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

Levi et al eCat Paper Critiqued

June 28, 2013

A constant refrain among members of the LENR community is that papers are not accepted by traditional scientific journals. Subsequent criticism by the tougher sceptics citing lack of peer review as evidence for lack of credibility has therefore seemed circular to me. For that reason, I welcome any rational critique from members of the scientific community in a position to judge. Rather than shy away or act defensively, LENR advocates would do well to study and address the issues. When your work is being torn apart, it has (ironically) been taken seriously enough to warrant the time and effort taken to study it. This is the way of real science. Normally peer review is conducted behind the scenes and authors are given the opportunity to rebut criticism. Due to the public-facing nature of arxiv, we get to see behind the curtain.

I admit to being torn. I agree with many (but not all) of the criticisms levelled at Rossi and his ‘tests’ but abhor the often nasty tone in which some of the discussions are conducted. With all that in mind, the publication of a paper by two nuclear scientists from Uppsala University is a useful development. It appears to be dispassionate even as the conclusions fall against the claims made in the Levi HotCat test paper.

We have heard most of the arguments here and elsewhere. They come down to the lack of true independence, the non-neutral testing ground, Rossi’s imposed restrictions, missing data and apparent lack of rigor when taking measurements in an environment where trickery cannot be assumed absent. While all of this has some truth to it, unless you assume fraud or gross incompetence among all participants, the observations diminish the power but do not kill the paper. The authors at times seem to pick problems that (to my mind) demonstrate their determination to find fault. Instead of highlighting the problem with the December IR test (due to insufficient knowledge of emissivity) they seem to dismiss it completely. They also claim the November test worthless and go on to imply that you cannot perform a black box measurement of energy balance when the device has already been switched on. IMHO such nit-picking could diminish the power of their critique. It is unnecessary as they have some valid points to make and make them well.

In all the biting and scratching we see on the forums, it is common among certain pundits to assume guilt is proven simply by casting doubt. I am sceptical of Rossi’s claims but it is important to recognise that just because you show that fraud has not been excluded, you cannot claim this as proof of fraud. The tendency by some to claim that there is no evidence for Rossi’s claims demonstrates their lack of understanding of the word. There is no proof but when 7 scientists witness, measure and report such evidence, that in itself is evidence. Taken in combination with previous demos, we can see that evidence exists to take the eCat seriously even as we recognise that proof is far from sight and doubt a reasonable stance. To a scientist, it is as if a group of people visited a magician’s workshop to witness a woman sawn in half. They are allowed to measure everything except what lies beneath the two halves of the table. When they then write a paper explaining how they proved to themselves that the woman was indeed halved and yet lived, they had better be prepared to be taken to task. This is not personal but common sense given the nature of the miracle and the history of tricks in the sector.

In the case of Ericsson and Pomp’s paper, I believe they fell short of proving the Levi paper worthless but did well to catalogue the problems with it. To me, three interesting points are worth highlighting among others:

  • Given the Hydro Fusion input measurement controversy, why wasn’t every effort taken to prove the integrity of the input beyond reasonable doubt? In particular, if the purpose was to use science to lend business credibility to the claim, why not bring an expert specialising in electrical power measurement to the party (eg from an independent testing facility)?
  • The second point of interest (to me) relates to the claimed power density. Ericsson and Pomp wonder at the lack of comment regarding power density which, at approximately 100 times that of a commercial fission reactor, is so out of the park as to be worthy of special scrutiny. In this case, they (Ericsson and Pomp) take the extreme of 0.3 g as their Nickel fuel mass. Remembering that we are talking about a (claimed) unknown process, it is a little harsh to compare it to fission instead of fusion. Taking 1g as the mass and energies akin to that of fusion, we can easily take out a factor of ten. Even so, it is still worthy of note.
  • The final point worth highlighting here is that the shape of the thermal waveform can be reproduced by assuming resistive heating on its own (but not the claimed scale of output/input).

There is much more to be said but this post is already too long. It’s worth remembering that, as a defence lawyer might cloud the issue with reasonable doubt to free an innocent (or guilty) client, in science you are guilty until proven otherwise.  It is always easy to find fault but the truth is that The Seven were there and Ericsson and Pomp were not. Even as I hold on to my scepticism, I remain astonished by Rossi’s performance. Ericsson’s paper is useful but does not destroy Rossi’s game. They show the test was not perfect – fine, but let’s not assume fraud just because you can imagine it. Make no mistake; his is an incredible feat. He let a group of seven scientists study the beast up close and personal for nine days when he was not present and then they went on to proclaim the lady halved and yet alive. You have to respect that even as you shake your head in wonder.

 

[Edited to change title from ‘Peer Reviewed’ to ‘Critiqued’ as – while it is reasonable to mention the lack of peer review and welcome this as a useful cousin – it is also reasonable to argue that this is not ‘Peer Review’ in the accepted use of the term in the scientific world.]

Posted by on June 28, 2013. Filed under Tests & Demos,Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

751 Responses to Levi et al eCat Paper Critiqued

  1. Harry Perini

    July 5, 2013 at 4:00 pm

    They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
    When he said the world was round
    They all laughed when Edison recorded sound
    They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother
    When they said that man could fly
    They told Marconi wireless was a phony
    It’s the same old cry

    They all laughed at Rockefeller Center
    Now they’re fighting to get in
    They all laughed at Whitney and his cotton gin
    They all laughed Fulton and his steamboat
    Hershey and his chocolate bar
    Ford and his Lizzie kept the laughers busy
    That’s how people are

    • Harry Perini

      July 5, 2013 at 4:10 pm

      And now they are laughing at Andrea Rossi

      • Jami

        July 5, 2013 at 4:38 pm

        When Gustav Meyerl was executed for serial murder and rape, his famous last words were “They killed Jesus – and now they’re killing me”.

        • Roger Bird

          July 6, 2013 at 1:44 am

          Your point?

      • RonB

        July 5, 2013 at 5:56 pm

        More than just laughing. It’s sad that people can be so unfair.

        If what I read is true, and it very well could be considering the players involved then consider the following:

        Curious that he was charged in the past with crimes and even spent jail time then later was found to be innocent.
        It seems that there are people who’s goal again is to smear the mans reputation.

        He was abused once by a corrupt system. Why would anyone want to do that again? Give the guy the benefit of the doubt for now. He deserves that (and more).

        http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiPetroldragonStory.shtml

        • John Milstone

          July 5, 2013 at 7:31 pm

          RonB, you do realize that Krivit was only re-posting Rossi’s vanity web page, don’t you?

          Notice the line immediately under the title:

          “By: Andrea Rossi”

          • RonB

            July 5, 2013 at 10:22 pm

            John,
            What you say is true. We do know that some of what he says is true (that not all charges were fair or just and that he was acquitted of some if not most).
            If it’s all true then he really deserves a big apology and more consideration than so many have given him to-date.

            The idea that he might have crossed swords with some unsavory types on his rise to fame and glory in the business circles of Italy, some of which included the garbage industry lol *whispers* you know what I mean, to me is quite likely.

            John, just as a test of your willingness to be just and fair in this context, what would you say the odds are that he ran into the kind of trouble where some folks can make your life miserable if you don’t “pay up”.

            zero, slim at best, or very likely??

            If it’s very likely, then why not cut the guy some slack in this new adventure.

          • John Milstone

            July 5, 2013 at 11:03 pm

            Notice that even in the cases where the convictions were overturned (i.e. the toxic waste dump charges) Rossi did what he was accused of doing: creating numerous toxic waste dumps using the waste that he claimed he was converting into fuel. The cleanup of what Rossi undoubtedly did cost at least $50 million.

            Meanwhile, everything I’ve read (newpaper articles, not Rossi vanity web sites) indicated that he was engaged in money-laundering. There were several other “businessmen” convicted along with him. According to evidence in the trial, Rossi’s “customers” were claiming to be paying Rossi for his “fuel” for more than a year after Petroldragon had been shut down. There was also no signs of any “fuel” actually being produced.

            Finally, I find it interesting that the Rossi fans are eager to suggest that the entire waste processing business (along with the police, justice system and government) in Italy is a front for the Mafia, but that Rossi must be the only exception to this claim. Somehow, Rossi is the only “honest” person in Italy, in spite of the obvious evidence to the contrary.

          • RonB

            July 6, 2013 at 12:45 am

            John,
            Rossi did what he was accused of doing: creating numerous toxic waste dumps using the waste that he claimed he was converting into fuel.

            Well John,
            I don’t see it that way. From my reading of it I get the idea that the change in the law is what created the toxic waste dumps. When they were created they were not considered toxic. Perhaps that’s why he was acquitted.

            I have a feeling that he pissed off some people and there was hell to pay.

          • JKW

            July 6, 2013 at 1:35 am

            We have to give it to Rossi that he is a master of illusion. I find at times that I get hung up on almost hating him for what he does – i.e. living a parasite life on the cost of others. But then, come to think of it, he’s just one of the many. He gives people dreams. Hollywood is made of it.

          • John Milstone

            July 6, 2013 at 11:55 am

            I don’t see it that way. From my reading of it I get the idea that the change in the law is what created the toxic waste dumps.

            How can a change in a law create toxic waste dumps?

            Rossi was accepting industrial waste (sludge), and dumping it in old, unused refining plants. The sludge leaked out, creating toxic waste dumps. Italy has spent (at least) $50 million to clean up the mess.

