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

Sergio Focardi Dies

June 22, 2013

The following was posted on Andrea Rossi’s blog today.  Please respect the memory and feelings of his family and friends.  From all I have seen,  he was a thoughtful,  intelligent man who worked hard in the hope of bettering us all.

Andrea Rossi
June 22nd, 2013 at 2:46 AM

SERGIO FOCARDI, PROF. EMERITUS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA, IS DEAD . I RECEIVED THE NEW FROM ITALY TODAY AT 3 A.M., USA EASTERN TIME, FEW MINUTES AGO.
We all have lost one of the greatest scientists in the field of the LENR.
For me he has been a tremendous ally, he helped our work enormously and the safety certifications that we are obtaining are the fruit of his consulting during the last 7 years. For me he has been also a teacher for Physics and Mathematics, anytime I needed his help in these matters to better understand the theory behind the effect of the E-Cat.
He has always worked with us with total, absolute and disinterested attitude, thinking only the the interest of the Science behind the LENR.
All the newspapers of the scientific world will say what he has been in the Scientific and University world and his enormous legacy: he has been Professor of Physics, Mathematic, he has been the Dean of the Scientific Faculties of the Alma Mater University of Bologna and the founder of the Cesena branch of the University of Bologna. His pubilcations in the fields of Mathematics and Physics are monumental.
Now, after a long period of illness, that obviously all his friends have taken secret to respect his privacy, he ceased to suffer and starts a new duty for God under anothe form of life. I am sure he will continue to look after my work from where he is now.
See you soon, my great Friend and Master Sergio! I will never forget our work together and that day in the Brasimone Nuclear facility.
Yours Andrea Rossi

Posted by on June 22, 2013. Filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

141 Responses to Sergio Focardi Dies

  1. John loraditch Reply

    June 22, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    God bless Focardi. May he always be remembered on th first full day of summer. The science he has pioneered will make the whole world as beautiful as the first day of summer.

  2. Shane D. Reply

    June 22, 2013 at 3:40 pm

    Good man. Hate to see anyone that bright and industrious go. I’m crossing my fingers that the ecat comes through as the crowning achievement of his career.

    In the very beginning Rossi stated that the only reason he started public demos was because his friend and co-developer of the ecat, Prof. Focardi, wanted to do so before he died.

    Of course, we all know now that by honoring his friends dying wishes Rossi showcased the ecat before all the bugs had been worked out, causing him a lot of grief.

  3. Al Potenza Reply

    June 22, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    “In the very beginning Rossi stated that the only reason he started public demos was because his friend and co-developer of the ecat, Prof. Focardi, wanted to do so before he died.”
    -
    That may be true, in part. But if he was going to do demos for Focardi’s sake, Rossi would have done decent demos. I never understood why Focardi agreed to the silly wet steam, misplaced thermocouple, never calibrated or blanked “demos” and to the totally idiotic spectacle of the container “plant” running without visible meters and connected to a huge diesel generator (in October 2011).

    “Of course, we all know now that by honoring his friends dying wishes Rossi showcased the ecat before all the bugs had been worked out, causing him a lot of grief.”
    -
    The idea that the ecat had not worked out bugs and that this is why the demos were not convincing is RIDICULOUS. The ecat is not credible because:

    - Rossi has never allowed a demo outside his lab and not using his friends, his equipment and his (bad) methods of testing.

    - Early demos did not properly test the output heat and this is probably the place that Rossi cheated with wet steam called dry and misplaced thermocouples, at different times.

    - The current demo probably cheats by some unknown (as yet) method most likely involving the input power bypassing the measuring instruments or missetting/misprogramming the complicated power meter.

    If there had been “bugs” in individual ecats, we would not have seen consistent claims to high excess power in EVERY public experiment. We would have seen Rossi switching to spare reactors of which he always several around on his work table. And we would not have seen bad measurement methods and Rossi’s overt, directly expressed (in JONP) refusal to calibrate properly.

    I am sorry for poor Focardi. He may have received a eulogy from a crook. His reputation in the future may include his participation, though without his knowledge, in Rossi’s fraud.

    • RonB Reply

      June 22, 2013 at 4:40 pm

      Sheesh Al,
      If you’re wrong about all this, you’re going to have some very heavy back-peddling to do. Several of you in this forum are going to have quite a bit of egg on your face.

      • psi Reply

        June 27, 2013 at 6:59 pm

        No kidding. Al, what’s the view like from the banks of De Nile?

        My condolences of course to Mr. Focardi’s family and friends. The world has lost a good and maybe a very great man and scientist.

    • michael from Italy Reply

      June 22, 2013 at 6:50 pm

      …..dear mr.Potenza, you have lost another occasion to shut up your….. My deepest condolences to Prof Emeritus Focardi’s family

    • CuriousChris Reply

      June 23, 2013 at 8:13 am

      Come on Al. He was kind enough to communicate with me last year. So although I do not condone his support for Rossi. It is nevertheless a sad day.

    • NJT Reply

      June 25, 2013 at 3:37 am

      Al, learn to keep your pie hole closed at times like this, please – cheez, the craz of some people…

    • Ctapp Reply

      July 11, 2013 at 3:18 am

      I read your complaints about the e cat all the time, don’t read this crap if you hate it so much. I could understand your points on testing procedures if it was a very small amount of exess heat but were talking just to get cop of 1 would be very hard to hide. As an electrician I would like to know exactly how someone could sneak extra power through a wire without an amp meter, voltage meter, or hertz meter detecting it. I know you can overlap voltage between cycles but all your meters would still pick it up. Not to mention the amount of credible people involved with these claims. I personally have had exess heat on a Stan Meyers type cell on the pass through bolts made of 304stainless which is 8 percent nickel my readings and the damage it caused to the housing made no sense to me started looking up stuff and I have learned a lot since so please just read it you will learn something I know you already have you didn’t know 304 stainless was 8 percent nickel so quit arguing with it we can all hope our fuel bills will go down with this can’t we

  4. Neil Farbstein Reply

    June 22, 2013 at 5:02 pm

    My condolences to Dr Focardi’s family and friends.
    I was hoping to meet him and talk about LENR. I think he was a great man. His insistence on demonstrating working models to show it works was a real savvy move designed to end the debate about whether cold fusion works or not.
    He had business sense as well as scientific expertise.

  5. Harry Perini Reply

    June 22, 2013 at 6:41 pm

    Posthumous Nobel Prize is not permitted so Focardi will not share with Rossi.

  6. LCD Reply

    June 22, 2013 at 6:48 pm

    Sad. Rest in peace Professor.

    • Stewart Mitchell Reply

      June 23, 2013 at 1:42 am

      Nobel prize is considered a joke , these days

      • praos Reply

        June 25, 2013 at 12:43 pm

        If it was awarded to Obama in recognition of his future achievements (including possible starting of WWIII), then it could be awarded to Focardi for his past future discoveries.

  7. Stephen Reply

    June 22, 2013 at 7:39 pm

    Has this been confirmed by others? I mean, what Rossi says… Anybody in Italy can confirm this piece of news?

    • Methusela Reply

      June 22, 2013 at 7:50 pm

      Is that supposed to be funny?

      Have some respect.

      • Stephen Reply

        June 23, 2013 at 8:13 am

        Not at all, I just don’t read/follow Italian News. Why would you think I was trying to be funny when somebody (might have) died???

  8. Ivy Matt Reply

    June 22, 2013 at 9:02 pm

    Requiescat in pace.

  9. Ron LENR Reply

    June 23, 2013 at 7:09 am

    To the decenters, I know you have nothing to go by in your criticism except slander and enuendos. We knew people like Al are classless and distasteful. If not moronic in there comments. But this latest convulsion confirms that they are despicable with no sense of decency. I do have an answer for Al the “method” of Ecat is LENR.

    My deepest sympathys to the Focardi family and friends. We have lost a great scientist and man.

    • spacegoat Reply

      June 23, 2013 at 10:16 am

      Condolences to the Focardi family.

      A lot of posters are displaying the Believer inability to separate emotion and empathy from facts.

      Al merely posted facts and the hope that Focardi’s upstanding reputation will not eventually be tarnished by Rossi.

    • Roger Barker Reply

      June 23, 2013 at 9:46 pm

      I am not a supporter of Rossi but RIP Sergio Focardi.

      It just goes to show what type person Al Potty really is with a comment like that.

  10. Thicket Reply

    June 23, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    It’s indeed sad that Sergio Focardi has passed away after a long struggle with cancer.

    Even in his death, Rossi uses Focardi to bolster his own image. Rossi used the dreams of a vulnerable old man with a terminal illness to lend credibility to the eCat fraud. Rossi’s lies about his relationship with the University of Bologna caused the head of the Physics department to publicly distance the university from Focardi. The university was embarrassed by Focardi. Focardi did not deserve to have his reputation tarnished by Rossi’s manipulations.

    Rest in peace Professor Focardi. You are now out of reach of the master manipulator.

  11. Al Potenza Reply

    June 23, 2013 at 6:04 pm

    Yes, Focardi was apparently a wonderful teacher and an extremely nice individual personally. All the sadder that he got taken in by Rossi.

    In their remembrance of Focardi, E-catworld.com quotes him as saying he had achieved experiments with “COP’s” of 200. So where are those results? In a more sober obituary, an Italian paper notes that Piantelli and Focardi’s cold fusion claims were tested by others and could not be replicated.

    “In 1996 a group of CERN directed by Antonino Zichichi attempted a replication of the experiment Piantelli-Focardi [13], the activity of study lasted almost a year, but in the end did not give a favorable result to the hypothesis an explanation of nuclear nature of the phenomenon [14] [15]. “

    ” For example, an attempt at independent verification has been carried out towards the end of the nineties, the researcher Luigi Nosenzo (University of Pavia), in collaboration with Luigi Cattaneo (CNR), at the University of Pavia. [16]

    The fruits of this work, in their entirety, were negative, as they have not achieved the goal of reproducing the phenomenon [17]. “

    From http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.affaritaliani.it/culturaspettacoli/morto-fisico-italiano-sergio-focardi.html

    …via Google translate

    • LCD Reply

      June 23, 2013 at 6:49 pm

      What’s sad is you and Thicket.

