at 5:39 pm


          We will just have to agree to disagree about Defkalion.

          What Defkalion fraudulent device and hidden wire tricks are you referring to? Is there public information beyond a few photo stills that they have anything, let alone demonstrated anything? I’ve seen their hokum papers and slide presentations. I haven’t seen anything like the numerous demonstrations that Rossi has come up with.

          From what I’ve seen, Defkalion is 99% words.

        • CuriousChris

          June 6, 2013 at 5:28 am

          We have gone over this so many times

          The alternative is. Defkalion magically created a LENR device in a few months a problem that has eluded real researchers since 1989.

          The answer is simple. If Rossi is a fraud Defkalion is a fraud. The current wisdom except for die hard believers is, Rossi is a fraud.

          Who made all the explosive sniffers? They knew it was a fraud and yet played along.

      • Thicket

        June 5, 2013 at 9:17 pm


        Did you even read what I wrote? I don’t think so. Your post is 100% about this latest test.

        You’re saying that the testers were competent. I’m saying they weren’t competent to detect intentional Rossi trickery. Scientists are not skilled at detecting fraud. If a convicted felon and pathological liar with countless examples of fraudulent claims put a perpetual motion machine in front of you, are you competent enough to figure out where the flaw is, expecially if the measurements you take are limited by the fraudster? I’m not. I don’t think you are either. Hopefully neither of us would be dumb enough to sign something positive about the demonstration. The testers were dumb enough.

        You’re trying to make an argument that the latest Rossi stage show was competently tested. As an engineer, you should be ashamed to make such an argument. While it’s likely impossible to remotely determine how Rossi fooled them, you should be acutely aware of the numerous holes in the testing.

        * No calorimetry, just remote temperature sensing. Why no calorimetry? Probably because it would show no heat release and Rossi thought he wouldn’t get away with installing a thermocouple to give an erroneous reading like he did in the past. What was the temperature in the reactor core? We don’t know. Why wasn’t it measured? Maybe because it was cold and Rossi didn’t want the testers to know.

        * Claimed heat release that would have melted the nickel in the core and much of the equipment.

        * Power measurement by clamp-on meters that may show no current when there is current. See the ‘cheese video’ to see how easy it is to do that. Why wasn’t input electrical energy properly measured? Maybe because Rossi was putting in more energy just like he did with the huge diesel generator in one of his previous stage acts.

        * The nonsensical addition of energy by electrical heating for a process that is supposed to be generating huge amounts of excess energy.

        This test was a farce. Inasmuch as reputations could be hurt, they already have. The Bath University letter comes to mind. Frankly, the whole argument about damaged reputations is hugely overblown. How many people do you think really follow or care about what the seven scientists wrote? A few thousand? How many of the followers could affect the reputation of the ‘Magnificent Seven’? I think not many.

        • Paul Stout

          June 6, 2013 at 4:30 pm

          Detecting fraud when you are talking hundreds of watts and a factor of three is approaching child’s play. Give me an hour with the same access and test equipment that the testers had and I will tell you down to the watt exactly how much power is going into the power supply and an upper limit as to how much is going into the E-Cat.

          No, we are not aware of the holes in the testing. We are only aware of the holes in the test report.

          To an engineer, there are some obvious reasons why the external electrical heating source is needed. The November test is a prime example of what happens when you build a device that does not need external heat to continue to operate.

          Fooling both the voltage and current measurement tests is not nearly as simple or straight forward as you claim.

          Generating the temperature curves that the testers found is not complex. Realizing that it is necessary ahead of time requires a level of intellect that has not been otherwise demonstrated by Rossi.

          • John Milstone

            June 6, 2013 at 8:27 pm

            Detecting fraud when you are talking hundreds of watts and a factor of three is approaching child’s play.

            Which is why it’s so hard to understand why they didn’t do a proper job of it.

            There is no indication that they tested for fraud. They only did sufficient testing to exclude accidental errors.

            Perhaps they, and you, think that Rossi is implicitly trustworthy, but in that you are certainly in the minority.

          • Paul Stout

            June 6, 2013 at 9:06 pm

            We do not know that they did not test for fraud. All we know is what is in the report. I know for certain that the report is incomplete. For example, one of the pictures in the report shows some Heim test equipment that was not listed in the report.

          • John Milstone

            June 6, 2013 at 11:40 pm

            We do not know that they did not test for fraud. All we know is what is in the report.

            And we don’t know that they didn’t check to see if the Tooth Fairy was sitting in the E-Cat, generating the excess power using her fairy dust.

            If they didn’t bother putting it in the report, then it’s reasonable to assume they didn’t do it.

            Do you notice that you have to resort to “anything is possible” excuse to justify your position? With that kind of thinking, you are an easy target for any con man who comes by.

            Which is why you believe Rossi.

          • Paul Stout

            June 7, 2013 at 3:02 am

            Assuming that a group of professors are foolish is another way to become an easy target.

            Yes, we do know that they checked for the Tooth Fairy. The IR cameras ruled out that possibility.