            It may not have been illegal to dump the sludge when Rossi was doing so, but it certainly wasn’t a good or desirable thing.

            He certainly shouldn’t have been charged with crimes that weren’t crimes when he committed the acts. However, this particular injustice doesn’t excuse all of the unrelated crimes for which he was also convicted, and to the best of my knowledge, never acquitted.

            Remember, most of his convictions were for business fraud, racketeering and money laundering, and that he was convicted along with the heads of four other companies.

            I have a feeling that he pissed off some people and there was hell to pay.

            You’re repeating Rossi’s version of events. Do you have any particular reason to believe him? Other than his vanity web site?

            Rossi’s supporters are willing to tie themselves in knots to go along with Rossi’s versions of events, even when there is all sorts of evidence that Rossi is lying (i.e. University of Bologna and National Instruments releasing statements specifically denying Rossi’s claims about them).

            Rossi’s level of mind control over the “True Believers” is truly amazing.

      • Jordi Heguilor

        July 5, 2013 at 10:49 pm

        I cannot speak for “them”, but AFAIC, I don’t laugh at Rossi. I see him as a charismatic and highly skilled con man. I don’t like what he’s doing, but I have to admit that he’s doing it well.

        His followers? Ahhh, THOSE are funny…

        • RonB

          July 6, 2013 at 12:47 am

          lol jordi.. now that’s funny

    • Dale G. Basgall

      July 5, 2013 at 6:17 pm

      Harry are you contending that “they” are laughing at Mr. Rossi? In your context of they could you more over describe who “they” are in your opinion. If the same mob that laughed at all those other inventors are laughing at Mr. Rossi now you should see for fact “they” are and were wrong.

      “They” to me is a very broad number of people who did not do what was claimed by the inventors or claimants of the above mentioned inventions that have come to pass in reality since those individuals laughing are the non performers and followers looking for amusement for themselves. When the door shuts behind them in private I wonder who the pivot clown is to them at that point.

      An inventor knows without doubt that followers are a useless mob mentality group. It is highly doubtful anyone with patience and a mindset of understanding will be laughing at Mr. Rossi.

      Lead-Follow- or drop from the bandwagon is what really matters. If anyone is laughing here at Mr. Rossi or his failure to produce what he has claimed that is their right but surely indicates their amusement with others failures or inability to produce what they claim.

      Either way is normal human characteristic and it’s called ego which is a driving force to convince others you know something, so I guess arrogance is also involved with that type of “laughing”. Do you happen to laugh when you think of the Mr. Rossi saga or are you positive those laughers or “they” are wrong for voicing their opinions in that way. Laughing is a healthy thing and really not disturbing, I personally see nothing funny at all about Mr. Rossi and have never found his claims to be funny in the slightest.

      I did feel amusement though after I viewed his lab and work on the “product” e-cat. It appeared as a mockery to mechanical principles (his devices) and was never consistent with the claims made by him.

      Don’t take it to personal Harry, the laughers as you state are simply amused in some way and to an inventor they are also part of the development phase of the product. A person has to just accept the fact that it is difficult for everyone to be on the same page.

      On another note, after you claim knowing something but show clearly you are at entry level with what your contending to know, makes others laugh that believe they know more about what your talking about than you do. What do you believe people are laughing about Mr. Rossi?

      • Harry Perini

        July 5, 2013 at 8:07 pm

        I believe Rossi will have the last laugh and will sing George Gershwin as he receives his Nobel Prize.

        But oh, you came through
        Now they’re eating humble pie

        They all said we’d never get together
        Darling, let’s take a bow
        For ho, ho, ho!
        Who’s got the last laugh?
        Hee, hee, hee!
        Let’s at the past laugh
        Ha, ha, ha!
        Who’s got the last laugh now?”

        • Jordi Heguilor

          July 5, 2013 at 10:58 pm

          It will certainly be a historic moment: the first person ever to be sent to jail for fraud and then receive a Nobel Prize.

          • RonB

            July 6, 2013 at 12:48 am

            Jordi.. are YOU MaryYooogo? lol

          • Jordi Heguilor

            July 6, 2013 at 4:06 am

            No, Ron, I’m not Mary. She (he?) takes this far more seriously than I do. Sometimes I get some “moral outrage” at Rossi, but most of the times I enjoy this as comedy and sometimes a fascinating look at the human mind at work.

          • RonB

            July 6, 2013 at 7:13 pm

            Jordi,
            I just know that many times MaryYugo makes me laugh. It’s obvious that he/she is a very intelligent person and I love reading the posts. I just thought your sense of humor was great too.
            I don’t agree with everything that I read but it doesn’t stop me from enjoying the posts.

        • CuriousChris

          July 6, 2013 at 1:05 pm

          Its nice to have a belief but belief without proof is religion

          What is your proof?

  2. Luigi Nonsenzo and his X-Ray Chick

    July 5, 2013 at 5:45 pm

    Whatever happened to Patterson and his little balls?

    • Shane D.

      July 5, 2013 at 5:53 pm

      Seems those balls were made from a particular batch of platinum that produced the majic. He couldn’t duplicate with later batches as I recall.

      I think about the same happened with FPs. Another reason LENR needs focus from all scientific disciplines… including materials engineering.

  3. arian558

    July 6, 2013 at 5:41 am

    Pekka Soininen a scientist from finnish apparently replicated e-cat and filled a detailed patent for it
    his name is on patents for number of companies, including Nokia , Another company he’s worked for is Beneq Oy, which is a company specializing in thin films/atomic-layer-deposition/nanotech and microclusters…

    download patent

    http://www.4shared.com/get/U5J-ZHML/WO2013076378A2.html

    • Deleo77

      July 6, 2013 at 9:23 am

      It appears that they are not close to having a commercialized product, but this could still be a big step in the development of LENR. How long until more people jump in?

    • ts

      July 6, 2013 at 10:43 am

      Yes. A lot of people are filing for these “LENR” patents. But, no one is receiving independent test verifications by respected measurement institutes. Sound familiar?

      • JKW

        July 6, 2013 at 11:23 am

        Kind of, when you change the spelling to “indipendent”.

    • Shane D.

      July 6, 2013 at 11:58 am

      This is huge. Paul should start a new thread with this one. Much to talk about.

      Read briefly through and a few points:

      This thing didn’t happen overnight. They did their homework and seem to be able to explain every process through prior art or their own novel ideas.

      Obviously this Pekka guy and the company have worked quietly on development under everyone’s radar. Makes one wonder how many others are doing the same.

      Looks like we can go back to calling it “cold fusion”. Fusion is all over the writing.

      Their reactor uses heat to control the reaction… Just like Rossi does. They mention a feedback loop with the reaction. I kind of laughed reading that thinking of the critics arguments of the ecat.

      This reactor relies heavily on the principals of the ryberg state… just as does DGTs Hyperion.

      It produces “free neutrons” which I take are the bad boys. They shield the reactor with neutron absorbent material. Grammars are thermalized like the ecat.

      Very impressive patent. Better by far than Rossis feeble submission. Interesting to see if the PO rejects due to it being cold fusion.

      The race is on!

      • DSM

        July 6, 2013 at 12:46 pm

        Yup this needs a new thread al right 🙂

        DSM

    • CuriousChris

      July 6, 2013 at 1:08 pm

      Warning

      A popup from that site (4shared) was blocked by my antivirus for having malware on it

      Proceed with extreme caution

      • Anon2014

        July 8, 2013 at 4:21 am

        search google patents. It’s there. To heck with 4shared.

    • Dale G. Basgall

      July 6, 2013 at 5:03 pm

      I wonder if that’s the same Pekka that used to post on this site quite some time ago.

  4. arian558

    July 6, 2013 at 9:18 am

    More about Pekka Soininen R&D manager at Beneq Oy

    pekka.soininen@beneq.com ,+358405827898

    Beneq Oy, based in Finland, is a leading supplier of industrial production and research equipment for thin film coatings used in solar photovoltaics, flexible electronics, strengthened glass and other emerging applications. Industry-proven Beneq equipment and thin film experience is used for improving the efficiency of crystalline silicon and thin film solar cells, producing transparent conductive oxide (TCO) coated glass and making touch screen glass more durable. Beneq has introduced several revolutionary innovations within its coating technologies, including true roll-to-roll atomic layer deposition (ALD) and high-yield atmospheric aerosol coating (nAERO®). http://www.beneq.com

  5. Jami

    July 6, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    Reads like pure patent trolling, covering just about every (un)imaginable method for cold fusion ever discussed. Elaborate drivel.

  6. dsm

    July 6, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    This link is easy to find and read

    http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013076378A2?cl=en

    Abstract
    System and method for producing thermal energy is based on a very large number of nanoscale particle accelerators in a volume accelerating electrons and hydrogen ions at very high local electric fields. Nanoscale particle accelerators comprise a dielectric material possessing electric polarizability and a metallic materialcapable of forming an interstitial and/or electrically conductive metal hydride and capable of enhancing the local electric field by the geometry and/or by the sufficiently small dimensions of the said metallic material. Low to medium strength local electric fields are utilized for the generation of Rydberg matter and inverted Rydberg matter in the presence of a material capable of forming and storing Rydberg atoms. Destabilization of Rydberg matter and inverted Rydberg matter leads to solid state physical reactions that release energy.
    .
    DSM

    • JKW

      July 6, 2013 at 1:37 pm

      Dazzling a patent inspector with a flux of pseudo-scientific wording is a way to get the patent. The guy is a pro. What is it worth? A roll of toilet paper.