      Your Certainty in Uncertainty is pathetic. I have respect for skeptics who say, “we should be careful to believe everything that’s said.”
      .
      However I have no respect for your kind who throw out rumors, unsubstantiated third hand knowledge, and baseless assumptions as concrete proof.
      .
      I’ve never seen bigger fools who believe without doubt that in the stupidities they write.

      • Al Potenza Reply

        June 23, 2013 at 7:04 pm

        What are you talking about? All I did was to quote an Italian newspaper. If you have a problem with what they wrote, write to them.

        If you have a problem with the lack of belief that Rossi is for real, just get him to do a proper experiment. For openers, he could start by having someone other than him or Levi repeat Levi’s February 2011 simple experiment with liquid flow calorimetry.

        Rossi will never get an independent test. Because it would prove he’s a liar.

        I am always amazed and amused when believers blame skeptics for the general lack of belief that Defkalion and Rossi have the goods. Well, the fault is not with the skeptics! It’s with Defkalion and Rossi, neither of which has EVER allowed even a SINGLE independently done reliable test properly conducted.

        Why don’t you talk to THEM about this?

        • dsm Reply

          June 23, 2013 at 10:11 pm

          Al
          .
          It is usually polite to be respectful and quiet at a funeral or memorial service and essentially this thread is the latter.
          .
          Cheers
          .
          DSM

        • LCD Reply

          June 24, 2013 at 1:53 pm

          all I did was quote…..
          .
          do I really have to point out that you didn’t just do that.
          .
          I don’t have the time it takes to counter every worthless and unsubstantiated post you people make. unlike you and thicket, and millstone, myugo, jkw, and others I actually have other things that take up my time.
          .
          I just want to continue to play spoiler to all the people who are new and have to wade through your groups nonsense before making up their minds on their own how much time they waste reading your disrespectful hogwash.

      • Thicket Reply

        June 23, 2013 at 10:29 pm

        LCD

        I think you’re the sad one. I have respect for Sergio Focardi. You made another ‘bash the skeptics’ post.

        In terms of rumours, third hand knowledge and assumptions, I won’t trot out the statement that the University of Bologna made about Focardi that trashed his reputation. Maybe another time.

        • Deleo77 Reply

          June 23, 2013 at 11:47 pm

          I think you are over-stating U of Bologna’s contempt for Focardi, and even Rossi. I understand he was supposed to have a research agreement with them that fell through, but Levi is still an active professor there, and is kind of Rossi’s right hand man. I think most of the skeptics believe that Levi is even in on the scam. So how would he keep his teaching position there if U of B had it out for Rossi? They would tell Levi to end the relationship or else. Below is Levi’s bio. He has been painted by some as Rossi’s towel boy who did what he had to do to help fake the independent test, but you will see below, that his bio doesn’t read too bad at all.

          Maybe U of B did trash Focardi, but everything I have read about him seems to imply that he was a highly respected nuclear physicist, not just in Bologna, but throughout all of Italy:

          http://www.unibo.it/Faculty/default.htm?TabControl1=TabCV&upn=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it

          • Al Potenza

            June 24, 2013 at 12:01 am

            I suspect Levi is tenured. We can’t know whether he is a crook working for Rossi or an incompetent who can’t hold Rossi to a proper test. I suppose only he can tell us and he won’t even answer emails from Brian Josephson about his early ecat tests. So much for Levi.

            Focardi did a lot of excellent work during his life. His relationship with Rossi was unfortunate. Nobody is disrespecting his memory. Let it go at that. Dying doesn’t get you a free pass for everything.

      • psi Reply

        June 27, 2013 at 7:05 pm

        Unfortunately, LCD, I believe this sort of approach to problems has dome to typify the “skepticism” movement online. There are other fields in which this sort of thing is also endemic and in some cases worse than seen here. Such persons are no friends to authentic skeptics, who apply their skepticism equally to claims of all sorts, even those made by established authorities, who are of course always fallible.

        Man, proud man, dressed in a little brief authority,

        as they are remembered in the bard’s *Measure for Measure” in the words of Isabella.

  12. Shane D. Reply

    June 23, 2013 at 8:47 pm

    Everyone has been wondering about Rossis tribute comment to Focardi:

    See you soon, my great Friend and Master Sergio! I will never forget our work together and that day in the Brasimone Nuclear facility

    Frank (ECW admin) asked Rossi about it on JONP and here is Rossis answer:

    Frank Acland:

    The contribution of Prof. Sergio Focardi has been mainly in the safety issues: without hios help in this matter I couldn’t make my work; beside this, he teached to me much of the Physics I needed to know and also made all the preliminary measurements that we made on the reactors in 2007, 2008 2009, 2010. Thousands of measurements, before daring to make the first presentation in January 2011.

    In the Brasimone nuclear facility ( in the Italian Appennines, between Bologna and Florence) we made tests to measure the radiations outside the reactor at full power, in destructive tests. He mastered the situation as only he was able to do. By the way, in the same Brasimone center he had made an important experiment regarding the search of gravitons.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  13. dsm Reply

    June 23, 2013 at 10:06 pm

    Professor Focardi,
    Eri parte di una nobile causa. Che tu possa riposare in pace tra le stelle fino a quando tutti noi uniamo a voi lì.

    DSM

    • psi Reply

      June 27, 2013 at 7:15 pm

      clarisima.

  14. CuriousChris Reply

    June 23, 2013 at 11:52 pm

    Paul. I respectfully ask that you start another topic.

    It is inevitable that this argument will once again flair up and it sad that it should do so in a post that is in remembrance of this controversial man.

    I for one would like to comment on Al’s previous post. but feel it is inappropriate here.

    • Al Potenza Reply

      June 24, 2013 at 12:01 am

      Nonsense. This topic string is just fine. Nobody is disrespecting Focardi.

      CuriousChris, if you have some defense of Focardi not requiring proper control tests and calibrations from Rossi early on and never questioning what was in the reactors or how the silly-looking things were made, then post it here.

      As I said above, dying doesn’t give you a free pass for everything.

      • CuriousChris Reply

        June 24, 2013 at 2:55 am

        I said I’d like to comment. But I still believe its disrespectful.

        Leave this post to condolences. We can use other posts to banter the merits of failed replications. Something I do tend to bang on about because it is so important.

      • kasom Reply

        June 24, 2013 at 1:14 pm

        Potenza, it seems, that You are not sceptic, but just hateful. Please stop chewing your hate on Rossi all day in front of blog readers. It’s boring + it’s obnoxious.

  15. RonB Reply

    June 24, 2013 at 4:24 pm

    Did the report stay that he died from cancer? That’s pretty scary since he was working with a device that was reported to produce gamma rays.

    • Thicket Reply

      June 24, 2013 at 4:52 pm

      There were reports on other blogs that Focardi was in hospital with cancer prior to his death. Focardi himself said that he had been treated for cancer in a 2011 interview. He said it was why he retired from being a Professor. We also know that he died after a long illness.

      This is circumstantial evidence, but quite compelling, in my opinion.

      • Al Potenza Reply

        June 24, 2013 at 5:37 pm

        Focardi was very elderly. If he had cancer, it probably had nothing to do with radiation exposure.

    • Dale G. Basgall Reply

      June 24, 2013 at 5:01 pm

      Ron there are regular electromagnetic frequencies associated with LENR experiments that have not been tested as for their safeness on humans or any other animals at present.

      It seems we just wait until enough people or animals are affected by something and die or worse, dying is easy when you start having symptoms of a chronic unknown sickness.

      Gamma Radiation is only one small possibility after you have been a nuclear scientist for as many years as Mr. Focardi. Mr. Rossi may as well have some type of illness due to his research and others developing it eventually as these reactive processes are discovered as in the LENR science.

      In fact just a cell phone emission can be chronic and we are all exposed to them 24/7.

      At least Mr. Rossi uses the word GOD many times so maybe Mr. Focardi can assist him better now from the “other side”. I am sure everyone else in physical existence is sadder now than Mr. Forcardi’s spirit.

      • RonB Reply

        June 24, 2013 at 5:59 pm

        Dale, What a nice thing to say. :)
        True about the many hazards around us but I remember in his TedX speech, he did talk about gamma ray detection. All his years in the research could have contributed to his illness but it sounds like he had a good life and I’m happy for that. I do hope this all works out and that he gets the proper credit.

      • psi Reply

        June 27, 2013 at 7:17 pm

        His heart is light, indeed, as the Egyptian proverb says.

    • CuriousChris Reply

      June 25, 2013 at 1:05 am

      People die of cancer every minute of every hour. Few have exposure to radiation above normal background.

      To try and draw a conclusion from that is just plain silly

  16. Al Potenza Reply

    June 24, 2013 at 6:56 pm

    Meanwhile, people on Vortex still fantasize somehow that skeptics are holding them up instead of the obvious failure of Defkalion and Rossi to deliver anything credible. Both claimed kilowatt level reactors under test by the dozens TWO YEARS AGO. Where are they? But people on Vortex write stupidity like the quote below, as if a skeptical comment in a blog could change the outcome of a working reactor properly shown to the press and the scientific community.

    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg83481.html

    “Jones’ nails it with this:
    “Look at the balance of this equation to Humanity … the risk/reward ratio
    is so skewed that the efforts of skeptics is just wrong if they delay
    progress by a day. They do not have to actually help – simply not impeding
    progress is sufficient.
    Silly. Brain-dead. Wrong. You guys are all smart enough to know better.”

    Couldn’t agree more…

    They are all smart enough to know better… the fact that they go to such
    great lengths, and spend a tremendous amount of their spare time going to
    all the different LENR-related and physics sites to debunk and spread
    misinformation can only be due to some severe emotional baggage they’re
    still carrying around with them. “

    Simply idiocy!

    • RonB Reply

      June 24, 2013 at 7:56 pm

      Al,
      Perhaps there’s some truth to what they say. I, for one, was pretty gung=ho to build a reactor. After coming to some of these blogs and reading that lots of people believe it’s insanity, I just decided to wait a bit and see what others come up with before I invest much more of my cold cash in parts and pieces. If it turns out the AHE is real then I’m going to be upset with myself for following the blind crowd. Although I paid dearly for my 99.99% pure nickle and have produced the hydrogen, I’ve not invested in the quartz tube to house it nor the vac pump to purge it.