            We do know that they ran voltage and current checks. It would be very difficult to use any coaxial type of cable to fool both tests.

            We know that one of the testers took close up pictures of the power socket, and that was not in the report.

            We know that one of the testers examined the power supply from all angles, including lifting it off the table, and that was not in the report.

            From all reports, the testers took due diligence and I have to believe that they would not miss something so obvious as a coaxial wire connection on the power cord.

            It appears that your assumption that the testers are foolish is solely because you do not like the results of their test.

          • John Milstone

            June 7, 2013 at 7:45 am

            Yes, we do know that they checked for the Tooth Fairy. The IR cameras ruled out that possibility.

            IR cameras don’t show Tooth Fairies.

            We know that one of the testers took close up pictures of the power socket, and that was not in the report.

            Photos don’t show whether an outlet (or a cable) are correctly wired or not.

            The “Cheese” video clearly shows a picture of a normal-looking power socket, and yet it was certainly rigged to fake the results that Rossi/Levi are claiming.

            It appears that your assumption that the testers are foolish is solely because you do not like the results of their test.

            I don’t have a high opinion of a researcher who makes extraordinary claims, based on data he “lost” (Levi), or who makes definitive statements about steam quality, when he doesn’t know anything about steam (Essen).

            Once again, please review the “cheese” video and 1: explain how he did it, and 2: explain how Rossi couldn’t have done something similar.

            But I guess you don’t like the results of that test.

          • robiD

            June 7, 2013 at 9:36 am

            To all who think that a trick like the “wire inside the wire” is possible, if I were you, I’d take a look to figures n.5, n.10 and the first of the figures 12 of the report.
            After that if you still think that a trick like that is possible, well I think you have lost the contact with reality, or you have no idea at all on what means connecting two wires that carry tens of Amperes (and not the 0.01A of the “cheese power” video).
            Too much Internet, PCs and tablets make someone’s brain a bit confused.

          • Paul Stout

            June 7, 2013 at 10:55 am

            Sorry Robid, but the wires in question are not shown in those figures. The wires in question are the power cord from the wall to the power supply.

            To accomplish a fraud, it would be necessary to hide about 600 watts of power input to the power supply which works out to around 3 amps.

            A good power cord would be 12 gauge, which is capable of handling 20 amps with no issue, so the size of the wire is not the limiting issue.

          • Paul Stout

            June 7, 2013 at 11:23 am

            To John Milstone;

            I still haven’t figure out how to flumux the “dummy” test. According to the test report, the testers had access to the reactor to see the wiring and power resistors.

            If, despite this access, Rossi was able to add the steel reactor core to the circuit only for the dummy test, it still doesn’t work. If it is in parallel with the resistors, the power wires going to the ECAT cannot handle enough current to provide the heat.

            If it the steel cylinder is in series with the resistors, then the change in resistance is in the micro ohms and not detectable by the power supply.

            To detect the presence of the nickel charge inside the steel cylinder using magnetic resonance would be extremely difficult, and probably not possible.

            I still need to go through and calculate the power difference based on the measured temperature for the test run and the dummy run.

          • Paul Stout

            June 7, 2013 at 12:49 pm

            To John Milstone;

            Another problem I run into is how to create the output temperature curves that are shown in the test results.

            It would be necessary to derive part of the power from the “visible” current at a fixed rate, and derive the rest of the power from the “invisible” current with a very peculiar output waveform.

            It makes the power supply extremely complex, and even then I think it would be impossible to hide the power factor changes from the meter that they are using.

          • robiD

            June 7, 2013 at 2:14 pm

            @ Paul Stout
            Sorry Robid, but the wires in question are not shown in those figures. The wires in question are the power cord from the wall to the power supply

            No Paul, if Rossi wanted to fraud with tricky wires, he had to put them everywhere because he could not to know where the testers would place the clamps or the instruments.
            The pictures show clearly that there are 4-screws electric terminals where you can’t connect a two wires cable without suspects because are open and in full sight, moreover also the connections to the reactor are in full sight.
            For the current, in the first test there were 2034W output with 340W input hence 1700W “hidden” in the supposed tricky wires that means a lot of current (depending on the voltage) that has to flow in both directions.

          • Paul Stout

            June 7, 2013 at 3:07 pm

            To robiD

            Good point. According to the test report, the testers did measure the current from the power supply to the E-Cat.

            However, the test report only mentions this being done during the dummy run and does not state if this was repeated during the real test. So, we do not know if this happened or not.

          • Tony

            June 7, 2013 at 5:10 pm

            I still think this is a damning statement by Rossi. According to him, the input power measurements are made from the line coning from the wall and into the control panel where the “industrial secret” waveform is being generated and sent to the ecat. The investigators never measured the output of the control panel into the ecat. Maybe I’m missing something here but if the power to the ecat was NOT measured right at the ecat itself, then the control panel could be hiding just about anything.