      • arian558

        July 6, 2013 at 2:32 pm

        His word is not flux of pseudo-scientific wording he has many patent granted about nano material and based on his innovation a hundreds million dollar company “beneq” started in 2005 net sale of beneq company in 2012 was 18 million euro .

        beneq company

        http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fi&u=http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneq&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbeneq%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D947

        Pekka Soininen patents

        http://patent.ipexl.com/inventor/Pekka_Soininen_1.html

        • JKW

          July 6, 2013 at 2:45 pm

          His abstract sounds to me like a Miley inspired babble. What percentage of this guy’s patents actually have a real life application?

          • Deleo77

            July 6, 2013 at 5:15 pm

            It appears they have a company that has some funding to develop this. They seem like the most legit entity in the LENR world that I have seen so far. Who knows if we will hear from them again, but this feels like it’s on a real development path.

            http://etiam.fi/

          • JKW

            July 6, 2013 at 5:28 pm

            A one page website? You must be kidding.
            Or was this a sarcasm?

          • JKW

            July 6, 2013 at 5:36 pm

            Yeah, silly me. Nice 😀

          • blaze

            July 6, 2013 at 9:43 pm

            Pekka Soininen is a relatively common name in Finland.

            Pekka Juha Soininen is his full name and he worked for beneq & Picosun doing thin film development techniques.

            The etiam.fi looks interesting as they’re building tools to study lenr rather than lenr itself (a much more humble approach). My only concern is that it’s a front for patent trolling.

            Without a functioning prototype they can show to the world, they shouldn’t be allowed to file any patents.

          • dsm

            July 7, 2013 at 9:11 am

            JKWE
            I can promise you that any LENR patent “sounds to me like a Miley inspired babble” after a few good reds 🙂
            .
            Cheers
            .
            DSM

        • em

          July 8, 2013 at 10:16 am

          ETIAM Oy is probably a shell company.
          It`s business is declared as a manufacturer of
          electric motors, generators and transformers.
          Google street view of it`s address
          Kuntokatu 4, Lahti
          https://www.google.fi/maps?q=&layer=c&z=17&iwloc=A&sll=60.986006,25.594010&cbp=13,21.2,0,0,0&cbll=60.985924,25.593944&sa=X&ei=uYLaUd_EIYrw4QS61YHoCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CC0QxB0wAA

    • Shane D.

      July 6, 2013 at 6:03 pm

      ECNs won’t let me link to “LENR Forum”, but Alain over there has been on Etiam awhile now.

  7. JKW

    July 6, 2013 at 1:55 pm

    Frank at ECW just published a new blog entry: “Rossi’s Changing Role”, which makes me wonder: how does a con artist’s role change over time….

    • Jami

      July 6, 2013 at 3:00 pm

      They’re suffering from chronic amnesia over there, wondering about things they wondered about a couple of months ago and will wonder about again when the time comes. How often has Rossi now said that he is no longer in charge? Three times? Four?

      • JKW

        July 6, 2013 at 3:32 pm

        Mostly when the licensees nag him for a product they can sell, I guess. Then he comes up with a newer product which outshines the older one. Then he needs to perfect it.

    • Shane D.

      July 6, 2013 at 5:15 pm

      Hard to ignore the connection that right after the 3rd party hotcat test results are made public, Rossi starts toning down his JONP dialogue and sounding “corporate”.

      Sounds like he is having to, or deciding to toe the line now. Maybe the new legal department decided his mouth could be a liability to them.

      Or maybe this last test filled in the missing piece and now he has the public attention he needed to attract investment. Maybe Rossi just read the new patent out by Pekka and realized he, on his JONP, supplied some of the wording.

      Who knows with this crazy story, but one thing seems certain… he is acting different now.

      I find that good.

    • Deleo77

      July 6, 2013 at 5:38 pm

      Rossi’s statements bring up a lot of questions around who now owns the e-cat? Who will file the patent for it? Did Rossi sell his assets to this corporation, is it a joint venture, is he getting paid as an employee? What happened to his team in Ferrara? Are they still working there, or were they not a part of this? Where is this job? Rossi has a condo in Miami, is it down in Florida? What is to become of all of distribution licenses that were sold? If this company modifies the e-cat into a slightly different product, and changes the name, do the licensees have the right to distribute it? If the company says they are not ready to commercialize a product for the time being, will Hydrofusion get their e-cat in the fall? Where will the 6 month test be? Here in the U.S. where Rossi now is? Why can’t he reveal who he is working for? Does that really need to remain top secret?

      I will stop there, but anyone here could keep going with more questions. The one I have for the skeptics is if Rossi is lying and there is no corporation, why say there is one? Why say something that could obviously be proven false in court in a case of fraud? Why make these statements at all when he could just keep stringing everyone along and hunker down? If Rossi is a con artist, and this is his exit strategy, it’s kind of a strange one, why not just fly out of the coop and leave?

      • JKW

        July 6, 2013 at 6:07 pm

        I don’t think Rossi’s blog dumps would ever be considered as evidence in a court of law. We (except DSM) have not seen the contractual agreements between the magician and his licensees, but my guess is that he made it difficult or impossible to enforce anything. He is not a newbie in the con business.
        About exit strategy – drive from Miami to Key West and take a kayak. It’s only 80 miles to Cuba. Then share some of the licencees’ money with Fidel’s brother.

        • Luigi Nonsenzo and his X-Ray Chick

          July 6, 2013 at 7:16 pm

          Exit strategy #2 – eCats for starving children in poor countries. While delivering in one of said countries, disappear.

          • John Milstone

            July 7, 2013 at 12:57 pm

            I don’t think most “free-energy” scammers have an exit strategy. They seem to think they can keep it going forever.

            And, they’re probably right. Blacklight Power has been running their scam for over 20 years now, so it’s certainly possible.

        • John Milstone

          July 7, 2013 at 12:56 pm

          We (except DSM) have not seen the contractual agreements between the magician and his licensees

          Here they are:

          http://shutdownrossi.com/rossis-partners-investors/e-cat-australia-roger-green/

    • John Milstone

      July 7, 2013 at 11:37 am

      which makes me wonder: how does a con artist’s role change over time….

      THIS is a pretty good summary of the typical steps in a scam.

      And THIS is a good glossary of the terms used in the “industry”. It’s worth reviewing to see how well-established the scam “industry” really is.

  8. joseph weizbrot

    July 6, 2013 at 10:02 pm

    Has any body considered that the system should be thermally unstable? At least in the range it has been demonstrated in.

    • Luigi Nonsenzo and his X-Ray Chick

      July 6, 2013 at 11:14 pm

      Considering that the core tube most likely contains nothing but a sintered coal of old hamburger, nobody whom I respect is really worried about this hypothetical eventuality.

      • RonB

        July 7, 2013 at 12:20 am

        There’s a real conversation stopper.. sheesh..

        As if saving the world by creating a new energy source isn’t enough, if we get to watch the ultra-skeptics eat crow, it will be all the more sweet.

    • Shane D.

      July 7, 2013 at 12:38 am

      Good question Joseph. Good point also.

      Don’t mind our latest skeptic addition (Louis Nonsense). Here on ECN they are a nuisance for the rest of us that just try and have a good conversation about the latest LENR developments.

      Although I have been told I am a functional illiterate by the lords of darkness here, I nonetheless agree, for what it is worth, 100% with what you said.

      The hot cat is not very effective for electrical purposes without some type of storage resevoir if it can’t maintain temps in the proper range for high quality steam production.

      But then again, if Rossi can hand-make (they don’t work mass produced), enough of those 20% efficient thermocouples of his… well just maybe. 🙂

    • CuriousChris

      July 7, 2013 at 2:36 am

      @joseph weizbrot

      Assuming we are talking of Rossi’s hotcat/ecat.

      Yes being thermally unstable has been considered and covered.

      Thermally unstable and yet can be controlled by turning a heater on and off?

      Does that make sense to you? It makes sense only to a believer.

      If it was thermally unstable the only way to quench it is with cooling not with electrical heating. unless the electrical heating is the only source of heat and then turning it off will prevent runaway.

  9. Luigi Nonsenzo and his X-Ray Chick

    July 7, 2013 at 12:37 am

    Now, now; you’re confused. I’m
    Not a pathosceptic
    Not a pseudosceptic
    Not an ultrasceptic

    I’m a hypersceptic

    • RonB

      July 7, 2013 at 6:31 am

      I’m a hypersceptic .. I like that!

  10. blaze

    July 7, 2013 at 12:38 am

    [0261] The following non-limiting examples illustrate the present technology.

    EXAMPLE 1 [0262] Nickel nanopowder having an average particle size of 10 nm was is mixed with pyroelectric lithium tetraborate L12B4O7 crystallite powder having particle size range of about 100 nm – 1000 nm. L12B4O7 crystallite powder was prepared by mechanically crushing commercial L12B4O7 crystals to powder. The powder mixture is placed to the reaction cartridge. The reaction container was connected to a hydrogen gas line receiving hydrogen gas from a pressurized hydrogen gas bottle. The reaction container was also connected to the cooling fluid circulation. The reaction container was pressurized with hydrogen gas to 20 bar (gauge) and slowly heated to 400 °C.

    [0263] It is assumed that the pyroelectric crystallite powder was polarized by the temperature changes within the reaction material. The temperature of the reaction material was altered with external control (cooling fluid circulation) to keep the pyroelectric crystallite powder polarized. The system started to produce gamma radiation that had specific gamma photon energies.