      For all the lies you claim that AR has told, one truth he’s told that rings very true is the “lots of people won’t believe it ’till they can buy one at Home Depot”.

      • Al Potenza Reply

        June 24, 2013 at 8:17 pm

        @RonB

        If Rossi is right, what is the point of fumbling around with nickel and hydrogen and quartz tubes. Are you planning to make your own car from scratch> Your own airplane?

        • Deleo77 Reply

          June 24, 2013 at 9:08 pm

          I have followed 5 or 6 hot fusion companies, and all of them are years away from even prototypes of what they intend to one day commercialize. Anything to do with fusion is a seriously long endeavor.

          That being said, I do think even if Rossi has something, he seriously under-estimated the time, cost, and effort it would take to get a product out to market. Perhaps it is just the culture there in Italy, but maybe he didn’t think things through completely when he made those statements. He didn’t think about the full patent process, safety certifications, making the LENR reliable, designing a commercial product etc. He may have been seriously naive about all of this and then some, and he just spoke too soon. I don’t see why this all has to be viewed as intentional or malicious. Perhaps Rossi just didn’t think through the process to commercialization on the level that he should have.

          • psi

            June 27, 2013 at 7:21 pm

            There’s a lot of evidence to support this, not the least being Rossi’s own moments of open clarity when he admitted that he had not anticipated the range and strength of reactions to some of his public statements of a more sensational nature and that he had underestimated the licensing requirements for home units. It seems to me that Rossi is figuring this all out as he moves forward. With each step forward, he gains in credibility. Honest skeptics should start by admitting this and then going forward to explain why they still don’t believe the e-cat is real.

        • RonB Reply

          June 24, 2013 at 9:33 pm

          No, My own gamma-gun : )

          As for why I would do something if someone else has already done it, then why ever even paint a picture of a river or mountain scene?

      • Jami Reply

        June 24, 2013 at 8:38 pm

        And you’re not afraid of radiation sickness and your neighborhood vanishing in a mushroom cloud? I mean seriously – IF you really think some Ni + H + a little heat somehow does the trick, then what makes you think it is safe?

        (but I don’t want to discourage you. Go for it. When Italian high school kids can do it, then so can you, I suppose)

        • Al Potenza Reply

          June 24, 2013 at 11:32 pm

          There is no good evidence that Italian kids can do it. It’s claim involving the usual tiny amounts of power which makes it most likely a measurement error.

          Your other point is valid. If you could get a nuclear reaction between nickel and hydrogen, it could be very risky in terms of neutrons or gamma emissions. Even Rossi makes sure someone is testing for that during his experiments and he probably knows his experiments are entirely inert except for the huge electrical “safety” heater he is careful to put into each one, LOL.

          @RonB

          I suppose it’s fun to try copying Rossi for a hobby. If so, it doesn’t matter much one way or another if skeptics discourage you. If you fail, there is always Rossi to save the human race. Of course, he’s already had his fictional technology for two and a half years and we have seen none of it really doing anything. Not to mention that Raney nickel chemistry and battery chemistry has combined hydrogen and nickel for decades at a variety of elevated temperatures and has never seen a nuclear reaction. But hey, dream on. At least you’re not bamboozling and defrauding investors. I suspect Rossi is. Very much so along with Schneider, Green and probably a bunch of others.

          • Shane D.

            June 25, 2013 at 1:19 am

            There is no good evidence that Italian kids can do it.

            So obviously you have an issue with the “Italian kids”. Not smart enough for you apparently.

            Is it not enough that their forefathers established the UOB: -

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

            You must have some high standards.

            Can’t wait to see yours?

          • Jami

            June 25, 2013 at 8:08 am

            “Is it not enough that their forefathers established the UOB”

            You’re right, of course. Their forefathers founded the University of Bologna so there is no way they could be wrong. My forefathers were banging rocks together, so who am I to judge?

          • Jami

            June 25, 2013 at 8:11 am

            “There is no good evidence that Italian kids can do it.”

            Oh come on. That was sarcasm.

          • psi

            June 27, 2013 at 7:27 pm

            Al, do you really not see how you come across in a post like this one? Its the “anything but the e-cat” style of argument, its anti-historical fixation on an imagined “now” of authoritative consensus. Relax. You will be unable to keep the world safe from e-cats. Count on it. You might as well enjoy the ride by crossing over now from the “sore loser” team to join the Skeptical Prophets Association (SPA), which last I looked was still accepting anonymous memberships not to mention looking for a Secretarial Correspondent.

      • CuriousChris Reply

        June 25, 2013 at 1:13 am

        Your first mistake is thinking sceptics or even believers make one iota of difference.

        The only thing preventing the development of LENR is that it doesn’t work. At least at the kilojoule level.

        Is it sceptics that have stopped Rossi from showing off one of his hundreds of working devices?
        What about the ones he used to heat his factory. Obviously the gas heaters we saw were just a diversion.

        Which makes one wonder why he mentioned ecats heating his factory if he wanted to hide them.

        To blame sceptics for the non appearance of a working ecat or even LENR is lame.

    • Roger Barker Reply

      June 25, 2013 at 2:25 am

      Oh come on. Don’t be jealous just cos you got banned.

  17. Jami Reply

    June 25, 2013 at 8:33 am

    Strangely, in all the “what a wonderful man…”, “the grandfather of cold fusion…” and “he should get a Nobel posthumously…” praise for Focardi, Rossi’s statements seem strangely belittling. His latest post reads:

    ” Andrea Rossi
    June 23rd, 2013 at 12:06 PM

    Frank Acland:
    The contribution of Prof. Sergio Focardi has been mainly in the safety issues: without hios help in this matter I couldn’t make my work; beside this, he teached to me much of the Physics I needed to know and also made all the preliminary measurements that we made on the reactors in 2007, 2008 2009, 2010. Thousands of measurements, before daring to make the first presentation in January 2011. …”

    So he “teached” Rossi much the Physics he needed (not that Rossi comes across as if any of that stuck) and mainly contributed to solving some “safety issues”? What is he telling us here? Has he got some decency after all and hints that Focardi was innocent and not in on the scam?

    • Dale G. Basgall Reply

      June 25, 2013 at 11:48 am

      Jami part of your last statement “Focardi was innocent and not in on the scam”

      The scam? What part of this saga or Mr. Rossi – Focardi – Et All do you feel was or still is a scam?

      After all it was Focardi that slipped up early on and stated that the catalyst was Iron (Fe) and then after that video Mr. Rossi was answering the sensitive questions asked to Mr. Focardi and Focardi was tight lipped and looked at Rossi as questions were being asked to Focardi.

      It was clear that Mr. Rossi at that time thought he actually had something secret. Like a man who had observed something even a seasoned scientist as Focardi couldn’t explain at that time.

      Rossi though at that time he had the invention that would line his bank account and possibly pay off some outstanding debts from past.

      So it is apparent that was not a staged event to make it appear something worked or was valid in the e-cat at that time early on 2011.

      Because of the intranet things went so well on the publicity side that it was working ahead of actual production of any product. Rossi was then requesting design ideas and some sent in rendered pictures of what they thought was the reactor e-cat.

      It’s kind of apparent to me that inventor Rossi actually believed he intended to make the e-cat home model to play on the general public as in pre market evaluation and to gain popularity of his new product which in fact was not in the form he wanted others to believe it was.

      Nothing made sense, the time to reduce the product e-cat to practice was not sufficient or timely done, which indicates a patent issued if ever would not be held valid due to changes made to the end product the patent is sought after.

      So scam I think not, just a perpetual motion carrot before the donkey scenario, we are the donkeys in the eyes of Mr. Rossi whereas the cart keeps going because of the “newly grown” carrots before our eyes and ears.

      There comes a point where all the drama doesn’t matter any more and the facts remain obvious. The e-cat did not begin as a planned out scam but has developed towards that viewpoint as others invested money in the “idea” of selling many to line their own bank accounts.

      Investments are all about gaining something so people invested in hopes to gain whatever they interpret is gain on their level. Money seems to be the fact we do not know about here. How much revenue has Rossi developed over the past 3 years from this “scam” as you put it? May be in the millions if the truth were known.

      • Thicket Reply

        June 25, 2013 at 12:49 pm

        Dale

        A problem is that Rossi doesn’t keep track of his lies. He doesn’t even try to. For example,you say that the catalyst was from iron. The fresh catalyst Rossi sent to Uppsalla contained no iron. It was a nickel catalyst. The spent sample contained iron, copper and nickel. There is no scientific explanation for why there would be iron in the spent sample and none in the fresh sample. Rossi spiked the spent catalyst sample to make it appear that nickel fused to copper. He simply screwed up by having iron in the sample.

        Of course that’s all moot now since Rossi’s latest patent application says he doesn’t need catalyst. Rossi has learned that it takes little to convince the believers. Take away the catalyst. Take away the fusion. Simply claim anomalous heat from his magic box.

        • RonB Reply

          June 25, 2013 at 4:01 pm

          Thicket,
          Simply claim anomalous heat from his magic box.

          Maybe that’s all he really knows for sure and that the rest of it were ideas that were presented as things progressed. I know from personal experience that in the process of developing a theory that I was mistaken on cause and effect along the path towards discovery. Perhaps the reactions’ root cause was unknown and attributed to observations that later turned out to be incidental. I can imagine many scenarios in which the reported events could fit a certain pattern that didn’t involve purposeful fraud. That doesn’t mean they are true, it just means they’re a chance (however slim that might be) that they are true.

          • Al Potenza

            June 25, 2013 at 4:40 pm

            Yah, maybe. Or maybe he’s just a crook!

          • Jami

            June 25, 2013 at 7:59 pm

            “Maybe that’s all he really knows for sure”

            Say that is true. In that case the Cu and Fe in the spent fuel would have to have been some case of extreme contamination happening so regularly, that Rossi founded his entire theory on it for almost five years. Given the working methods (just remember Krivit’s photo of the tool bag of Rossi’s plumber) that isn’t too far fetched but still highly unlikely.
            I can imagine a scenario in which Rossi thought at the very beginning that he really stumbled across something he thought was Cold Fusion and blundered on for a while, fueled by wishful calorimetry and a nonchalant attitude towards thorough experimentation – but at some pretty early point he must have realized that he’s got nothing and faked it from there
            (which is just my opinion, of course – and no, I can’t prove any of it).