            Andrea Rossi
            May 24th, 2013 at 4:56 AM

            To the Readers:
            A friend of mine, Prof. of Electric Measurements , put me a question that I think is important to reproduce here:
            ” The measurement of the electric energy consumed by the resistance could have been affected by the fact that a particular wave has been produced that the instrument of measurement could have not been able to measure”. This question is important. The answer is: the measurement of the electric energy that has been consumed by the resistances has been made BETWEEN THE PLUG OF THE GRID AND THE CONTROL PANEL, NOT BETWEEN THE CONTROL PANEL AND THE RESISTANCES. Therefore the wave of the electricity in the point in which the electric energy consumed has been measured was a full, regular wave od alternate current ( the instrumentation used allowed also to see the wave form). AGAIN:
            Obviously the Examiners wanted to measure the energy consumed between the plug of the grid and the control panel exactly for this reason. This can be also found in the Report.
            Warm Regards,


          • LCD

            June 10, 2013 at 2:01 pm


  30. Al Potenza

    June 5, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    If Paul is following these comments, note that Krivit has posted some new information. It says that Kullander independently tested the ecat under auspices of Uppsala University officially. The article further states that the test took place and the ecat did not work. For reasons not stated, Kullander never released the information.

    Also according to Krivit, Goran Ericsson, a professor in the Applied Nuclear Physics Division of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Uppsala University, provided “detailed information” about this negative test of the ecat.

    Frankly, I am amazed that Rossi would ever allow such a test. The rest of the article is behind a pay wall. Maybe you can check with Professor Ericsson directly.

    Krivit’s article is here:

    • John Milstone

      June 6, 2013 at 11:09 am

      It’s worth remembering that Kullander promised, in November 2011, to release a “detailed isotopic analysis” of the “ash” from an E-Cat. He promised to release it “before Christmas”.

      He never released such a report, and he never explained why he failed to do so.

      Until he does one or the other, there is no reason to believe or trust anything he says.

    • MaxS

      June 6, 2013 at 4:01 pm

      from Krivit´s website

      The failed test attempt took place in the fall of 2012. Kullander never publicly revealed anything about it.

      No dementi from the Sweds, so we can assume the report is substantiated. Silence of Kullander could be because of NDA.
      Of course, believer forums (ECW) ignore this or react aggressively (FB).
      But it means that even after Pordenone and Zürich, Rossi did not have a reliable working device. If Rossi has a more reliable device now, is entirely another question.
      Still the question remains, if Rossi is real, why does he not test the old e-cat, why this fuss with the hot cat (which did not work). I still have the impression the hot cat is primarily a more sophisticated fake device, that is why he tested it. Red flag again.

      • John Milstone

        June 6, 2013 at 8:23 pm

        The reliability of Rossi’s gadget appears to be inversely proportional to the competence of the people watching the demo.

        • MaxS

          June 10, 2013 at 10:58 am

          I would rather say it is directly proportional…..

  31. CuriousChris

    June 6, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    for those who want to help the LENR cause

  32. Shane D.

    June 6, 2013 at 11:39 pm

    Hanno Essen:

    “In the interview I answered that there was no direct measurement of dc (since the clamps could not detect such). This was a bit hasty. In future I will not answer such technical questions without conferring with all coauthors. After analysing what we checked and measured (which were many more variables that those from the clamps) we can definitely exclude dc-current. (This is what comes from being nice to journalists.)”

    Torbjorn Hartman:

    “Remember that there were not only three clamps to measure the current on three phases but also four connectors to measure the voltage on the three phases and the zero/ground line. The protective ground line was not used and laid curled up on the bench.

    The only possibility to fool the power-meter then is to raise the DC voltage on all the four lines but that also means that the current must have an other way to leave the system and I tried to find such hidden connections when we were there.

    The control box had no connections through the wood on the table. All cables in and out were accounted for. The E-cat was just lying on the metal frame that was only free-standing on the floor with no cables going to it.

    The little socket, where the mains cables from the wall connector where connected with the cables to the box and where we had the clamps, was screwed to the wood of the bench but there was no screws going through the metal sheet under the bench. The sheet showed no marks on it under the interesting parts (or elsewhere as I remember it).

    Of course, if the white little socket was rigged inside and the metal scews was long enough to go just through the wood, touching the metal sheet underneath, then the bench itself could lead current.

    I do not remember if I actually checked the bench frame for cables connected to it but I probably did. However, I have a close-up picture of the socket and it looks normal and the screws appear to be of normal size. I also have pictures of all the connectors going to the power meter and of the frame on the floor.

    I took a picture every day of the connectors and cables to the power meter in case anyone would tamper with them when we were out.

    I lifted the control box to check what was under it and when doing so I tried to measure the weight and it is muck lighter than a car battery. The box itself has a weight, of course, and what is in it can not be much.

    All these observations take away a number of ways to tamper with our measurements but there can still be things that we “didn’t think of” and that is the reason why we only can claim “indications of ” and not “proof of” anomalous heat production. We must have more control over the whole situation before we can talk about proof.”

    • CuriousChris

      June 7, 2013 at 3:25 am

      Out of that only the last paragraph is meaningful.