    Generated thermal energy was removed by the cooling fluid circulation from the reaction container. The amount of collected thermal energy was much larger than the energy used for pre-heating the reaction container. After the test the reaction cartridge was de-pressurized and let to cool to room temperature for several days. The reaction material obtained from the cooled reaction container contained possibly some helium gas and traces of copper and beryllium that were not present in the original reaction material before the experiment. The construction materials used for the reaction container were originally free of copper and beryllium.

    EXAMPLE 2 [0264] The experimental setup was the same as used in Example 1 but nickel nanopowder was replaced with titanium nanopowder and lithium tetraborate was replaced with piezoelectric quartz S1O2 powder. Externally controlled mechanical vibrations (ultrasonic source) provided the original electric field by polarization of the piezoelectric material. A lot of thermal energy was produced during the experiment. The COP was over 10. After the reactions the reaction material obtained from the reaction container possibly contained traces of vanadium isotopes and phosphorus that were not present in the original reaction material, although contamination from the steel used for the construction is not entirely excluded.

    [0265] Secondary nuclear reactions forming stable isotopes from non-stable isotopes release more energy along time depending on the half lifes of the non-stable isotopes until the system consists only of stable isotopes. It is not yet certain how far along the titanium isotope chain it is possible to proceed. It is herein hypothesized that lighter titanium isotopes are fused with hydrogen into heavier titanium isotopes via non-stable vanadium isotopes.

    [0266] It is not yet known how extensive and fast is the deterioration of the crystal structure of polarizable dielectric materials while operating the system at conditions favorable for fusion. The probability of proceeding further in the transmutation chain from the just created element to the next heavier element (a proton added) is possibly weakened locally after the first fusion reaction but the extent of deterioration that destroys locally the favorable fusion reaction conditions (high local electric field strength) for the transmutation is not yet clear.

    EXAMPLE 3 [0267] The experimental setup was the same as used in Example 1 but nickel nanopowder was replaced with zirconium nanopowder and lithium tetraborate was replaced with multiferroic BiFe03 powder. Externally controlled magnetic field provided the local electric field by polarization of the multiferroic material. It is hypothesized that hydrogen was fused with zirconium because quite a lot of thermal energy was released accompanied by noticeable gamma radiation. After the reactions the reaction material obtained from the reaction container possibly contained traces of niobium and molybdenum isotopes that were not present in the original reaction material, although contamination from the steel used for the construction cannot be entirely excluded.

  11. Luigi Nonsenzo and his X-Ray Chick

    July 7, 2013 at 5:17 am

    @blaze
    That’s an encouraging list for LENR. What’s missing is independent replication of the same experiment in at least two other independent laboratories. Oddly, LENR researchers don’t seem to grasp this elementary credibility gate.

  12. blaze

    July 7, 2013 at 6:00 am

    Well, I suspect that’s why he included the examples.

    • RonB

      July 7, 2013 at 6:29 am

      blaze,
      When I was designing x-y displays (back in the vector graphics days) I used mu-metal to shield the coils so that the magnetic flux wouldn’t interfere with other electronics. The mu-metal was really cool stuff and I found out that it was created by heat treating a mostly nickle alloy under high pressure hydrogen.

      • John Milstone

        July 7, 2013 at 11:45 am

        The mu-metal was really cool stuff and I found out that it was created by heat treating a mostly nickle alloy under high pressure hydrogen.

        Yet another example of how this combination is well-known and widely-used in multiple industries, and has been for a century.

        And yet, no one in all that time noticed “excess” energy.

        It appears that, like every other pathological “science”, you have to be a Believer before you are able to detect anything interesting.

        • RonB

          July 7, 2013 at 1:33 pm

          Not many people would put a calorimeter on a blast furnace. I can hear the manager of a machine shop talking to a new employee.
          “you want to do what?? — GET TO WORK!”

          • John Milstone

            July 7, 2013 at 2:30 pm

            Not many people would put a calorimeter on a blast furnace.

            Not just blast furnaces, but all Ni-H research, as well as production, for a century or so.

            That century of widespread research, development and industrial use demonstrates that Ni-H LENR either doesn’t exist, or is too insignificant to ever be noticed.

            And, with the exception of the obvious frauds, the LENR research largely supports this conclusion.

  13. blaze

    July 7, 2013 at 6:11 am

    BTW, this is close to what Dr Miley is proposing. So, in terms of independent laboratories..

    pekka has a pretty credible track record as far as I can tell.

  14. arian558

    July 7, 2013 at 8:03 am

    Interesting paper from nature about successful cold fusion experiment

    http://fire.pppl.gov/cyrstal_fusion_nature.pdf

    • Luigi Nonsenzo and his X-Ray Chick

      July 7, 2013 at 8:31 am

      Allegedly successful. To be successful, it must be replicated in other labs. Since it’s not been heard of since 2005, one can only assume that it cannot be reliably reproduced.

      • blaze

        July 7, 2013 at 8:47 am

        Yeah, good point. It’s just a goofy article in some fringe magazine.

        • Luigi Nonsenzo and his X-Ray Chick

          July 7, 2013 at 9:51 am

          You’re deliberately talking past my point. It may well have worked (once? repeatedly?), but if it’s so great, where are the replications? The products?

          • 123star

            July 7, 2013 at 2:35 pm

            Pyroelectric fusion should not be classified as “cold fusion”.
            Pyroelectric crystals, when heated, generate powerful electric fields that can be exploited to generate high-energy particles.
            They behave like small particle accelerators.
            The physics behind pyroelectric fusion is actually hot fusion. Therefore, the topic of “pyroelectric fusion” is not controversial at all as it has a perfectly “mainstream” interpretation.

            The sad thing is that, for practical reasons, the power needed to heat the pyroelectric crystal is bigger that the power we could extract from D+D fusion.

            Sadly the same goes for any known particle accelerator (e.g. cyclotrons, synchrotrons, etc.). The power needed to accelerate the particles is much bigger than the power we could extract from fusion (e.g. D+D, D+T, etc.). Again, this is due to practical reasons. If this were not the case, don’t you think that we would be already doing that? 🙂

            Ah, I noticed Blaze politely said it already: “rtfa” 🙂

            If you read the article they say:

            Although the reported fusion is not useful in the power-producing sense, we anticipate that the system will find application as a simple palm-sized neutron generator

      • DSM

        July 7, 2013 at 11:54 am

        Who is this “one can assume” ?
        .
        It sure isn’t me !

        .
        DSM

    • arian558

      July 7, 2013 at 1:46 pm

      Another paper about this in journal of applied physics.

      http://fire.pppl.gov/accel_crystals_japhys_05.pdf

  15. Blaze

    July 7, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Rtfa.

  16. Blaze

    July 7, 2013 at 3:46 pm

    I think it’s becoming clear it requires a pretty optimal quantum configuration (eg, 10 nm nano powder, piezo/ crystals) to start to get significant COP. Ths is why it has never been seriously seen before.

    Still, I think science / academia is way screwed up. They should have seen the small AHE and worked it with big budgets. Not a very big leap to assume the possibility that the AHE could become big AHE with more optimisations.

    • John Milstone

      July 7, 2013 at 6:03 pm

      I think it’s becoming clear it requires a pretty optimal quantum configuration (eg, 10 nm nano powder, piezo/ crystals) to start to get significant COP.

      So…. you’re admitting that the first 20 years or so of LENR research were wrong? None of them were using your configuration, and yet they were claiming “significant COP”.

      • blaze

        July 7, 2013 at 6:10 pm

        My configuration? Huh? The patent belongs to Pekka Soininen.

        That was just an example. And I’m pretty sure it’s not the first or the last word on LENR.

        Anyways, the pathoskepticism here is getting boring. If you need to be obsessive like this, at least put some effort into it.

        • John Milstone

          July 7, 2013 at 6:43 pm

          You just said that it was “becoming clear” that LENR required 10nm nano powder, etc.

          Since none of the experimenters who claimed success for the first 20 years had those things, either they weren’t really successful, or your argument is wrong.

          Sorry that my repeatedly bringing facts into the discussion bores you. Perhaps you should spend your time over at the Vortex. Right not, there’s a cute thread about how crop circles are providing LENR information. That sounds like something that wouldn’t bore you.

          • blaze

            July 7, 2013 at 7:01 pm

            ““becoming clear” that LENR required 10nm nano powder”

            Lordy. I said no such thing. Yikes, where’s the mute button..

          • Ransompw

            July 7, 2013 at 7:16 pm

            Milstone:

            You don’t bring out facts, you spout stupidities. And you do it constantly. You really can’t know anything at all about science.

            The fact that LENR requires 10nm nanopowders (which might not be true), has nothing to do with experiments 20 years ago, other than to create a good reason that results couldn’t be routinely duplicated. There are undoubtedly the equivilent of 10nm areas on many metal surfaces. So the NAE in the past was much less consistant and likely very random resulting in the very inconsistent results.

            You point was beyond stupid.

          • John Milstone

            July 8, 2013 at 12:24 am

            What blaze said in the message immediately above:

            ““becoming clear” that LENR required 10nm nano powder”

            Lordy. I said no such thing. Yikes, where’s the mute button..

            What blaze said a few posts earlier:

            I think it’s becoming clear it requires a pretty optimal quantum configuration (eg, 10 nm nano powder, piezo/ crystals) to start to get significant COP. Ths is why it has never been seriously seen before.