      • psi Reply

        June 27, 2013 at 7:28 pm

        What part of this saga or Mr. Rossi – Focardi – Et Al. do you feel was or still is a scam?

        Indeed, a question to be asked.

  18. Ransompw Reply

    June 25, 2013 at 3:00 pm

    Jami, Thicket, Milstone et al:

    There is NO real evidence this is a scam. What there is at this point is the very real need on your part to assume a scam so as to reject the tests recently disclosed by Essen and team. Every post by the pseudosceptic group requires this unsubstantiated assumption.

    Without this assumption you would have to acknowledge the possibility that the facts also fit a pattern typical of a brand new technology which the inventor is working trying to develop a product (with limited success).

    At this point I see these two possibilities as fairly even. The fact that you can’t even acknowledge the other possibility tells me that you all are deluded and incapable of critical thinking (or scientific thinking) and not worth debating. In essence it is a colossal waste of time to argue with those that only see there own imagined reality.

    • RonB Reply

      June 25, 2013 at 3:48 pm

      In essence it is a colossal waste of time to argue with those that only see their own imagined reality.

      And it took you how long to realize this? *grin*

      With the evidence we have today,
      if someone believes that there’s a one-in-a-billion chance it’s real, you would have to say they are keeping an open mind and they would be considered a skeptic. If they, on the other hand, say that the possibility is zero, then they are closed minded and pseudo skeptics (IMHO).

    • Al Potenza Reply

      June 25, 2013 at 4:44 pm

      Ransom, the “pattern” is not typical of any startup technology. The “pattern” is occasional, insufficient, improperly done tests, in which the inventor provides the venue and his friends and associates provide the measuring equipment and methods. When *properly* observed (NASA, Quantum/Australia, Hydrofusion) the device fails to work, and even though there are spares available and plenty of time to rerun, no test takes place.

      Promises of revealing customers and installation sites come and go without the slightest relevant information being given.

      The device itself evolves constantly without necessity and no model is ever given to a test agency or lab or university.

      This is absolutely TYPICAL of an investment scam. It is UNLIKE the development of ANY working technology ever.

      The possibility that Rossi (or Defkalion) are real is so small as to be negligible at this point. As for cold fusion in general, that is another matter. I see it as a very badly managed and implemented field and an entirely open question. I have no basis for setting probabilities on the phenomenon itself but for the generation of useful amounts of power, it still looks bleak.

      • Deleo77 Reply

        June 25, 2013 at 5:28 pm

        I disagree with that. There are plenty of startups that don’t share their technology secrets with the scientific community. If you look at Rossi’s personality he seems like the kind of person who doesn’t feel like he has to prove anything to anyone. Rossi said the reason that he never shared the secret of the catalyst with Focardi is because he was sure Focardi would share it with the scientific community. Could this be true? Possibly.

        Could the reason he took the catalyst out of the patent be because his attorney told him he would never get a patent if he kept it in there? The patent office is not going to patent anything related to cold fusion, so perhaps it had to come out.

        Could the delays in seeing working devices be due to safety certifications, as Rossi has said? Perhaps. These things are called low energy nuclear reactors. It could take months or even years of study to make sure these things are safe – even in a commercial setting.

        Despite the last test not being 100% certain (and more testing is certainly needed), can you put any percentage on the paper published by the seven scientists as being accurate? I put it at a 50% chance of being accurate. But are you really at a zero percent chance of that?

        I think the point here is that how can you be 100% certain on all of the items above? Rossi may have something or he may not, but since I have been following this (not as long as most here) I haven’t seen him ask for a dime from anyone. No penny stock, no solicitations for funds, no future hints by Rossi saying he is looking for more investors. I have seen a couple of investor scams, and they gladly look for investors seven days a week, and they continually raise new money until the scam is blown. They take it as far as they can go. There are anecdotal reports that Rossi is in his lab every day working very hard and has a team of people around him doing the same. If it is all just illusion illusion,mwhat are they working on? What are they doing all day?

        I am not in the believer or skeptic camp because all of the above is unknown. There is not enough information to be sure one way or the other. If it is just a character assassination of Rossi that is driving the scam argument, I think a better argument is needed than that.

        • Jami Reply

          June 25, 2013 at 8:20 pm

          “No penny stock, no solicitations for funds, no future hints by Rossi saying he is looking for more investors. I have seen a couple of investor scams, and they gladly look for investors seven days a week, and they continually raise new money until the scam is blown.”

          He had a whole bunch of them in Zurich and Roger Green is still actively looking for licensees (watch his recent interview on PESN). The German licensee is still trying to sell sub and sub-sub licenses on Facebook. There is Aldo Proia and Hydrofusion and surely a lot of others we don’t know about.

          “What are they doing all day?”

          Who are “they”? We don’t know – apart from an ex-casino employee who is supposed to be Rossi’s computer guy and Rossi himself. I think they’re mostly trying to make some money, fake the next demo and have a good time – but they could also be trying to get a Nobel, become immeasurably famous and rich and save cancer sick children without appearing to be in any particular hurry about any of it.

          • Deleo77

            June 25, 2013 at 8:45 pm

            Just so I sound impartial, everything you are stating could be absolutely true, or it might not. I get that the licenses were sold and money from that came Rossi’s way. But if it is a scam when does Roger Green sue Rossi for taking his $400k? Hydrofusion is providing essentially a free e-cat to a customer in Sweden this fall. Sweden is a great test case for its heating elements, and I am sure there is a taker for this deal somewhere. We are told the customer has already been identified. I think this is the one event that needs to play out to determine the truth. If no e-cat is delivered then I will end up thinking it is not reliable, it can’t be certified as safe, or even worse, the whole thing was a giant scam, and there never was a working e-cat. But I am waiting to see what happens before making those conclusions.

          • Jami

            June 25, 2013 at 8:58 pm

            “But I am waiting to see what happens before making those conclusions.”

            For how long will you wait? Are you aware that Rossi announced in November 2011 that he has already sold an e-cat to a “normal”, non-military customer and that, once installed, it will be shown to the public? Shall we define “fall” as December 21. and if nobody who isn’t somehow entangled with Rossi (Hydrofusion themselves as a customer wouldn’t count in my opinion) hasn’t come forward by then, you call it a day?

          • Deleo77

            June 25, 2013 at 9:14 pm

            Yes, December 31st would be the outside date. If Hydrofusion can’t essentially give an e-cat away for free by then, I would conclude that it probably doesn’t have much of any chance of ever being sold as a commercial product. Just like I am 50/50 on the 3rd party report being accurate, I am 50/50 on this delivery happening. I know there are a few people here who are 100% sure it is not going to happen.

      • Ransompw Reply

        June 25, 2013 at 5:41 pm

        Al

        I think it is comical how you lump the 7 testers together as “friends and associates”. Not only is that BS, but again just illustrates the kind of warped thinking that characterizes you and your pseudoskeptic friends that post here and on other similar sites.

        There is no objectivity in your evaluation of any kind.

        • CuriousChris Reply

          June 26, 2013 at 1:00 am

          Ransom says “There is NO real evidence this is a scam.”

          There is no REAL evidence it is not a scam!

          The balance of probability points at a scam.

          There is plenty of evidence albeit some would say circumstantial that there is a scam, on the flip side there is no scientific evidence at all that it is real.

          Given the extraordinary claims it is a bare minimum that the supporting evidence be scientific. Not just Rossi Says or Essen Says or Ransom Says

          To say there is no evidence of a scam is to show that one is deliberately looking the other way. any astute believer would have to admit Rossi does things that make him look dishonest.

          Your own objectivity needs to be looked at.

          • Ransompw

            June 26, 2013 at 2:56 am

            Curious:

            You are wrong. There is No real evidence of scam but there is real scientific evidence it is real. One has to ignore this real evidence by contending it is the product of fraud to exclude it.

            I do not dismiss Rossi’s odd behavior or the possibility of Fraud. If I did, I would have no alternative but to conclude with certainty it is real. I wouldn’t do that and haven’t. Fraud is still possible. However, without fraud there is no other reasonable conclusion one could reach, other than it is real.

            Your problem is you assume fraud is the only possibility. If not you could not entirely dismiss the results of the recent tests.

          • CuriousChris

            June 26, 2013 at 5:42 am

            “There is No real evidence of scam but there is real scientific evidence it is real”

            Rossi’s behaviour, his current lies and his past corruption is very real evidence of a scam. Your claims of scientific evidence is wrong all the evidence is fatally flawed.

            So you are wrong on that point. You like to call it ‘odd’ behaviour. This is what I have previously called self delusional. You really are kidding yourself into that belief, its not odd its deception plain and simple.

            Most believers, you included do not understand the extraordinariness of the claim. You conclude current scientific practice as fatally flawed. As driven by money nothing else (yet Rossi couldn’t possibly be driven by money). In that you and the other believers who support that view are most terribly wrong. Scientists who flout the scientific principal are outed and in medical practice they are banned. It is unacceptable, it is dangerous. The scientific method is why we can fly to the moon and converse over the globe. To say it is flawed and corrupt is foolishness. It ain’t perfect but its the very best we have.

            Rossi a self taught plumber with a mail order degree hides behind commercial claims while at the same time claiming to have succeeded where no one else has succeeded. Where most of science says it is plain impossible and LENR/CF researchers have produced at best debatable and non repeatable experiments.

            Science is compiled on top of centuries of rigorous research. So while I’ll allow the possibility of LENR I cannot, knowing Rossi’s past, the magnitude of the hurdles faced, the total lack of any scientific process. The apparent belief at all costs (self delusional?) from the likes of Levi and Essen. I cannot give credit where none is due.

            It is objectivity that turned me from a LENR hopeful to the sceptic I am today. I wanted to believe (still do) but won’t let my own desires cloud a realistic view of what is really happening.