      They admit they did not do a thorough enough job.

      For example every researcher who isn’t looking for fraud knows they must calibrate their instruments before running any tests. Yet as far as I am aware they failed to do that.

      The DC meter my have been rigged. easy
      The inductive probes may have been rigged. easy

      What people fail to include when endorsing things such as the ecat. and critics are always trying to remind them is these claims are extraordinary.

      If I told you I could fly without any mechanical assistance it could not be less extraordinary. If I said I could prove it, you would come prepared to find the mirrors, hidden wires or electromagnetic fields. you wouldn’t rock up with just a notepad a camera.

      Given Essen and the others know the significance of this claim. since they have already been criticised in the past for failing to apply proper rigour. Given that its their credibility on the line one must ask why did they not take these simple precautions?

      So Hanno Essen, Why?

      • Shane D.

        June 7, 2013 at 4:18 am


        I see your point: you are brilliant and this esteemed, highly credentialed, and very accomplished panel of scientists are a bunch of buffoons.

        And your credentials are?

        Skilled in armchair criticisms? Backseat driving perhaps? Please educate us.

        • John Milstone

          June 7, 2013 at 7:53 am

          I love how the “True Believers” reject the authority of 99% of the scientific community, and then expect everyone to blindly accept the authority of the 1% simply because they like their version.

          Meanwhile, both Levi and Essen (and Kullander, although he wasn’t a named author) have serious credibility problems. And from Essen’s comments it appears that the test was conducted by Levi, with the others just watching. Essen made it clear that Levi was responsible for the instrumentation, and we know that he worked with Rossi to decide what they would and would not test.

          But don’t let any of that stop you from blindly accepting this seriously flawed report. The Cold Fusion True Believers have been claiming that we are just months away from the Revolution every since 1989, but I’m sure this time they have it right!

          • MaxS

            June 7, 2013 at 8:28 am

            In fact Prof Levi seems to be the key. He was conducting the experiment and also in 2011 he was a contributor (witness) to the e-cat story.
            He acted a bit sloppy in the past, it did not seem that he was exceptionally committed or qualified, however that does not necessarily mean he would be incompetent and/or corrupt. But the fact that Rossi chose him, apparently as the lead examiner, raises eyebrows. I don´t trust this guy (simply because he is too close to Rossi), but others seems to have faith in Prof Levi´s professional opinion. Question is what do we really know as hard fact in favour or against his credibility (apart from losing some data and not repeating the experiments)?

          • Shane D.

            June 7, 2013 at 3:48 pm


            I place my trust in the scientists who were there doing the testing. In this case there were 7 present. Can’t fit the other “99% of scientific community” in there, so who do I believe?…

            The seven in the room setting up the equipment, studying the layout, searching the very small hotcat, it’s control equipment, electrical input/output, for evidence of deception? The ones running the test over a 5 day period….

            Or do I more believe the peanut gallery? Those sitting in the bleachers viewing this all from afar?

            By the way; I do listen to the others in the scientific community who were not there and if they have something plausible -while being respectful (not very often) of their colleagues, then I surely take note. I view this process as an internet peer review. It seems pretty effective.

            So far though, what little I hear, which at first appeared plausible, on further review proves to be very unlikely, or in some cases impossible.

            As of this date I would say that the Levi/Essen team has survived the very rigourous peer review on it’s scientific merits, and weathered the personal assault upon their integrity from those like you with reputations still in tack.

        • CuriousChris

          June 8, 2013 at 1:00 am

          @Shane D
          When I spoke about calibrating instruments Shane I spoke about the most basic of scientific methods. one that is taught in high schools the world over. Every science instructor impresses upon their students the need to ensure their equipment is up to the task. Some students of course will fail to carry the most basic of rules through to their career.

          As you seem to have not recalled this most basic fact of science teaching then I must conclude that you are not a student of science. Therefore you lack the experience necessary for this discussion.

          As to the credentials of those involved. They are either far too trusting. which in itself is stupid when testing something as extraordinary as LENR (why I made that point) Or they don’t apply the most basic lessons of science and research which implies they are less learned than the average high school student.

          As I consider myself more intelligent than the average high school student then in general terms you are probably right I am better qualified then the authors of that paper.

          Its only logical.

          • Shane D.

            June 8, 2013 at 4:10 am


            Where do I start with you? On the one hand I, in your opinion, am too untrained to weigh in on this discussion (maybe you have a point there)…

            while on the other hand, the 7 highly experienced, elite academics/scientists, you roast over an open charcoal fire… all because they are also too “stupid and trusting” to weigh in on the matter also!

            Just who does qualify in your: “more intelligent than the average high school” (by the way, that is not saying a whole lot nowadays) opinion to speak on the issue?

            I see lots of very smart, qualified people involved in LENR research and commercial development. Few, if any, lightweights in there that I can see.

            Maybe you should lay out your qualifications for us to see, and then we can match them to your opponents? See who has the better brain power?

            You are anonymous, and doing so shouldn’t expose you so why not?…

            So what are your creds CC?