            Blaze, perhaps you should see a doctor about your short-term memory problems.

          • John Milstone

            July 8, 2013 at 12:28 am

            The fact that LENR requires 10nm nanopowders (which might not be true), has nothing to do with experiments 20 years ago, other than to create a good reason that results couldn’t be routinely duplicated.

            I hate to break it to you (since you seem so delusional about it), but there still isn’t any evidence that anyone can routinely duplicate their alleged positive results.

          • Ransompw

            July 8, 2013 at 2:30 am

            Milstone:

            Closing your eyes and ears doesn’t count.

          • LCD

            July 8, 2013 at 5:16 am

            @Blaze

            Why are you engaging JM Blaze? You only encourage him. It is clear to anybody with more than 2 IQ points what the difference is in what JM is claiming you are saying (which is wrong) and what you actually said.

            JM can’t reason or use logic to critically analyze these type of arguments.

            If you must address him then address him as if you were addressing a child, that might work.

            Good luck.

      • arian558

        July 7, 2013 at 6:55 pm

        Dr.Randell mills used similar method as pyroelectric fusion more than 20 years ago
        but he has different theory for it as you know that violate law of quantum mechanic that is
        biggest reason why scientific community doesn’t get his claim seriously.

        his validation paper from Rowan University

        http://www.rowan.edu/colleges/engineering/clinics/cleanenergy/pv/papers/pdf/files/paper7.pdf

        pictures from experiment set up

        http://www.rowan.edu/colleges/engineering/clinics/cleanenergy/pv/papers/pdf/files/ppt6.pdf

        • LCD

          July 8, 2013 at 5:27 am

          Arian what do the critics say is the likely explanation of these COPs of about 1.7.

        • John Milstone

          July 8, 2013 at 12:28 pm

          Blacklight Power has more credibility problems that that.

          In 2008, they claimed to have a device that produced 50KW of excess power back in 2008, but according to their latest press release, they are now claiming only 10 Watts (LINK. Why the negative rate of progress?

          Also in 2008, they claimed to have signed deals with a number of customers. There is no sign of any customer actually using a BLP device in these last years. In fact, a quick Google search of their first “customer” (“Estacado Energy Services, Inc.”) shows no signs of a “real” business.

    • RonB

      July 7, 2013 at 7:21 pm

      They should have seen the small AHE and worked it with big budgets. Not a very big leap to assume the possibility that the AHE could become big AHE with more optimizations.
      Blaze, they did see the AHE. Of the 15 universities that I reviewed in first few years following 1989, the majority DID see AHE. It just wasn’t on the order that was seen by P&F and therefore not deemed as “replication”. The odd thing was that they didn’t repeat the exact same setup as P&F did. They used different metal configurations and voltages. Some were close to the same as P&F but not exactly. Not to say that they would have ever repeated the exact results of the two scientists (after all, it appears that even F&P couldn’t repeat those same results).
      But why on earth didn’t they investigate the small amount of AHE (less than 15 percent)

  17. arian558

    July 7, 2013 at 4:13 pm

    123star

    Maybe I’m wrong but i think skeptics believed until now tabletop nuclear fusion (cold fusion) is junk science and pyroelectric fusion was accepted as a reality after this paper from nature in 2005 so this is a new discovery and what make you so sure that there is no room for tweaking this method when i read Finnish patent immediately noticed to similarity mechanism between this paper from nature and their patent.

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

    • 123star

      July 7, 2013 at 6:24 pm

      …skeptics believed until now tabletop nuclear fusion (cold fusion) is junk science and pyroelectric fusion was accepted as a reality after this paper from nature in 2005 so this is a new discovery

      Pyroelectric fusion is kind of an exception, it is tabletop but it’s hot fusion. The distinction should not be tabletop/not tabletop but just hot/cold. Keep in mind that hot fusion has a a solid theory behind, cold fusion claims don’t.

      what make you so sure that there is no room for tweaking this method

      I don’t claim that there is absolutely no space for tweaking this method, but I think it’s very unlikely.
      There are many fusion technologies, e.g. the Farnsworth-Hirsch type fusors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor) or Muon-catalyzed_fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion) that look promising at a first glance (especially the Muon-catalyzed one), but it seems that they can’t be used as practical energy sources, as well.
      The most promising fusion technologies yet (break-even seems attainable) are tokamaks (e.g. ITER) or (let’s say 2nd place) laser-based inertial confinement fusion (e.g. NIF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility). The question is, as always, which is the best horse to bet on?

      • blaze

        July 7, 2013 at 6:32 pm

        I think the answer is to start pumping up lab budgets and bet on them all.

      • Jordi Heguilor

        July 7, 2013 at 6:44 pm

        “… that look promising at a first glance (especially the Muon-catalyzed one), but it seems that they can’t be used as practical energy sources, as well.”

        Yes, there seems to be some confusion about the difference between “free energy” and “useful energy”. Anybody wants a free energy machine? One that turns photons directly into a rotational motion? Easy, and less than 12 bucks on Ebay, shipping included:

        http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tedco-Single-Radiometer-Solar-Sun-Powered-Sun-Energy-Science-Light-Bulb-Sphere-/380664045671?pt=Educational_Toys_US&hash=item58a1586067

        Interesting? Yes. Useful? Definitely not.

        (Shit, I should have started a crowdfunding campaign on ecw, telling people that I have a “working prototype” and need money to “optimize” it. Assuming Big Energy doesn’t suppress me…)

      • RonB

        July 7, 2013 at 7:24 pm

        but it’s hot fusion.

        123Star.. is that a proven fact or is it conjecture because the scientists that declare it to be so know that cold fusion is impossible?
        I’m not a physicist, just an electrical engineer.

        • 123star

          July 7, 2013 at 11:39 pm

          By “hot fusion” we mean a condition where the reactants have high energy. A particle has high energy when it “runs fast”, so fast that two particles can overcome their mutual repulsion and smash together and fuse.
          There are two main ways to get hot fusion.

          1 – Use very high temperature (and pressure): in this case many particles move extremely fast but in random directions, some of them eventually meet and fuse together (this is what happens in the sun, in tokamaks, and H bombs)

          2 – Accelerating individual particles: you need a particle accelerator. You don’t need a big one, just as big as a cathode ray tube: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor : there have been successful amateur fusor experiments, too!
          As I said, due to practical reason we can’t use a Fusor device as a power source.
          To answer your question, since a pyroelectric crystals is able to accelerate particles to high energies, we can classify pyroelectric fusion as hot fusion.

          When we talk about cold fusion, we expect the particles involved to have low energy (they don’t “run fast”) so they couldn’t overcome their electrostatic repulsion and smash together. If low energy nuclear reactions do exist (and note, there is very poor evidence for this) we need a different explanation. See e.g. the highly controversial Widom-Larsen theory.

          • dsm

            July 8, 2013 at 1:52 am

            Does Quantum tunneling come into this definition of ‘hot’ ?

            D

          • 123star

            July 8, 2013 at 4:12 am

            @dsm
            I’d say that quantum tunnelling effects are always present. At low energy the tunnelling probability is typically negligible, but when the energy of the colliding particles is close to the barrier height the tunnelling probability may become important. This way two particles which don’t have the energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier can still undergo fusion, albeit with more difficulty.
            So I can’t put a label “hot” or “cold” on quantum tunnelling.

            Another thing: by my definition, muon catalyzed fusion should be considered “cold” because no energetic particles are needed to start the reaction.

            However, muon catalyzed fusion is not considered “cold fusion”. Wikipedia says:

            Muon-catalyzed fusion is a mechanism for relatively low temperature fusion, but it is distinct from cold fusion. By comparison, muon-catalyzed fusion is well established, real, and repeatable.

            I think that MCF is the only(?) exception: fusion, cold, but not “cold fusion” 🙂

          • RonB

            July 8, 2013 at 6:54 am

            123Star,
            Thanks for the explanation. I guess the question I should have asked was “how does science know that pyroelectric crystals are able to accelerate particles to high energies and why didn’t science know this ages ago?

          • 123star

            July 8, 2013 at 8:39 pm

            @RonB
            I used pyroelectric crystals some years ago as X-ray generators (the crystals are used to accelerate electrons against a copper target).
            This model exactly: http://www.amptek.com/coolx.html

            I’m not sure, but I think that the ability of pyroelectric crystals to accelerate particles has been known from a long time. I don’t know why there have been no pyroelectric fusion attempts before 2005. After all, you can always use a (small) particle accelerator and obtain the same results. Sadly, both particle accelerator and cyrstal based devices can’t be used as practical energy sources, as I said yesterday.

        • dsm

          July 8, 2013 at 6:25 am

          Thanks 🙂

          I appreciate your input on this

          DSM

  18. blaze

    July 7, 2013 at 6:39 pm

    The one concern I have now is weaponization. If the COP gets high enough, is it possible to increase the pressure/temp enough and then jolt some big electrical shock through the whole thing to trigger a thermonuclear event?

    Are we really just building low energy hydrogen bombs?

    My hope is not, that the various material would fuse and no longer provide a reaction container that can produce the required heat.

    You’d also think one of the zillions of lightning strikes would have triggered these sorts of things if that were possible.

    But then 10nm nanopowder mixed in with piezo/pyro electric crystal powder under pressure of hydrogen probably doesn’t happen all that much in nature.

    The great thing about solar and wind is that it’s hard to blow **** up with solar panels and wind mills.