            LENR would be the worlds saviour. But to quote Monty Python “I may be the town idiot, But I am no fool”

          • Deleo77

            June 26, 2013 at 6:45 am

            CuriousChris, I think a lot of your post is well written, but why say Levi and Essen are delusional in their beliefs? They went and observed the e-cat working as claimed for many hours and Rossi wasn’t even in the room. Is that delusional? I don’t think so. Did Rossi pull a Houdini on them? Perhaps. But I do think they went into that observation with good intentions and to find the truth as they could see it. They published a paper with their names on it. Despite the backlash they knew they would receive.

            Uppsala Univeristy is actually a very good engineering school on an international scale. The scientists who were sent there did the best they could, I do believe that. The only two options are that Rossi is the master scammer and fooled them all, despite their best intentions not to be, or they are all colluding with him and are a bunch of crooks who were paid to be in on a huge scam. It’s hard to think of any other scenario.

          • MaxS

            June 26, 2013 at 9:17 am

            Ransom
            Your statements are utterly contradictory

            there is real scientific evidence it is real

            But on the other hand you say

            I do not dismiss Rossi’s odd behavior or the possibility of Fraud”

            So, when there is scientific evidence that it is real, how can there be a possibility of fraud at the same time?
            Fact is, there is no evidence at all. There is a report of academics lead by an old time e-cat supporter (not by neutral, independent examiners) claiming to confirm excess heat, however, the report cannot exclude the possibility of fraud, due to the experimental methods applied, measurement devices used, the pre-involvement of the lead examiner, and constraints given in the test etc. Therefore, it must be dismissed as evidence. There are indications at best.
            Think about it, if Rossi is real and has a product in the market that works @ COP 6, why is he not testing the working device? They tested a development stage product that came out at COP 2.6, less than half of the alleged COP6 of the product in the market. What kind of absurdity is that?
            And further, if a real working device is really available for sales in the market as claimed, why is Rossi insisting that the test is done on his premises, lead by his old time buddies? Perhaps the development stage product was only used, because in that way Rossi could justify why his buddy Levi and not truly independent people were the lead examiners, and why it had to be done on Rossi premises.
            Or is paranoia about know-how loss the answer to this odd behaviour? However, you can´t sell a product and be so secretive at the same time.
            The logical answer is, there is no product in the market. Means Rossi lied all along. And if so, why should we trust him now? It smells like a foul play, like a sophisticated circus trick.

          • Ransompw

            June 26, 2013 at 12:12 pm

            Curious and Max:

            Your posts prove my point. It is a waste of time to discuss this matter with folks that see only one possibility. The fact that you see it with 100% conviction is a testement to your delusion.

          • MaxS

            June 26, 2013 at 12:24 pm

            nonsense, Ransom.
            You, as the believers camp, try to make the case for “evidence” where there is no evidence.
            There may be other possibilities, true. I give it a 20% chance perhaps.
            When a test on neutral ground, performed by independent people without e-cat legacy, confirms the same result, while using proper calibration, while measuring input and output properly and comply with scientific protocols, I will start to believe. Wake me up when this happens.

          • CuriousChris

            June 26, 2013 at 2:19 pm

            @Deleo77 Personally I think Levi is a stooge. He is either complicit with Rossi. Or is very easy to manipulate.

            Surely he knows the questions around the ecat and apart from the late Focardi is in the best position to demand a more accurate test. For someone with his supposed scientific training to treat such an important matter so blithely is reprehensible. Essen and the others could only watch as Levi controlled the tests. The puppet master may not have been present but the puppet certainly was.

            @Ransom you have only proven yourself to be incapable of critical thought. Your answer was in so many ways reminiscent of someone putting their hands to their ears and crying “I am not listening”

            Do yourself a favour and reawaken those faculties that got you your law degree the one you claim to have. Or was that greenwin Hmmph I don’t remember.

          • Ransompw

            June 26, 2013 at 5:08 pm

            Curious and Max:

            If you really think the evidence is conclusive that fraud is being committed, the two are you are flat out nuts. That is as kind as I can put it. But whatever, knock yourself out.

            That said, it is certainly possible Rossi is committing a fraud and I suppose it is possible Levi is in on it with him. I think it is beyond the realm of reason to believe that all 7 testers are in on a fraud.

            The fact fraud is possible doesn’t make every piece of evidence unreliable, it simply means it MAY be unreliable and should be evaluated given that possibility.

            If you two turn out to be wrong, what will be your explanation since based on your comments that is IMPOSSIBLE, or is this just grandstanding on your parts because this is a blog and you have no skin in the game?

          • MaxS

            June 26, 2013 at 5:31 pm

            where in my post did I ever state that the “evidence for fraud is conclusive”?
            You try to put these words in my mouth. That speaks for itself.
            I am arguing from the opposite side, challenging the evidence pro e-cat.
            I agree the evidence for a scam is not conclusive, but it is very likely, considering all given circumstantial evidence.
            How can 7 examiners be wrong? As long as it not clear what have these guys have actually done, apart form watching the show, this question cannot be answered. The report, unfortunately, fails to describe what their role was. It is entirely possible they were fooled by Rossi and Levi who manipulated the setup, and test procedures. The weakness of the energy input was already discussed at length, and there can be more hidden tricks.

    • MaxS Reply

      June 26, 2013 at 8:41 am

      Ransom said

      ….fit a pattern typical of a brand new technology which the inventor is working trying to develop a product

      Wrong.
      1.A startup company would have the device tested which is on the market (1 MW e-cat), and not a development product at preliminary stage which even failed to reach the promised COP level.
      2.A startup company would have presented customer testimonials and references.
      Rossi acts as a con man, or possibly as a very incompetent startup. But not typical for a startup company.

    • psi Reply

      June 27, 2013 at 7:29 pm

      Very well put, Ransompw.

  19. CuriousChris Reply

    June 26, 2013 at 1:08 am

    Talking of scammers, our friend whose name cannot be mentioned who supposedly doesn’t solicit money for his preposterous claims of generating power from inert gases has recently failed his target in an attempt to raise funds through indiegogo.

    Interestingly he chose to use the fund raising model where he gets to keep the money even if he fails to raise his target.

    http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gyrokinetic-plasma-engine

  20. MaxS Reply

    June 26, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    check out this :
    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg83530.html
    Is Hanno Essen incompetent once again?
    Or is he just discredited by some lobbyists?

    • CuriousChris Reply

      June 26, 2013 at 2:27 pm

      I must say I thought that myself. but assumed he used a separate dc meter to read the voltage. I also went to the effort of contacting the manufacturer to ask if the device could be used in such a way it misread or cancelled out the power. Their answer was yes. I mentioned it a few posts ago.

      I would hate to think Essen was on the payroll, but such obvious bumbling such poor attention to detail. a complete lack of scientific rigour. Well it makes you wonder if there is not more than one stooge.

      I guess its not hard to find stooges. All you want is someone who wants to believe. Someone who is prepared to turn the other way when those little inconsistencies come along. We know from the blogs there would be plenty lining up for the job.

      • Deleo77 Reply

        June 26, 2013 at 4:36 pm

        I think it is clear that DC wasn’t measured, but I also don’t think it points 100% to the idea that Rossi used DC current for the extra power, and knew that the instruments the testers were using would not be able to detect it. Is that possible? Yes, but keep in mind Mats Lewan did a test a while back, and he brought his own instruments and he measured for AC and DC current and did not find anything abnormal. That means Rossi would have conducted a different scam on that day. Still, if and when the 6 month test happens, they need to look for DC current, and they should amend their current paper to say that DC current was not able to be detected with the instruments they had.

        • Jami Reply

          June 26, 2013 at 5:21 pm

          “That means Rossi would have conducted a different scam on that day.”

          I think he’s got quite a lot of tricks up his sleeve and he switches between them to keep the target moving. Works like a charm with people like Jed who seem to reason

          “Lewan properly measured input in 2011, Essen properly measured output in 2013 – so all is well and fraud is impossible because Rossi can’t use two tricks in just three years since that would be far too complicated (but he can build cold fusion reactors at will, which is child’s play by comparison)”.

          or

          “there is no way Rossi would dare to cheat input because he had no idea which instruments they would bring”

          which is equally stupid. Of course he knew what they would “bring”. Nothing at all. Levi “provided” the instruments and he happened to pick the exact same meter used by Rossi anyway (probably the exact same unit – not just he same model). And they almost admit as much in the paper when they pointed out the “industrial trade secret waveform” which was kept secret and hence wasn’t measured properly.

          And besides – the only known incidents where people used their own “instruments” (SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden measuring input power properly, Krivit wanting to see the steam, NASA wanting to get serious but the e-cat wasn’t working that day plus the isotopic analysis of e-cat ashes) ended disastrously for Rossi. So he failed before when people did what he didn’t anticipate or wanted to do what he knew would uncover him – only nobody ever remembers.

          • Al Potenza

            June 26, 2013 at 5:28 pm

            Exactly. There was NOTHING “indipendent” about the latest test. It was a joke.

        • Al Potenza Reply

          June 26, 2013 at 5:22 pm

          ” That means Rossi would have conducted a different scam on that day.”
          -
          Rossi probably conducted three distinct scams. In some old ecats, he cheated by claiming that wet steam was dry. In others, he misplaced the temperature output thermocouple. In NONE of those tests did he allow proper calibration of the measurement system which would have clearly revealed the scam. His reasons for refusing were absurd.

          In the current experiment, it isn’t certain how he cheated because the wiring is obscure, but the power source was not properly tested and the dummy and experimental runs were not comparably configured.

          There should be no six month test– it adds absolutely NOTHING to the information. The current test was not flawed because it was too short! It was flawed because it was grossly incompetently conducted and reported.

          Any future tests should be done without participation by any previous experimenters, by anyone ever associated with Rossi and without Rossi’s lab, his power supply or his presence except as a quiet observer. That won’t happen, I guarantee you.

          • RonB

            June 27, 2013 at 12:28 am

            That won’t happen, I guarantee you
            You’re probably right Al but for many possible reasons that have been mentioned time and time again here.

            What would be nice is to just repeat that test one more time and check for the items in question.
            That, at least, would be another data point.

        • Tony Reply

          June 26, 2013 at 9:48 pm

          It isn’t DC current. It’s the three wire AC trick described by John M. along with the requisite calculations that show the 3 wire Monte would provide EXACTLY the measured COP in the last test.