          • Thicket

            June 8, 2013 at 9:21 pm


            You say

            ‘7 highly experienced, elite academics/scientists’

            Surely you must see your bias. How do you know that they are highly experienced and elite? You don’t know that. You simply assume that. You embellish qualifications of folks probably because that enhances your justification for your beliefs in Rossi. They could be inexperienced and below average for all you know. How experienced do you think they are at detecting fraud, especially when they’ve already demonstrated their belief in Rossi? Their pro-Rossi bias is why Rossi picked them.

            There were no courses in ‘Detecting Fraud’ in my undergraduate and graduate engineering curriculum.

            I know some ‘not so good’ professors and scientists. A good friend of mine couldn’t get a job when he graduated from engineering. He went on to grad school and became an engineering professor. He’s competent at his job but hardly ‘elite’.

            A fellow named Peter Jansson was an executive at the electric utility, Connectiv. He single-handedly gave Randy Mills of Blacklight Power millions of company money for fraudulent hydrino research. Connectiv fired him for it. Jansson remade himself as an academic and became head of the Chemical Engineering Dept. at Rowan University. Jansson and his staff became paid shills for Blacklight Power, publishing glowing reports of excess, anomalous heat from experiments. Hydrino believers thought that Jansson and his staff were ‘highly experienced and elite’.

          • CuriousChris

            June 9, 2013 at 2:25 am


            I do not consider those researchers unintelligent. Easily fooled yes. Gullible Yes. More importantly I consider them self delusional.

            My proof is simple. They did not undertake basic taught at high school level precautions against equipment error (or sabotage). Why did they not take these very basic precautions?

            Because they want to believe.

            There are some very basic mistakes being made. ones that are made constantly and consistently. One must ask why.

            No matter how much you protest. You and no-one else should ignore the glaring failures made by supposedly experienced researchers.

            I would have a totally different opinion. If they had shown in the arxiv paper that they had taken these precautions. The very fact that they did not cover them in the paper and had to make a belated after the fact statement that they did check certain things is to me sloppy and by itself should invalidate the paper.

            By ignoring those errors in judgement yourself. you too are perpetuating the problem.

            None of what I have said requires anything more than some experience. If you haven’t the necessary experience or training it is not surprising that you would miss what I consider obvious. but the fact you resist the obvious once its explained to you, means you like the researchers don’t want to consider the alternative.

            That you have had the wool pulled over your eyes.

      • Paul Stout

        June 7, 2013 at 12:55 pm

        Invalid argument. A rigged DC meter or inductive probe would have shown up in the dummy test.

        • Jami

          June 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm

          Why would it? The dummy test was run with a different electrical setup (not “pulsed”) and so it would have been easy to simply switch off whatever trickery was used during the other tests.

          • Paul Stout

            June 7, 2013 at 3:02 pm

            The dummy test was run with the same pulsed electrical setup. Electrically, the only difference was that the core temperature of the E-Cat did not go high enough on the dummy to switch the power supply off.

          • Jami

            June 7, 2013 at 9:23 pm

            “only difference was that the core temperature of the E-Cat did not go high enough on the dummy to switch the power supply off”

            You’re making that up, Paul. Just like the thing with them providing their own cables. Why do you do that?

        • John Milstone

          June 7, 2013 at 3:00 pm

          It may be very significan that the “dummy” run kept the power on the whole time.

          If the power input was rigged to pass current even when it appeared to be “off” (as has been demonstrated is easy to do), then they did exactly what it would take to not expose that fraud.

          There is no good reason for the “dummy” run to have a completely different power profile other than to hide something. It certainly didn’t qualify as a “control run”.

          • Paul Stout

            June 7, 2013 at 4:04 pm

            On the test run, the data showed that the power supply turned the heater power off when the temperature exceeded a certain level and turned it back on when it fell below that same temperature.

            If the temperature of the core never exceeded the threshold, then the power supply would continue to supply power without shutting off.

            If you look at the output temperature curves, it is obvious that this cannot be easily simulated using a power supply and resistance heating.

          • John Milstone

            June 7, 2013 at 5:49 pm

            If the temperature of the core never exceeded the threshold, then the power supply would continue to supply power without shutting off.

            So Rossi says.

            All we know is that the “dummy” test run kept the power turned “on” the whole time.

            And we know that this behavior would nicely conceal a fraud involving feeding power in when there was supposedly no power flowing.

            We’ll see if and when they do another test whether they take any of the suggestions about eliminating uncertainty. In particular, I hope they unplug the gadget from the wall outlet during the “off” time.

            I bet they don’t.

          • CuriousChris

            June 8, 2013 at 1:14 am

            @Paul “On the test run, the data showed that the power supply turned the heater power off when the temperature exceeded a certain level and turned it back on when it fell below that same temperature.”

            Yes its a good point you make.

            Perhaps you can explain how this happened when there was no temperature probe in either the dummy or the live unit?

            One explanation is the live unit had an extra heater coil which had an internal thermal switch. Because this was not active in the dummy run it never switched the power off.