    • John Milstone

      July 7, 2013 at 6:45 pm

      The one concern I have now is weaponization.

      LOL!

      Since no one has demonstrated a device that can even brew a cup of tea, there is very little chance of weaponizing LENR.

      They couldn’t even produce enough hot water to throw on an enemy and scold them.

      • blaze

        July 7, 2013 at 6:48 pm

        Sure, but the point is – is it even WORTH trying to brew a cup of tea if the end result is facilitating low energy thermonuclear devices.

        This is a prime pathoskeptic argument. Surprised you’re not using it. (Bayesian logic, I know, it’s hard)

        This might be one of the reasons why the powers that be are more interested in Hot Fusion. Because it’s so damn hard. Easier to keep out of the hands of Joe Random or your local wacko dictator.

        Maybe the DOE and friends are freaked out about the idea of cold fusion being possible.

        • RonB

          July 7, 2013 at 7:11 pm

          blaze,
          You really might have something there. You know in the 60’s the idea was to convince people that UFO sightings were just bunk and they made fun of anyone that was to report anything strange flying around. That worked well and even today, if someone were to actually see a UFO up close they would probably just keep quiet about it because of fear of ridicule. Very effective deterrent. It’s almost like that now. I am loath to tell my friends that I am working on LENR (or Cold fusion) because it’s got such a bad stigma associated with it. That’s just sad and it’s being reinforced even today by people on this website.
          Do I believe in UFO’s? I’ve never seen one.

          • John Milstone

            July 7, 2013 at 7:16 pm

            Do I believe in UFO’s? I’ve never seen one.

            That’s funny. I have seen UFOs on two separate occasions. Both were very impressive (one of them was every bit as visually impressive as some of the shots from the movie “Close Encounters”).

            Unfortunately for my development as a “True Believer”, I was able to keep these UFOs in sight long enough to verify that they were just aircraft in unusual viewing conditions.

        • John Milstone

          July 7, 2013 at 7:21 pm

          Sure, but the point is – is it even WORTH trying to brew a cup of tea if the end result is facilitating low energy thermonuclear devices.

          Sure, because everyone in the world are all working together to suppress LENR. /sarc

          Do you really believe that, say, Israel would ignore LENR if there was any chance that they could destroy the economic basis for their enemy’s power?

          The reason no one is putting any significant effort into LENR is because there is no evidence that LENR is significant.

          • blaze

            July 7, 2013 at 7:30 pm

            Well, we already have nuclear energy and look how well that’s work out for us.

            Certainly wouldn’t be the first time we developed a technology we thought was a good idea that ended up biting us all in the ass.

      • RonB

        July 7, 2013 at 7:12 pm

        Scold them.. – Adding insult to injury! ha!

        • blaze

          July 7, 2013 at 7:16 pm

          Well, I wouldn’t argue that the DOE knows it’s possible (that’d be a massive conspiracy, impossible to maintain.. just look at Snowden), but they might be driving themselves to a logical conclusion:

          Why invest money in something that might just end up arming all those crazies out there? Facilitating asymmetric warfare is not a big hobby the federal government has.

          • Luigi Nonsenzo and his X-Ray Chick

            July 7, 2013 at 7:49 pm

            I believe that tens of millions of dollars were spent after the 1989 announcements, and thousands of man-hours worked, in various labs by various people and organisations. It is now almost a quarter century later. What went wrong?

  19. kasom

    July 7, 2013 at 8:23 pm

    amusing thought: with more and more patentapplications and scientific papers Krivit et al. may run short of BS to throw in the way…….

    • blaze

      July 7, 2013 at 9:09 pm

      Time will march on completely oblivious to comments on blogs, either way. Reality is pretty agnostic when it comes to what any of us believes.

      • Luigi Nonsenzo and his X-Ray Chick

        July 7, 2013 at 9:58 pm

        You seem to have mastered the art of the semantic null statement.

        There is no ironclad case for or against the feasibility of LENR. There is not a human being alive that can make a solid case either way.

        To prove this particular negative, the Coulomb barrier problem is usually mentioned. We are however humble enough to know that our physics is incomplete. This leaves the door open for LENR to work.

        The experimental evidence is tantalising. We need 3 independent labs all successfully producing excess heat from the SAME device construction. Then, and only then, can the engineering begin and the industry kicked off.

        You can carry on foaming at the mouth about patho-ultra-madeupwords-sceptibunkerknickers people all you like, you flaming fool. The situation is as described.

        • JNewman

          July 7, 2013 at 11:17 pm

          Hooray! Two years of these silly Rossi-inspired blogs summarized in one post. But a year from now, the content will be the same.

          • Luigi Nonsenzo and his X-Ray Chick

            July 8, 2013 at 1:05 am

            Why thank you sir. One couldn’t even fuck any sense into these morons.

        • blaze

          July 7, 2013 at 11:38 pm

          Hear that? That’s the sound of time marching on.

        • dsm

          July 7, 2013 at 11:59 pm

          Luigi Nonsenzo and his X-Ray Chick

          Hmmm – which poster are you targeting your July 7, 2013 at 9:58 pm post at ?
          .
          Just wondering because it isn’t especially clear to me (kasom?, blaze?, RonB?, GreenWin?, ?)
          .
          Thanks
          .
          DSM
          (PS in agreement with JNewman – the core substance is well stated ! – good !)

          • Luigi Nonsenzo and his X-Ray Chick

            July 8, 2013 at 1:07 am

            All of you, but blaze in particular

            That’s what those little arrows are for

          • dsm

            July 8, 2013 at 1:46 am

            Thanks,
            .
            The arrows are IMHO no accurate reflection of a poster’s intended target.
            .
            So often another post from a different person and location will pop up in between depending of timing.
            .
            Stating the intended posters name is unambiguous and avoids us reverting to the mind-reading game esp if the post has a sting in its tail. Reading minds remotely is not of my strengths even if you assume it is (a kind thought).
            .
            DSM

        • LCD

          July 8, 2013 at 5:09 am

          Luigi you say “we are however humble enough to know that our physics is incomplete. This leaves the door open for LENR to work”
          .
          This tells me that you are probably not a pathoskept like JNewman who just complemented you and likely had to “bite his tongue” not to thrash you for saying something like the above.
          .
          Anyways I’m going to attempt to comment in a civil manner on this other quote from you.
          .
          “The experimental evidence is tantalising. We need 3 independent labs all successfully producing excess heat from the SAME device construction. Then, and only then, can the engineering begin and the industry kicked off.”
          .
          I would of course agree with you except that you are assuming that we have to have PUBLIC evidence so that “engineering can begin and the industry kicked off”
          .
          Isn’t it entirely possible that the industry could kick off from private research and then have a situation where 3 independent public labs successfully produce excess heat from the same device i.e. a commercially available device?

          • JNewman

            July 8, 2013 at 1:27 pm

            LCD, just for the sake of accuracy, I did not have to “bite my tongue” when Luigi said that our knowledge of physics was not perfect so that LENR might actually be possible. If you actually read what people post instead of putting them into your little boxes like “pathoskept”, you would know that I have absolutely no problem with such a statement. I have never said that LENR is impossible nor do I think so. My position is that the existing evidence for it is unconvincing. But rather than providing actual arguments for your views, it is far easier to use silly labels for people as Luigi says.

          • LCD

            July 9, 2013 at 3:10 am

            Jnewman we have this thing called Google today, in reality.

            In the world you live in, not reality, you actually believe that your position is one of rationality, where among other things, you actually believe that LENR is entirely possible.

            Back in reality, where I can Google your various self conflicting comments, your words clearly show that you in fact DO NOT BELIEVE that there is room in physics for LENR. Just like you don’t believe there is room for Rossi NOT beign a FRAUD, and Focardi NOT being a gullable old man.

            When you make your way out of the Matrix, Google yourself.

        • RonB

          July 8, 2013 at 7:07 am

          The experimental evidence is tantalising. We need 3 independent labs all successfully producing excess heat from the SAME device construction. Then, and only then, can the engineering begin and the industry kicked off.

          Sad thing is that there were 15 or so of them within a year or so of the F&P press release that produced excess heat. Just not enough extra heat to be classified as a replication of F&P. While the setup’s were not identical to what F&P did for some mysterious reason, they did show a small percentage of AH. I suppose the amount of excess heat was too small to rule out measurement errors or to be considered as useful.

    • MaxS

      July 8, 2013 at 1:01 pm

      WTF are you talking about? Who is Krivit et al?
      1. Krivit is a long time supporter of LENR, he only challenges Rossi
      2. Rossi has only one patent which he cannot get granted because it is too weak and does not disclose anything, except making bold claims without any evidence
      3. there is a pseudo-scientific paper from Rossi and Focardi which elaborates on a Ni-H fusion process and COP>100, but according to the master´s later explanation it is only a side effect, nevertheless the patent is based on thes same idea. How scientifc or pathetic was that? And COP fell from >100 to 2.x, after 2 years of research.
      4. other people patents have nothing in common with Rossi´s
      5. LENR may be real but Rossi nevertheless can be fraud. The believer´s conclusion “if LENR is real then Rossi is real” is absurd.