          Also, as suggested by John M., If you have something that is running as a stand alone and only needs a “bump” now and then to keep it going, then pull the line plug to the “industrial frequency generator” during the off cycle. And disconnect the “unnecessary” third wire. The ecat should show the excess heat clearly. Don’t even need meters for that.

          Tony2

          • RonB

            June 27, 2013 at 12:26 am

            That might work but I’d be loath to just yank the plug on any kind of electronic control circuitry.

          • Tony2

            June 27, 2013 at 1:03 am

            Ron,

            But according to AR, the control box is “off” 33% of the time. To me, “off” means no power from the “industrial waveform generator” into the ecat. Right? If so, yanking the plug during the “off” time should do nothing to the ecat.

            But remember, Ron, no one, NO ONE,has ever measured the input power directly into the ecat itself. The only measurement that was done during the last independent test was to measure the line AC into the control box ad NOT the power that was coming out of the control box.

            And what of the mysterious 3rd wire that AR called “unnecessary”? If it was “unnecessary”, why was it there? It couldn’t possibly have been feeding the third leg of the AC into the ecat while the observers were only watching two legs? Could it?

            Imagine me clasping both hands to the sides of my face like the kid in “Home Alone”.

            JM nailed this one. Wake up and smell the fraud.

            Tony2

          • psi

            June 27, 2013 at 7:35 pm

            Exactly. Wow. That must explain it.

        • CuriousChris Reply

          June 27, 2013 at 1:34 am

          The one consistent thing about all tests was that they were limited.

          In no single test are all factors checked. For example in Mats Lewans check for DC power the output is not tested. It is assumed to be overunity. So while no DC was shown neither was a cop greater than 1.

          All Rossi has to do is say. “You want to do a test No worries what equipment are you bringing I’ll make sure we can accommodate it”. He then tailors his configuration to suit.

  21. Al Potenza Reply

    June 26, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    I am always amused when gullible people assert that Rossi could not have profited from his scam. After all, they have it on good authority that he never took money, used all of his own, and then sold his house to pay for his research.

    Well, the facts are that Rossi took money from Ampenergo as documented in NyTeknik articles. That money was described by Ampenergo as “considerable”. Rossi also took money from distributors via Roger Green as documented by Gary Wright with extensive copies of email correspondence and contract copies signed or originated directly by Rossi. Rossi probably also took money through Schneider, Proia and Hydrofusion. And how could anyone know all the secret distributor and investor agreements Rossi may have signed in the last two and a half years?

    Sold his Italian house to fund research? Nonsense. He decided to live mostly in a plush condominium in Miami and no longer needed a home in Italy.

    PEOPLE: DO YOUR HOMEWORK FOR A CHANGE.

    • RonB Reply

      June 26, 2013 at 7:06 pm

      Al,
      You make good points always but then you spoil what might be taken seriously with statements like “plush condominium in Miami”. Have you seen this condominium? The picture of him on the balcony with his friends didn’t give me the idea that it was by any means “Plush”. Someone described DGT’s offices in Vancouver by saying something like “Over a seedy bar” which I happen to know is a half truth (at best)when indeed its an upscale sports bar/cafe.

    • CuriousChris Reply

      June 27, 2013 at 2:11 am

      I know Roger Greene put in $400K alone. he mortgaged his house and his parents house

      As far as I know he hasn’t seen a cent. As a true believer he is not asking for money from anybody. I know because I tried. The only contact I got from him in 9 months was an excited one about the previous tests. If he was on the con too he’d have tried to sell me something.

      The likes of Rossi Prey on this sort of character.

  22. Al Potenza Reply

    June 26, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    @RonB: You’re hair splitting. I said Defkalion/Vancouver were over a “beer bar” because there is a huge beer truck in front of the building in Google street view. What difference does it make?

    Neither Rossi nor Defkalion has a factory. Neither has a large, well equipped lab. Both make crude looking devices that wouldn’t pass muster at a science fair for teenagers. Rossi’s things look like they escaped from a store selling used toilet fixtures. Defkalion’s look like a fire and safety hazard if they really have hydrogen in them.

    I also don’t give a fart for whether Rossi’s Miami condo seems lush to you. The issue is that he didn’t sell his house to finance the ecat. He sold it because he didn’t need it. The money to make those silly props he calls ecats and megawatt plants came from the gullible investors.

    Meanwhile, I keep reading really dumb things on Vortex. They are pondering the issue of DC power (while neglecting erroneous wiring hookups with the three phase power, bad instrument readings that make no sense like 6 volts/6 amps on one of the phases, and other nonsense). But they are hilarious when they write:

    ” David Roberson Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:05:38 -0700

    … When will they [the skeptics] finally realize that Rossi may have something? Who expects to see Mary, Cude or any of the others apologize when
    the proof finally reaches beyond their bar? My bet is they will hide away and change their fake names to avoid the issue.”

    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg83563.html

    In reality, in the exceedingly unlikely possibility that Rossi or Defkalion ever show anything that works, it is they who should apologize for acting like idiots and morons and not showing the proper tests. The skeptics are absolutely correct to believe nothing said by those two at this time. They act like scammers. Apologize? For what?

    • RonB Reply

      June 27, 2013 at 12:24 am

      Al,
      I know that I’m splitting hairs but when you make comments like that it actually detracts from your argument when others know it’s an exaggeration. Just say’n.

    • psi Reply

      June 27, 2013 at 7:37 pm

      When you leave, please turn out the lights.

  23. Al Potenza Reply

    June 26, 2013 at 7:39 pm

    “Uppsala Univeristy is actually a very good engineering school on an international scale. The scientists who were sent there did the best they could, I do believe that. The only two options are that Rossi is the master scammer and fooled them all, despite their best intentions not to be, or they are all colluding with him and are a bunch of crooks who were paid to be in on a huge scam. It’s hard to think of any other scenario.”
    -
    A classical example of bad thinking. It is VERY IMPROBABLE that anyone from U of Uppsala was paid by Rossi. That’s ridiculous. On the other hand, the ability of scientists to detect deception and dishonesty is way overrated. Scientists may look for errors but they are not accustomed to look for fraud or sleight of hand trickery. THAT is what skeptics suspect Rossi uses to get his results. In previous experiments, it was wet steam called dry, and thermocouples placed too close to heat sources. The particular trick in the present experiment is unknown because the setup is too complicated to unravel and model properly and the experimenters did not perform the proper tests.

    Did Rossi fool the experimenters? It seems so to me. While he, almost without a doubt, cheated with the output measurement before, he probably used the input power this time. How did he do it? One theory is that he tampered with the wall socket inside the wall. Another is that the three phase power was improperly measured (one phase was “not working” — why?) and that this error was compounded by the “dummy” run not being similar in configuration to the experimental run.

    Rossi cleverly took care of earlier criticisms– he fixed the length of the experiment (earlier ones were too short to rule out stored energy) and he supposedly provided a dummy (control/calibration) run — something he had never allowed before because it would reveal his tricks with the output power measurement.

    But Rossi made sure that the dummy run was not representative of an actual run. What it represents is unknown. The input to the device during that run was configured differently from what it was for experimental runs.

    Rossi probably cheated without having to be in the same room. It was HIS LAB. It was probably his instruments and it was his measurement methods as used a few months earlier by somebody named Penon.

    I don’t think the Swedes were in on the scam. I think they were gullible and were duped. They should not have agreed to a test in Rossi’s lab with his power source and his measurement methods. That is gross negligence and incompetence. What Levi’s role is, in my opinion, is unclear. Based on his interview with Krivit and on his refusal to reply to reasonable and polite email requests from Josephson, I suspect he might know about Rossi’s scam and might even have participated. I have not seen evidence about that but I would not put it past him. Either that or he is spectacularly dumb and inept. I guess he could tell us which it is but far as I know, he has not given a “real” interview since Krivit took him apart on Youtube.

    • MaxS Reply

      June 27, 2013 at 4:21 pm

      I still say 80% scam, 20% real.
      I agree with Al, assuming that it is a scam, it is very very unlikely the Sweds were bribed. They were probably fooled. Rossi knew from previous experience that Essen is a lame duck and choose others without deep knowledge in the area where the scam was executed. They enjoyed pasta and wine and watched from safe distance (to avoid the gamma rays and neutron bursts perhaps).
      If they would have detected the scam, the whole test would have disappeared and never be published. Like Kullander´s test.
      The key is Levi. He is a part of the scam, or Rossi had an operator on the scene who we don´t know about. It must be one of the two options. Remember Essen´s comment that Rossi would never part from his device, I believe one of his guys was there and operated the experiment, perhaps Fabiani? They don´t dare to admit otherwise it gets too embarassing for them. Otherwise this makes no sense. I believe it is unlikely to opperate such a scam and nobody on site was involved.

  24. Al Potenza Reply

    June 27, 2013 at 12:55 am

    “What would be nice is to just repeat that test one more time and check for the items in question.
    That, at least, would be another data point.”

    -
    One of the main points that can’t be made too often is that there is no need to test the so-called hot cat *at all*. The test rig and wiring are too complicated to keep track of as long as it is in Rossi’s lab. It would do absolutely no good to do it again. If the Swedes didn’t make the same mistakes, Rossi would assure that they make all sorts of new ones.

    What might work would be to retest a small steam generating ecat under proper controlled conditions. Rossi dreads that because it would show that the old tests were bad and the ecat won’t work. That’s why he never let NASA or Quantum test those old ecat. Mysteriously, when those people were there insisting on using THEIR instrument and THEIR methods, Rossi’s ecat wouldn’t work AND he could find no substitute. He claimed DOZENS were being tested, one was heating his factory, and he could find no substitute units to test and he could not repair his own in the two days the testers were in Italy. And then, when incompetent testers were doing the work, the ecats worked every time. Coincidence of course, don’t you think?

  25. Roger Barker Reply

    June 27, 2013 at 2:01 am

    Change of topic. The MFMP guys claim both their US and Euro cells are showing excess power. This seems to be the most comprehensive test they’ve done. Any thoughts?