            I too can quote random bits of text from the report. but without context I like you would not be making a valid point.

            And see my other post about making a choice please. Are Rossi and Goons intelligent or stupid. stop vacillating.

          • Jami

            June 8, 2013 at 11:45 am

            “Perhaps you can explain how this happened when there was no temperature probe in either the dummy or the live unit?”

            He could measure resistance from the active coils to infer temperature. Not very exact but probably good enough for the purpose. I’m not saying he does that and, as you say, there is absolutely nothing in the text or in any of the interviews suggesting that the dummy test wasn’t manually controlled.

        • CuriousChris

          June 8, 2013 at 1:06 am

          @Paul. do you think that a person of average intelligence would not think to make sure the dummy run acted exactly as a dummy run would be expected to do?

          This is the most amazing of claims by true believers. That Rossi and stooges are too dumb to be able to fake a demonstration yet are smart enough to solve a problem that is so extraordinary in its claims that most of science believes it is simply impossible.

          Dont you see the very obvious and basic mistakes you and your cohorts are making. Either Rossi is super intelligent or too stupid.

          Please choose a point of view and stick to it.

          • Paul Stout

            June 9, 2013 at 7:13 pm

            from an engineer’s point of view, the dummy run was as close as possible. There was no way to make it any closer.

          • Thicket

            June 10, 2013 at 1:07 am

            From an engineer’s point of view, the dummy run was useless.

          • CuriousChris

            June 10, 2013 at 2:22 am

            How do you know the dummy run was as close as possible.

            Did they repeat the test with the dummy cylinder this time charged? No they did not. The only comparison between the dummy and the live was they looked the same.

            Ever seen a magician disappear in a puff of smoke and instantly appearing on the other side of the stage??

            I hate to break it to you. one or the other was not the real magician they use makeup and wigs.

            Neither you nor I or even Essen has any idea rather than speculation on how the dummy was arranged.

            I cannot impress upon you enough. What Rossi is claiming is so extraordinary that with the exception of a few mavericks and their followers its considered impossible. Even if it is possible and I honestly hope it is. You are crediting a cheat a liar and a conman with something that the best in the business cannot do (the best today is a few joules).

            I mean really!

  33. MaxS

    June 7, 2013 at 8:43 am

    More Rossi clownery:

    May 31st, 2013 at 2:37 AM

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Two questions:

    1) Can you tell us how many pre-orders for the home ecat have been placed ?
    2) After obtaining all certifications, how long is it necessary to your partner(s) to produce and deliver these orders ?


    Andrea Rossi
    May 31st, 2013 at 4:21 AM

    1- about 1 million. without any engagement, to be confirmed when we will send the offers with the price
    2- this is a question to which is not easy to answer, but I can tell you that we are already preparing the robotized lines.
    Warm Regards,

    the answer is absurd. If Rossi has really 1 mio pre-orders for working devices, why is he selling licences so cheaply?

  34. Shane D.

    June 7, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    I find this interview very, very interesting. Prof. Kim, an old time cold fusion adherent, author of the BEC linked LENR theory, is being interviewed by Peter Gluck -early pioneer in LENR research.

    Here is one part I find most intriguing:

    “Recently, I had an opportunity to observe experimental runs of DGTG’s R-5 reactor carried out by their group of scientists in Vancouver. The results were positive. More importantly the results are reproducible, since there had been many positive runs with other observers so far in addition to my observation. This is very significant historically since we have now a device which yields reproducible results for the first time. It is a break-through which we have been waiting for.”

    This interview with Kim only hints at what little we know about the behind the scenes story that will only be told when LENR makes it’s public debut. If Kim has seen the hyperion in action and never said a word until asked, then how many more have seen it also?

    This interview gives some validity to DGTs hyperion LENR+ device, while also backing up DGTs contention that many scientists have witnessed their product performance.

    Another check in the meta data column.

    Thank you Peter Gluck!

  35. Thicket

    June 7, 2013 at 5:22 pm

    Krivit is at it again.

    It’s an open letter to Rossi’s academic eCat promoters.

    Skeptics will applaud, believers will throw bricks.

    • Shane D.

      June 7, 2013 at 6:16 pm

      Personally, I think the ecat wasn’t working very well that day and, Rossi being Rossi, tried to manipulate it to look like it was working as Krivits filmed. The look on Rossis face…

      Were I Krivits, instead of launching into this vindictive campaign he has launched since that private showing, I would have stated my doubts in less absolute, more political, terms just in case I was wrong. Truth is, based on that video, it’s all speculation anyways.

      That would have at least preserved Krivits reputation within the LENR field. As it is now, I can’t imagine anyone ever trusting him with an interview, much less allowing him to observe their product in action. He has effectively locked himself out of the very same LENR field he has nurtured, right as it finally nears reality.

      His overreaction to Rossi does, as Rossi claims, make him look the snake. This letter confirms that.

      • CuriousChris

        June 8, 2013 at 1:44 am

        Krivit has a good reputation in the LENR Field
        His reputation is only sullied in the eyes of Rossi believers.