      • dsm

        July 8, 2013 at 11:39 pm

        MaxS
        .
        You are being *far* to kind to Andrea Rossi and Prof Focardi in regard to their early COP claims.
        .
        go to this link (the paper published by them in March 2010) and go to page 4.
        .
        http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3080659.ece/BINARY/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf
        .
        Look at the chart of tests they say they carried out in 2008/2009.
        .
        The highest COP is 415 for a test dated 28th May 2008 !.
        .
        Cheers

        DSM

        PS while we are looking at what they published and claimed. On page 3 under the para labelled 2 they state that this device is protected by patent in 90 countries. This was not really true. Andrea Rossi filed for an EPO patent in late 2008 and is currently appealing a notification of pending rejection (sent to him in early 2013) of that patent.
        .
        Also here is the link to Andrea Rossi’s patent
        http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf;jsessionid=951E5027AF92E091046406CDE0FC0B55.wapp2?docId=WO2009125444&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCTDescription
        and if you search for 2007, it will take you to this statement …
        .
        “A practical embodiment of the inventive apparatus, installed on October 16, 2007, is at present perfectly operating 24 hours per day, and provides an amount of heat sufficient to heat the factory of the Company EON of via Carlo Ragazzi 18, at Bondeno (Province of Ferrara).
        .
        It is very interesting that Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi started working together only months before in June 2007. Both state publicly they had the paper design worked out but had not built actual reactors until mid 2007 because Rossi needed Focardi to show that they would not be harmed or killed by radiation (this was actually Prof Focardi’s main area of expertise). Search the below doc for ‘neutrons’ it brings you to the point about harmful radiation.
        .
        Here is the radio interview with Prof Focardi on these matters (dated 5th April 2011) …
        .
        http://radio.rcdc.it/wp-content/uploads/Focardi-english-version.pdf
        .
        It is always worthwhile keeping past statements claims and stories on the table as they help place today’s situation in perspective.

      • dsm

        July 8, 2013 at 11:55 pm

        Here is where Andrea Rossi mentions switching from his prior energy efforts to looking at the LENR as a source of energy.
        .
        http://pesn.com/2011/07/14/9501869_EV-World_Interviews_Andrea_Rossi/
        .
        Scan for ‘2007’ – and he confirms he ‘hired’ Focardi
        .
        Here is the extract …
        .
        A – Yes… Actually, when I arrived at the very critical point in my research in 2007… Until 2007 I made this work in the time left free from all my arrangements to make power plants, etc. I arrived in 2007 to a point that to go ahead it was necessary to abandon completely all the other engagements and make only this full time 16 hours per day. Before making a choice like this, I hired Focardi who was an expert in the matter, because also he had worked on Nickle Hydrogen reactions. And I knew him as an expert so I hired him as a consultant, and I asked him not to see if my process could work, but I demanded him to demonstrate that it could not work. Because I wanted… You know a very strong to be sure it was worth ???? another activity to put myself in this one. And he has taken… It was July 2007. After some day he said, I think this will work. At that point, we hired him as a consultant for the safety side of the issue. Because at that point I decided that to produce actual generators, and so I wanted to be sure that we did not make mistakes under the safety point of view. Because ***if it worked***, there would have been radiations, and he taught to us very well how to protect the environment from the radiations, and thermalize the radiations to make heat. And I built a boiler that has heated my factory which was in a small town of Italy which is Fariera, just in the outskirts of Ferrari, in North East Italy. This boiler has heated my factory for about one year, and so we made experiments in an actual working reactor. Of course, for many years I made a lot of smaller units. They have been used, destroyed, and so on.
        .
        Again always helpful to keep in perspective. I highlighted the if it worked just to pinpoint the transition from paper design to building a successful eCat (as claimed) in just 4 months – this is in contrast to the other claims of 15 years of research and 1000s of build-test-destroy Edisonian experiments (we only need to do the time math).
        .
        DSM

  20. Jordi Heguilor

    July 8, 2013 at 3:18 am

    Check the price of this paperback, the subtitle on the cover, and the first line of the description.

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Energy-Catalyzer-by-Yoan-Niek-Paperback-/380601120230?pt=US_Nonfiction_Book&hash=item589d9835e6

    • Al Potenza

      July 8, 2013 at 8:43 pm

      Weird, isn’t it. I wonder if he will sell any. I suppose he may because “there is sucker born every minute.”

  21. Jami

    July 8, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    “Isn’t it entirely possible that the industry could kick off from private research and then have a situation where 3 independent public labs successfully produce excess heat from the same device i.e. a commercially available device?”

    Mute point, IMO. Before it’d come to that, there would be an awful lot of testing anyway. Rossi’s insistence that the 1 MW plants are available may sound like all hurdles have been crossed – but even if they would work, I kind of doubt they or any other LENR device could become available as a commercial product just like that without many years of excessive certification hassle.

    • Dale G. Basgall

      July 8, 2013 at 5:24 pm

      Jami that’s all well and good and your post is likely however, “we the people” so to speak as individuals will likely “never” be allowed to own any LENR device that works.

      This has nothing to do with LENR science, or “if” the science will ever be made efficient for electrical power generation. The situation is to view how many companies are allowed to “generate” electricity for others to use and pay for. I don’t see anyone competing to sell and distribute useable electricity. Just look around and find those companies all tied back to one large phantom company and where is that money going?

      That’s why we the small pins have to purchase a product all others should be able to have. Quantum mechanics will reveal that the small particles transitioning from suns radiation into our atmosphere and further translating into electrical energy have a number way big in quantity. There will be meters that will allow that big phantom company to collect a tangible exchange for the consuming of those. I have a feeling also that “if” LENR is developed it will be highly controlled. “like a gun law” – “a prescription to a drug” and so on.

      Also the LENR has potential that until fully discovered by the larger pivot companies as in Westinghouse – GE – and such you will most likely see one only in your dreams.

      So it’s not research and science involved in this scenario but the known fact you can not have very powerful devices in the masses of people. Any LENR generator will be highly guarded by the controlling power.

  22. Deleo77

    July 8, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    This was posted on ECW today. It is an interview with one of the Upsala professors about the paper criticizing their work. Interesting read – I wish they asked him a couple of specific questions, about not being able to see DC power, when the upcoming 6 month test will be, the dead wire, and yes the cheese video. But this guy seems to be standing by what he wrote:

    Googletranslate + corrections

    There is no peace for Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat. The publication of the now famous independent third-party test on the E-Cat high temperature seemed to represent a turning point in the story starring the Italian engineer and his creature, which promises to revolutionize the world of energy.

    But even the new test came in the middle of strong controversy, carried out by an article made by Professors Goran Ericsson and Stephan Pomp, nuclear physicists at the University of Uppsala, which is highly critical of the test and openly questioned the results.

    The criticism of Ericsson and Pomp -published on arxiv.org, the platform of Cornell University on which also the E-Cat tests were made public, in their report Ericsson Pomp and question the real independence of the testers noting that some of them had already participated in previous demonstrations organized by engineer Rossi. It ss also criticized their own qualifications to perform these tests because they do not have adequate preparation for a “black box” test.

    Ericsson and Pomp wonder how the testers could be assured that inside the reactor there is nickel and hydrogen if they have not been able to open.

    Furthermore, the same reference to “trade secrets” about the “fuel” of the reactor brings a veil of shadow over the real operation of the reactor itself overshadowing the possibility that it could be using a second source of energy.

    This accusation stems from the fact that Ericsson and Pomp do not agree on the choice to perform the tests in the laboratories of Leonardo Corporation made available by engineer Rossi. The two scientists also point out that in both tests the reactors were put into operation by personnel authorized by engineer Rossi and not by the testers themselves.

    Regarding the measurements, according to Ericsson and Pomp, the December test must be invalidated because no data have been reported on emissivity. For the test in March, the two critics claim to have been able, through the COSMOL (a simulation tool used in physics) to replicate the same results without the involvement of any abnormal heat. The two critics consider that there is no data were provided on the unloaded dummy (“dummy”).

    The conclusions of the report of Ericsson and Pomp were harsh: they accuse their colleagues to have made to prevail their hopes above the scientific rigor and, based on all the observations prior reported, express the conviction that no truly independent test was performed on the E -Cat. Ericcson and Pomp therefore conclude that neither the test published on Arxiv or elsewhere has never proven that there’s an “abnormal production of energy.”

    The answer of Professor Bo Höistad – This is clearly a very harsh report in which, not only doubt is cast on the operation of the E-Cat, but also on the reliability of the same scientists who have carried out two tests in December 2012 and March 2013 so as to explicitly accuse them of having followed a typical method of “pseudo-science”, that is to skip to extraordinary conclusions without first having sought explanations in traditional physics.

    We therefore decided to contact Professor Bo Höistad, a nuclear physicist and professor at the University of Uppsala and one of the authors of the famous independent test, to allow him to replicate and to explain its position on the target of criticism by Ericsson and Pomp.

    IBTimes: Dear Professor Höistad, Ericsson and Pomp bring into question the independence of the testers, especially Professor Levi and Petterson. How do you respond to this charge?

    Bo Höistad: First, let me point out that the article of Pomp and Ericsson is written with a very negative provision towards Rossi and tried to find all the possible arguments to support their idea that Rossi is cheating. As a result they are very critical about our tentatively positive results. Their paper, instead of directly discuss our findings in a scientific manner, focuses on a number circumstantial issues that have no relevance to the primary outcome i.e. if our results are correct within the errors estimated. Furthermore they attribute to us different statements that are false. Also there are many deliberate omissions, unwarranted opinions and false claims. Finally, their article is written in a polemical style tended to insult and ridicule rather than bring clarity to a complex scientific controversy.