    • Al Potenza Reply

      June 27, 2013 at 2:27 am

      Yeah. Very small excess power, very complex measurement system. May well be measurement error. I wish they’d take earlier suggestions to:

      - a) use some ironclad calorimetry

      - b) calibrate the hell out of it

      - c) use many many more wires (dozens) to increase the signal to noise ratio (the so-called “COP”) — you can heat lots of wires with little more power than it takes to heat one or two because most of the heat warms the enclosure and its inert internals, and not the wire.

      • CuriousChris Reply

        June 27, 2013 at 4:00 am

        I am not against the approach they are taking. if they try to run before they can walk it would be worse. It would be nice to get quick answers but it is obvious they are going through a pretty extreme learning curve.

        After a few promising solid tests then I’d agree with you.

        If they change tack after these tests like it seems everyone else does then it would indicate they are aware of measurement errors and are trying something new.

    • Dale G. Basgall Reply

      June 27, 2013 at 3:44 am

      Excess power is evident and can be observed at times in the “cells” of LENR. There are no conclusive observations that do not rule out other things happening with elements within a cell.

      There have been times when in fact it appeared that the excess heat was caused by the LENR reaction however later evaluated and deduced to something like residual or other elements in the cell as well as logical deduction. That may have been incorrect logic however and in fact there are observations in several experiment cells that lead one to continue the experiments as well as realize something like excess heat is observable at certain times in an experiment of LENR science.

      So I am firm in thought that Mr. Rossi and Mr. Focardi also observed the “weirdness” of their experiments at times and in fact did not initiate a scam, however it appears it developed into what others would interpret as a scam.

      I am stating this due to the sales of a potential product when it is developed. That’s taking money prior to performance and it appears slightly skewed from reality in the business of developing products.

      • Shane D. Reply

        June 27, 2013 at 5:07 pm

        Dale,

        The MFMP people have observed excess output over input since their very first cell run. They haven’t, IMO, ruled out the possibility that LENR was responsible for that overunity, as you say, in any of the cell runs to date.

        They have however concurred with the feedback concensus that in all the cell runs so far, other influences can not be ruled out.

        In response, they have evolved each cell to eliminate ever more variables. And with each new refinement it gets all that much harder to ignore the persistent excess they continue to see without mentioning LENR.

        Their audience (open source) are a strict, but fair, bunch that have set very high standards for the MFMP team, while also being very instructive in helping them build a bullet-proof case for the “New Fire”.

        These guys aren’t quitters. To be honest I thought with all the back seat driving they would have thrown in the towel by now. Instead they take just about every suggestion and incorporate them into their protocol. With the others they offer good reasoning why they disagree.

        Very exciting to me. I wish more would put in a few $ for their efforts. Maybe even get Al the sour-puss to start giving them his advice again.

  26. Shane D. Reply

    June 27, 2013 at 5:19 pm

    I thought this post from Vortex represented both sides of the issues well regarding the possibility of DC slight of hand by Rossi in this latest testing:

    Allow me to summarize the DC injection hypothesis:

    - It is theoretically possible to add DC to provide ~3kW of power that
    would be invisible to the PCE-830.
    However:

    - Given the size of the wires, I guess that amperage would need to be
    below 50 A. Otherwise the wires would heat up too much and this would
    show on the thermal camera.

    - This means that a DC offset of >60 V is required for 3kW injection.

    - This means that the scammer must be confident that any instrument or
    device connected would tolerate a >60V DC offset. This is a large
    offset. As the DC resistance of the primary winding of transformers
    is small compared to their reactance at 50 Hz, the extra DC would
    probably destroy any attached transformers.

    - The use of any electrical instrument capable of detecting DC would
    need to be prohibited. A 5$ multimeter can detect DC. So do
    oscilloscopes, or Fluke power analyzers. These would have to be
    prohibited.

    - Any significant DC current will produce a significant DC magnetic
    field nearby. Such a field is easily detectable by most recent
    smartphones or a simple compass.

    - Temporarily switching the extra DC power off when DC-capable
    instrumentation is used wouldn’t be possible, as the temperature would
    drop rapidly and this would immediately show on the IR video / temp
    curve.

    • Al Potenza Reply

      June 27, 2013 at 6:01 pm

      The fact is, we can’t know if Rossi cheated or how because the experiment was done in HIS lab, with HIS power source, and using his measurement methods and instruments as evidenced by the Penon experiment.

      Levi and Essen botched previous measurements and can’t be trusted to do it right. The rest of the team just went along with them.

      This was a clusterf*ck from the start.

      • Shane D. Reply

        June 27, 2013 at 6:10 pm

        Lawyers say when you can’t argue the facts… argue!

    • Deleo77 Reply

      June 27, 2013 at 7:25 pm

      That is a good summary Shane.

      With everything you stated, I think it can be said that using DC to send undetected energy into the e-cat is possible, but it would have been a risky move by Rossi.

      Now I am sure the skeptics will say that Rossi knew what instruments would be used before the test, and he probably ran through 10 test runs to make sure the hidden DC current wasn’t picked up with those instruments, and then when he felt confident about that he opened the door to the testers and said come on in.

      But, it was still a risk on his part. As far as we know Rossi is not out looking for any new major funding, the vast majority of the money has already been raised, and he is looking for customers, not investors. That being said, it seems interesting to me that he would take any risk at all that these testers would come in and pick up on this. As soon as they did, it would be all over for him. Why do the test at all, even if he is 99% sure they won’t catch it? As far as I can tell no one (including his investors) was demanding that this test take place. But I could be wrong about that.

      I just think the jury is still out. The scientists should amend the paper that they wrote and say that DC current wasn’t adequately checked for. And they should get back in there for the 6 month test ASAP, and check for it this time, and do a more thorough job.

      • Al Potenza Reply

        June 27, 2013 at 8:18 pm

        There were many other flaws than not checking for DC. They also didn’t check for high frequency AC.

        More to the point, nobody separated out and characterized the RAT’S NEST of complicated wires. Nobody explained the 6 volt/ 6 amp reading on one phase. That makes no sense. Nobody explained why the dummy experiment run was not done the same way as the real experimental run. And many more objections.

        The testers were simply grossly incompetent and did not do their job correctly.

        • Shane D. Reply

          June 27, 2013 at 10:15 pm

          I don’t think you are giving these guys enough credit for being thourough. Here is their clarification of the steps they took regarding the electrical aspects of the hot cat test:

          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.”

          • Al Potenza

            June 28, 2013 at 12:29 am

            “LENR Hypothesis:

            That said, there is a chance we have a bonified LENR reaction in the device, where heat is actually required to initiate the reaction. “
            -
            Impossible! If that were the case, you could remove the electrical heating after the reaction started. Rossi has consistently said that this is not the case. The heater is needed for “safety” which of course is pure Rossifiction and total nonsense. A heater doesn’t and can’t add safety to an exothermic reaction. If anything, it does the opposite.

          • CuriousChris

            June 28, 2013 at 5:10 am

            These afterthoughts prove the ineptness of the observers.

            They should have been in the report. Its nothing about being nice to reporters.

            Did they unscrew the little socket? wires could have passed through a routed groove in the timber. Why was the top wood and the underneath a metal sheet? very odd construction for a table.

            But they did cover their asses by saying it was an indication of anomalous heat. in that sentence they admit they did not do a thorough job.

            So anyone who uses that report to say its proof of Rossi’s claims is fooling themselves. even the ‘observers’ (because that’s all they were) who wrote the report couldn’t go that far.

        • Anon2014 Reply

          June 27, 2013 at 11:51 pm

          I would look in the third 0.3 gram test for other sources of energy outside the cylinder; i.e. an external gas cylinder through line, a hydrogen gas reservoir in the “outer cylinder” or the combustion of the chamber itself.

          Here is one hypothesis:

          1) Rossi has discovered some method of loading the heck out of a metal hydride, not necessarily nickel, but maybe nickel. Maybe this is very energy costly in hydrogen. Maybe he loads into the chamber much more hydrogen than what people can normally get in a metal hydride; i.e. it makes the hydride much denser (with stored hydrogen) than metallic (supercold, superpressurized) hydrogen.

          2) Rossi heats up the hydride with the resistors and hydrogen comes out of the hydride.

          3) the chamber is not hermetically sealed, so it reacts with the atmospheric hydrogen, combusting the hydrogen.

          4) Normally this would leave the chamber weighing less after burning the hydrogen. However, the other material in the chamber is something that oxidizes, so for every hydrogen atom that leaves an equal weight of oxygen comes into oxidation, say with nickel, making more exothermic chemical energy. For every 16 hydrogens combusted and leaked outside the chamber, another oxygen is combusted and goes back into the chamber.

          5) If there is insufficient fuel in the chamber, the (unknown) metal of the inside of the chamber, perhaps steel, also combusts exothermically.

          I call this the conventional combustion hypothesis.

          ———————–

          Now for the two hydride endo/exothermic chemical metal hydride hypothesis:

          1) The chamber is sealed with a metal hydride storing the hydrogen that requires endothermic heat addition to liberate the hydrogen.

          2) There is a second metal that is different that the first which is exceedingly exothermic — more exothermic than any known chemical or metal hydride reaction, but NOT nuclear.

          3) Heating the chamber requires less energy to release the hydrogen from the first metal than is subsequently released in the metal hydride reaction with the second metal.

          4) Optionally, excess oxygen from outside the chamber is combusts the first metal (now devoid of hydrogen).

          ————————–

          The secret fuel hypothesis:

          1) a hydrogen tank is attached via a wire, using the insulation of the wire to convey hydrogen to the reaction chamber, i.e. to act as a tube, passing around the conductor in the wire.

          2) The chamber is heated up electrically and then the hydrogen from the wire is combusted slowly in the chamber.

          3) Optionally excess dense fuel is stored in the outer chamber of the reaction chamber; i.e. a hydrocarbon which has more energy per unit volume than hydrogen.

          I cannot rule out any of these hypotheses because the reaction chamber is not being examined in detail. Note that in the original experiment observed by Krevit, the hydrogen tank was hooked up to the experiment in the photos. How do we know it was not valved off.

          ————————————-

          LENR Hypothesis:

          That said, there is a chance we have a bonified LENR reaction in the device, where heat is actually required to initiate the reaction. I think there is a 25 to 30% chance we have some kind of LENR, but only a 15 to 20% chance Rossi has it working. Good luck to him but I “doubt” it.