        “Personally, I think the ecat wasn’t working very well that day and, Rossi being Rossi, tried to manipulate it to look like it was working as Krivits filmed. The look on Rossis face…”

        Why should it only be that day. Why give him so much benefit of the doubt.

        An honest man would have said we are having some problems please come back tomorrow. A dishonest man would behave exactly as he did.

        Again I implore upon you. Given the extra ordinariness of his claims what is most likely. A dishonest man who truly made an impossible breakthrough or a dishonest man caught out.

        • Shane D.

          June 8, 2013 at 3:37 am


          Rossi is by no means an angel. He does exaggerate a great deal and outright lies on other occasions. I really can’t explain why he is that way.

          It has been a source of frustration for his supporters for sure, including yours truly. I know Jed Rothwell is on his sh### list, yet Jed is a supporter also. Rossi is a complicated person.

          I do keep in mind however that he has been open enough to have demonstrated his ecats many times, both publicly and privately, and allowed testing numerous times by highly qualified scientists. In most cases those scientists walk away impressed.

          Oddly too, sometimes the ecat doesn’t work on que (NASA, Krivits, Uppsalla) yet instead of retreating like a scam artist, Rossi double downs and subjects his ecat to even more public scrutiny… and in most cases the next time around the thing works. That is very convincing to me.

          Thanks curious for being civil. You have some good points as do the skeptics that rule ECNs, but so often those points are lost to the delivery.

          • CuriousChris

            June 8, 2013 at 4:59 am

            “Oddly too, sometimes the ecat doesn’t work on que (NASA, Krivits, Uppsalla) yet instead of retreating like a scam artist”

            I can see from this you do not have a great deal of experience with scam artists

            That is exactly how they operate. They know that many people will give them the benefit of the doubt. so they will always bluster. when they are caught out they do not retreat. they simply accuse the other person of lying or being incompetent.

            He would not be a con artist if he ran away because someone accused him of fraud. He would be a failed con artist. Rossi is accomplished. he has many many victims under his belt including the US Navy. It takes a ballsy con artist to achieve that.

            I had one of those Indian callers the other day claiming he was from Microsoft and that I had a virus on my computer. If I just gave him access he would be able to fix it for me.

            IT security is one of my main focuses at work. I told him point blank he was lying and was involved in fraud. Do you know what he did? He insisted I was wrong and I should let him fix the computer. I repeated my assertion and he continued to flagrantly lie to me. In the end I hung up. I had expected him to hang up when he realised he was caught out.

            But that’s not how con artists work. they work by being so confident you doubt yourself instead of them. That’s the very reason they are also called confidence tricksters.

            The very attributes you use to excuse Rossi are the very attributes that a con man hopes you will use.

          • Thicket

            June 8, 2013 at 1:12 pm

            Shane D

            You say

            “instead of retreating like a scam artist, Rossi doubles down and subjects his ecat to even more public scrutiny… That is very convincing to me.”

            There’s the rub, Shane. Accomplished con men don’t retreat. They lie with great confidence and carry on. Most people can’t conceive that someone would lie in such an obvious and blatant way.

            Rossi has had many failures. He just picks more credulous folks for his next demonstration. He ignores the failed ones and trumpets those witnessed by people he successfully fooled.

            Also, none of his demonstrations were public. Access was always restricted.

            Here’s a characterization of the victims of con men.

            “Confidence tricks exploit typical human characteristics such as greed, dishonesty, vanity, opportunism, lust, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, desperation, and naïvety. As such, there is no consistent profile of a confidence trick victim; the common factor is simply that the victim relies on the good faith of the con artist. Victims of investment scams tend to show an incautious level of greed and gullibility, and many con artists target the elderly, but even alert and educated people may be taken in by other forms of confidence trick.”

          • LCD

            June 10, 2013 at 2:30 pm

            Just remember everytime you guys unqualifiably state that Rossi is a con artist you are also at a minimum clearly saying with the same certainty that DGT are also con-artists. And you are also clearly stating that Focardi and Levi are probably the dumbest people on the planet or they are in on the scam.

            It’s important to note that because new people won’t correlate these things.

      • LCD

        June 10, 2013 at 2:23 pm

        Miley will never talk to him again. Storms can’t stand him. The list goes on and on. Your absolutely right.

  36. Dale G. Basgall

    June 8, 2013 at 4:31 pm

    Regardless of any testing either flawed or perfect, written or said, the object invention e-cat “is not performing”. An invention was claimed and those claims have yet to become evident.

    What use is the hot cat other than a new style space heater? As long as the electricity flows in there is evident heat emitted, nothing else. No useable electricity, no usefulness as of this moment and two years late on claims evolving.

    Things that are real and work get tested in the field by the purchasers of the tangible result, the product from the inventors work. There has never been a product from Rossi or Defkalion and they told us two years ago they had one. Both Mr. Rossi & Defkalion stated a product would become evident and it has not.

    Is there any more obvious facts to this claimed product e-cat than proof of it’s non existence? Products emerge into the public, that’s the entire point “sell your product” to many people. If it works and does something like generate electricity for a price someone can afford and doesn’t kill anyone in the process then what tests do we need other than specifics of performance.

    The Hot-Cat is no more than trash on a shelf as viewed and has no application to anyone at this point except amusement of future possibilities.

  37. Maurice

    June 8, 2013 at 10:58 pm

    I have been following this saga since the begin.
    I was quite enthusiastic at first: all those scientists involved, the multiple tests… it seemed unlikely that there was room for a serious mistake, or for an outright fraud that went undetected.
    But after some time I began to slowly lose my enthusiasm.
    The failure to account for possible fraud, all those little lies, the continuous delays, that ultimate proof that never arrived.

    So, I decided to stick to Rossi’s own words: that he didn’t need to deliver any definitive proof, since the market would speak for him, and decide if he had the real thing or not.

    That was more than three years ago, the first ecat had a COP of more than 6, and he said that within one year time he would hit the market.

    Now I’m asking: why is he back again with this test that seems convincing, but not completely so?

    Why, if this thing is working (and this Hot Cat is now older than a year), isn’t he starting the production?

    Why, if the previous model had a COP of 6, did he stop it’s production for this new Hot Cat that doesn’t do any better and seems just an excuse to justify more delays?

    I don’t want to jump to any conclusion, but I feel that the only way for him to be convincing at this point is to shut up AND put up.

    I’ll be waiting for him to hit the market and hear directly from his customers.

    • MaxS

      June 10, 2013 at 11:01 am

      good questions, do you know what a Potemkin village is?
      I can add some more questions
      Why, if the previous model (modules of industrial e-cat and domestic e-cat) had a guaranteed COP of 6, did Mr Rossi not carry out the tests for this “established” model, rather than taking the risk of a failure for a new development prototype?
      Why is there not even one customer testimonial and no single business record of the industrial e-cat which is “on the market since 2011”?
      Why, if Rossi has 1 mio pre-orders for e-cats, is Rossi selling licences so cheaply?
      Why, if they are working on a large scale manufacturing setup, do we not know any employees, scientists or engineers? None are listed in sites like LinkedIn, except the IT guy with Ukrainian links who calls himself technical director?
      Coming back to the test:
      Why not carry out the 3rd party test on neutral ground, by experts without e-cat legacy?
      Why was the equipment provided by an old time member of the e-cat trio, and not by an independent testing body?
      Why were the examiners not attending the first test and why was the unit already running when the test was started, which is compromising the integrity of results?
      Why take measurement with an IR camera with various assumptions and vague estimates? Why not calorimetry which would be the more widely accepted and more accurate method for heat measurement?
      I wonder is this only awkward or part of a designed game plan?

  38. PersonFromPorlock

    June 10, 2013 at 1:13 am

    Porlock’s nth law: As the length of a thread increases, the chance it will turn into a pissing contest approaches unity.

  39. sinnycool

    June 16, 2013 at 1:50 am

    The view seems polarised – either Rossi is a fraud – or he isn’t. Commentators here struggle to understand why Rossi would continue with a fraud.

    Isn’t there a simple answer to that?

    1) Rossi’s history (Petroldragon and waste heat) shows he was always interested in methods of obtaining low cost energy.

    2) He met Sergio Focardi, a genuine physicist with a patent on LENR and became a believer.

    3) Focardi had failed to produce a working model, Rossi determined to do that and succeed, based on Focardi’s work.

    4) When Rossi obtained what he believed were positive results owing to a combination of a) the imprecise nature of LENR b) inaccurate testing c) self delusion, he declared his hand and went public.

    5) His first public demonstrations were not very satisfactory and remained ambiguous because of 4) above.

    6) He succumbed to the lure of funding, hoping and believing that if he was able to spend more time and money then surely he would improve what he thought he had and turn it into a commercial reality. His over-promises were manifestations of self-belief and as much directed at himself and Focardi (who does not know how the E-Cat functions) and wants to believe in Rossi because Rossi will be vindicating Focardi’s scientific work.

    7) That turned into a slippery slope and, ladies and gentlemen, that brought us to where we are today. Rossi has now had to knowingly rig his experiments in order to prevent immediate ruin and is possibly still clinging to a belief that somehow he’s found the Holy Grail but still can’t quite drink from the cup.

  40. Beyondo

    November 4, 2013 at 9:48 am

    Not really an identical situation, with MccCorkmick. Aren’t there other businesses that claim to have results similar to Rossi? An analogous situation would require multiple separate businesses all selling fake detectors.

    BTW, How can I break into the lucrative Iraqi microphone business? 🙂

    Did you see how many microphones were on that podium!?

  41. Gil

    November 20, 2013 at 6:49 am

    Rossi is completely a fraud artist. He has successfully pulled frauds in the past and has learned how to do it very successfully. It is only people from the non scientific community that believe in this garbage. I examined this ecat information in great detail, and it took some months, to know with certainty, how this scam was being perpetrated.