          As I have said before, Rossi’s unprofessional paranoid ravings about nefarious actors wanting to get him makes it impossible for most reasonable people to work with him — even if they are true. If he has done all the work to eliminate the above hypotheses, he is truly shooting himself in the foot with his near insane statements. It lowers the probability of his eventually commercial success.

          • dsm

            June 28, 2013 at 4:50 am

            Here are some thoughts re your post.
            .
            Some good creative thinking & it would not be the 1st time someone has raise the exothermic line.
            .
            As to Andrea Rossi’s results. It may well be that he is able to trigger bursts of anomalous heat activity. His method of triggering the process *appears* to be by way of ‘temperature shock’ of his nicklehydride particles. There is debate over if he really uses pulsing except that it isn’t shown in his original patent. Some argue that the ‘thermal shock’ approach fails to provide any control of the effect.
            His claimed hot cat does appear to have an internal coil and there is argument that Andrea Rossi’s issue re monitoring the voltage & current is to try to prevent anyone working out his pulsing technique. Hiding it would be very hard. If Rossi switched to pulsing he appears to have done so after seeing what Brillouin were doing.
            .
            Brillouin claim their control is entirely due to an electromagnetic pulsing in a narrow band of frequency. They applied for a patent for this.
            .
            DGT claim their control is achieved by triggering the reaction with plasma & ion bombardment and also with electromagnetic pulsing.
            .
            Andrea Rossi always claimed he had a ‘magic catalyst’ but the only evidence as to what this really was is that it was an additive used to allow controlled release of H and the reason he hides this by calling it a catalyst is that this step isn’t patentable. That belief is now reinforced by his revised patent claim where he states hand-over-heart that no ‘magic catalyst’ is required for his reactor to work as claimed. (EPO had informed Andrea Rossi that his claim for the ‘catalyst’ was unpatentable).
            .
            Another argument in regard to his claim for a ‘magic catalyst’ was that earlier Andrea Rossi stated publicly and very clearly that it was his ‘magic catalyst’ that differentiated his device from Piantelli’s (per 1995 lapsed patent). Rossi needed to claim something like this so as to avoid rejection based on ‘prior art’ for his version of the Piantelli process. But later withdrawing the ‘catalyst’ claim has created a double-bind.
            .
            The EPO have almost certainly told Andrea Rossi that the rejection of his patent will be upheld as he can’t even prove it works. Some (me esp) believe that is what all the current testing claims are all about. Simply a matter of Andrea Rossi seeking to get is ‘indipindent’ experts to state it does work. He has put massive effort into fighting the EPO’s pending rejection of his patent. He has at the same time (same date) filed a protest at the granting in Jan of Piantelli’s 2nd patent on Ni+H LENR.
            .
            DSM

          • Anon2014

            June 28, 2013 at 5:16 am

            DSM,

            Good post. Thank you.

            I am thinking along the lines that the magic catalyst is really just a second metal allow with different exothermic/endothermic hydrogen properties than the first metal.

            -Anon2014

          • MaxS

            June 28, 2013 at 10:05 am

            method of loading the heck out of a metal hydride

            interesting hypothesis and food for thought. However, they claim that the energy is far greater than any possible chemical source. Certainly it depends how long the experiment is running, and how high the COP is. It could be calculated how much hydrogen combustion would be required, the enthalpy of H2+O2->H2O is known. I don´t have the time for this now, but maybe I check over the week-end.
            Possibly this theory could explain why COP is so low (only 2.6), dismissing for a while the first experiment because only Levi and Foschi attended.
            But I think the theory is unlikely. If Rossi would have found such a method to load more hydrogen, it would be a significant invention itself for hydrogen fuel cells and combustion engines, why then fool around with LENR scams?
            Also phase diagrams of metal hydrides are well known, and have been examined since long time and can be found in chemistry text books and scientific journals.

      • CuriousChris Reply

        June 28, 2013 at 12:25 am

        @Deleo77 Most of what you report is pretty meaningless.

        Levi controlled the testing to the best of my knowledge, so no fear of dc meters. The whole 60v thing is a joke. There is no evidence of any test equipment sensitive to such a low voltage came anywhere near it. certainly the pce830 is immune to such a voltage and many times that.

        The writer of that article and I haven’t read the original is obviously seeking out whatever avenue they can find to try and legitimise the report. Anyone with any real electrical engineering experience and an unbiased attitude can see the glaring flaws.

        The biggest flaw is the original report did not cover these concerns an appendix had to be added at a later date to cover up their ineptitude.

    • Ivy Matt Reply

      June 27, 2013 at 8:13 pm

      Nine of the top ten vote-getters favored this answer. (Perhaps with an assist from the website ColdFusionNow.org, which urged readers to participate).

      Perhaps?

      • robiD Reply

        June 28, 2013 at 11:52 am

        But I also see that Al Potenza (aka Maryyugo) plus Andrew Palfreyman (aka AndrewP2) made more than 50 comments out of 208, a full time job indeed.

  27. Al Potenza Reply

    June 28, 2013 at 7:34 am

    Looks as if someone is standing up for Swedish scientists and repudiating Levi’s report with an excellent analysis:

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.6364.pdf

    With thanks to Andrew Palfreyman who found it and posted it on Moletrap.

    • CuriousChris Reply

      June 28, 2013 at 9:34 am

      Give it up Al. The believers will tear that report apart with their superior knowledge of testing and measurement procedures.
      /sarc

      • Jami Reply

        June 28, 2013 at 11:36 am

        They won’t feel the need to do that. After all, the report includes the bad phrase “known science”, which will pretty much settle the issue for most believers. The Levi report doesn’t need no stinkin’ known science because it’s about LENR. LENR contradicts known science, LENR is real, therefore known science is all wrong therefore all comments in accordance with known science (even those totally unrelated to LENR like thermal inertia of steel or thorough measurement methods for current and voltage or, well, plain common sense) are all wrong, too. q.e.d.

      • MaxS Reply

        June 28, 2013 at 1:19 pm

        it is pretty irrelevant what the believer camp makes out of this. What matters is truth finding.
        The Ericsson paper is good; it adresses many weaknesses in the Levi study. It puts the spotlight on the lack of competence and lack of diligence of the examiners.
        Ericsson is another academic from Uppsala University. It is pretty clear now that within Uppsala University there is a war going on.

        • Deleo77 Reply

          June 28, 2013 at 2:05 pm

          This is a good thing. Hopefully the professors on both sides at Upsala can talk it out directly and agree on next steps. ELFORSK has dedicated more money to testing, so the Swedish scientists should head back down to Italy and redouble their efforts to measure and test (and look for any possible way of fraud). This is a good academic debate that will potentially get to the bottom of it all.

          • Al Potenza

            June 28, 2013 at 4:57 pm

            As we know, Rossi will never allow a proper test protocol.

    • Shane D. Reply

      June 28, 2013 at 3:53 pm

      This report makes about the same arguments one finds here and there on the net. Not saying this is bad. It just shows that the peer review process on these websites can be as robust as more mainstream scientific channels.

      I did find their COMSOL simulation interesting. Haven’t seen anything comparable yet from our resident experts. Good questions/accusations for the 7 to answer to. Obvioulsy they knew they had a good point as they really hammer on that one.

      All the other objections they bring up have been noted and debated on the web many a time in the interim.

      I would have liked better had the report not gone into the questions of neutrality, preconceived beliefs nor question the reason these 7 were chosen over some technical institute. Maybe that is how real peer review is?… but to me I think the report should stand on its merits without the digs.

      The one thing I really didn’t think was fair was the reference to “pseudo-science”. Throwing that in there to me was a cheap attempt to win over the reader just in case the rest of their argument didn’t.

      Another is their critcism of the 7 for not speculating more, if the hotcat is real, what the implications are; i.e. a new type fuel, nuclear in origin. Well duh… of course the 7 aren’t going to start talking nuclear. They learned their lessons from FPs!

      I think these two peer reviewers knew that, yet used it as a platform to put words in the mouths of the 7. Nuclear it is, so now the hot fusion guys will get all riled up too. So where are the gammas? An intentional dirty trick to pollute the issue if you ask me.

      For the believers: there is a comment in this report that shows them baffled how -assuming the test is rigged, only 810 W input could heat the hot-cat to 300C. Hmmm.

  28. Jami Reply

    June 28, 2013 at 11:24 am

    “Now for the two hydride endo/exothermic chemical metal hydride hypothesis:”

    Nahh, too elaborate. If Rossi could do that, he could sell it as a revolutionary new type of energy carrier in its own right and do some real business. But he doesn’t. My money is still on cheating with input power.

    • Al Potenza Reply

      June 28, 2013 at 4:57 pm

      Cheating probably went as follows:

      Levi original Deb 2011 experiment: misplaced thermocouple (near heater).

      Small ecat experiments after that: wet steam taken as dry steam. Some idiots used air conditioning humidity meters to test the steam! It doesn’t work.

      “Ottoman” sized ecats (NASA term): misplaced thermocouple on the output heat exchanger– too near the hot end, outside the water flow stream instead of where it should be: inside.

      In all cases, no proper calibration.

      Newest test: probably cheated with INPUT power. Also the so-called dummy test was done improperly.

      • Ctapp Reply

        July 11, 2013 at 3:32 am

        You cannot cheat through a wire you idiot and its pretty f ing good to make wet steam that’s still hot stupid missed place thermocouple what he misplaced it in a oven if it is hot it is hot how hard is that

  29. MaxS Reply

    June 28, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    Piero
    June 28th, 2013 at 2:22 AM

    Dear Andrea, a rumor has spread that the first us plant is up and running. Can you confirm that? Thanks. All the best
    Andrea Rossi
    June 28th, 2013 at 8:12 AM

    Piero:
    Yes, is going well, but it is soon to talk about it. We are at the beginning of a long path. The production of the plants in the USA is started too: all the next plants will be entirely made in the USA.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Now my suggestion is, forget the Italo-Swedish report, forget the hotcat, and take another “indipendent report” at the premises of this customer setup, of a device with a guaranteed COP 6. Let the customer´s operators take part in it.
    Guess what? It will be all confidential.

Leave a Reply

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

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