    On the question of independence, it is an obvious contradiction that the result of our measurements may be rejected only because one of our authors (Levi) and Rossi know each other. Our result should be judged on scientific grounds and not on the basis of insignificant relationships.

    IBTimes: In the report of Ericsson and Pomp it is also said that neither you nor the other authors of the study have the appropriate skills to carry out a test “black-box”. Is that so?

    Bo Höistad: As researchers in experimental physics, chemistry and radiology with a long experience in advanced techniques of high precision our expertise is evident. It should be noted that both Ericsson and Pomp are nuclear physicists, while our group includes a much broader field of science.

    IBTimes: We come to “technical” criticisms, the fact that the tests were carried out in the laboratories of Leonardo Corporation puts into question in any way the results published by you and your team?

    Bo Höistad: We used our experimental tools. Rossi has only provided his E-Cat reactor with its electrical box. It also allowed us to use his laboratory that we have carefully inspected before testing. Rossi was not involved in the test in any way. One of his technicians helped us to operate the E-Cat, but then he did not take part in any way to the measurements.

    IBTimes: I report some questions that are addressed in the study. How do you know that inside the reactor there are nickel and hydrogen since you could not open it? Why was the reactor put into operation by technicians assigned by Rossi?

    Bo Höistad: We were there when Rossi emptied the reactor fuel, although we have not seen him doing it. We have also implemented a fuel analysis after the operation of the reactor. But strictly speaking we can not be 100% sure that the fuel that we have analyzed is the same that was present in the reactor. However, this has no relevance to the main result of the measurement that it has produced a large excess heat compared to the combustion chemistry of ANY substance.

    IBTimes: What can you tell us about the “fuel” and “trade secrets” that surround him? Is it really possible – as suggested in the study by Ericsson and Pomp – that a second source of energy has been used ?

    Bo Höistad: If you are referring to some form of hidden energy to cheat, we have made every effort to unmask an trick of this kind.

    At this point of our investigation it does not make sense to make assumptions about the nature of the excess heat produced by the reactor fuel. In particular, any hypothesis on the prevalence of a nuclear reaction is understandable only if a nuclear transition can be localized, and so far it has not been so.

    Note that we communicated it in the “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder”, and our results should certainly be repeated by more comprehensive studies. Our current results are interesting enough to continue these studies. Presumably there is still a long way to go before we can confirm or deny the operation of the E-Cat reactor (I made this observation to the Swedish newspaper Ny Tekink, New Technology, and Ericsson and Pomp know).

    IBTimes: How do you respond to criticism on the measurements for both the December test for the March?

    Bo Höistad: Their conjectures about the difference in the excess heat produced between the test in December and March are incorrect. Just look at our paper.

    IBTimes: Finally Ericsson and Pomp argue that in the tests you made you find a typical attitude of pseudo-science, which is moving quickly to extraordinary conclusions rather than trying to find explanations in the physical standard. It is a very heavy criticism: How do you respond?

    Bo Höistad: It is very unfortunate that Ericsson Pomp and resort to wicked and mischievous comments. Accusing colleagues with a long and distinguished series of hundreds of scientific articles published in the most important international journals in physics to be sold to pseudo-science is simply a severe insult and beyond any reasonable level of a decent academic behavior. Frankly speaking I am ashamed of having colleagues at the University of Uppsala that don’t refrain from personal attacks of such a low level.

    • Jami

      July 8, 2013 at 5:42 pm

      “Bo Höistad: We used our experimental tools. Rossi has only provided his E-Cat reactor with its electrical box. It also allowed us to use his laboratory that we have carefully inspected before testing.”

      Ahhh… so Rossi allowed them to use his lab and they happily accepted. Much more convenient than doing it in Bo’s kitchen or in the back of his car, I suppose. So that’s perfectly understandable and nothing to worry about. Also good to know that they used “our experimental tools” which probably translates to “Rossi also allowed us to use his power analyzer” or “we bought our own power analyzer which happened to be the same one used by Rossi – since he told us what it could and couldn’t do, we used the manual as toilet paper”.

      P.S. I find it amazing that Bo could do all the due diligence before running the tests when the test was already running by the time he got there.

      • RonB

        July 8, 2013 at 7:33 pm

        Del,
        Interesting read. I so agree with the author that the review of the report was an overtly personal affront to these distinguished scientists.
        These guys are not dummies and I think their report stands well against criticism.

        • Al Potenza

          July 8, 2013 at 8:03 pm

          Nonsense. See the new thread and my response to it. They ARE dummies. Their idiotic response (instead of a proper response admitting their deficiencies in the testing) PROVES that they are not able to detect deception.

          BTW, Kullander and Essen could be thought of as “distinguished scientists”– not that it matters because such scientists are routinely easy to fool. But Levi is not a bit distinguished. Look at his publications on the U of B web site. Seems he is most concerned about how to design a coffee maker. And the rest of the group is comparatively junior. Kullander and Essen distinguished themselves in the past by being easily deceived by Rossi at least 5 different times. They also didn’t object to Rossi’s fiasco of a non-demo of the so-called megawatt plant in October of 2011 so they basically disqualify themselves because they are OBVIOUSLY not competent for this — regardless of their distinguished past work.

          • RonB

            July 8, 2013 at 8:17 pm

            lol Al,
            Perhaps he’s really not trying to make coffee but instead is trying to make a cup of tea ; )

      • Al Potenza

        July 8, 2013 at 8:04 pm

        Exactly.

      • RonB

        July 8, 2013 at 8:15 pm

        P.S. I find it amazing that Bo could do all the due diligence before running the tests when the test was already running by the time he got there.

        I don’t see the relevance here. If, for example, I was going to do a horse power test on an automobile engine and hooked it up to the dyno and got a reading and then someone claimed the test wasn’t valid because I wasn’t around when the engine was started.

        • Al Potenza

          July 8, 2013 at 8:41 pm

          A better analogy is that you weren’t around to check to see if a fraudulent gasoline source was added to a test checking gas mileage.

    • John Milstone

      July 8, 2013 at 5:56 pm

      Bo Höistad: We were there when Rossi emptied the reactor fuel, although we have not seen him doing it.

      Just one of the “slight of hand” gimmicks used by Rossi.

      We have also implemented a fuel analysis after the operation of the reactor.

      OK, so this will be the third time someone has done this.

      The first time, they detected no signs of any nuclear process.

      The second time, Sven Kullander refused to release the results, even though he promised to do so.

      I wonder how they know that what they are testing actually came from the reactor, since Rossi left the room and allegedly removed the “secret sauce” out of sight of the testers.

      I guess they are just willing to believe anything he says. That isn’t science, but then, none of this is science. It’s showmanship, with the “testers” being willing props.

      • RonB

        July 8, 2013 at 7:35 pm

        What has any of that got to do with excess heat?? As I understand, that was the purpose of the test.

        • AB

          July 8, 2013 at 8:27 pm

          Obviously nothing, but the point is not to criticize, but rather to attack and construct schizophrenic alternate realities in which it’s an “obvious” fraud and everyone who doesn’t see it as such is stupid. The pathoskeptics argue like creationists: here is our conclusion, how can we bend reality to make it fit?

        • Al Potenza

          July 8, 2013 at 8:39 pm

          The point is that neither Rossi’s story nor that of the experimenters’ makes any sense in terms of known, established, and obviously correct physics, nor in terms of correct procedure for this sort of testing.

  23. Jordi Heguilor

    July 8, 2013 at 8:21 pm

    “Bo Höistad: We were there when Rossi emptied the reactor fuel, although we have not seen him doing it. ”

    Yep, scientists can be the easiest ones to fool…

    • Al Potenza

      July 8, 2013 at 8:38 pm

      I am sure if they had seen the interior of the “reactor”, they would have realized that there is no reactor at all.

    • dsm

      July 8, 2013 at 11:01 pm

      “Bo Höistad: We were there when Rossi emptied the reactor fuel, although we have not seen him doing it. ”
      .

      Sadly, that is simply a stunning admission. What did they imagine people reading that remark who are trying to make sense of the report, would think ?. Remember this is the claim to have invented a world shattering new energy that is still not understood nor fully accepted in science !.
      .
      I can’t help but think that this admission was as good as these people painting a large target on their backs.
      .
      DSM

  24. Jordi Heguilor

    July 9, 2013 at 2:55 am

    Rossi is a very smart liar and manipulator, but this time he made a very bad mistake.

    He can string his followers and investors for years by alleging “certification issues”, “manufacturing issues”, “patent issues” or whatever is the bullshit-du-jour.

    But these scientists have put their reputation on the line and there is no reason for Rossi to deny them the opportunity to clear the air with an independent test. Of course Rossi would not allow an independent test because HE DOES NOT HAVE A WORKING E-CAT.

    I foresee a lot of shit flying between some of the seven and Rossi. This may prove to be the end of The Farce.

    • Frank

      July 9, 2013 at 4:42 am

      Well, I would assume that Rossi will face troubles from investors (I mean licenses who really invested own money; not shills) which will get impatient when they can’t sell any plant. They will more and more urge to see the “1MW plant in USA” in operation – to present it to potential clients (and to clarify whether they may write off their investment).
      BTW: That container was allegedly shipped 10 weeks ago. – It shouldn’t take more than a day after arrival to hook up the power and water steam pipes and start-up the plant. So why don’t the true believers wonder why there is still no sign of an operational showcase plant?

      So what are Rossi’s options to put the real investors off? Maybe a “safety incident” with the 1MW plant?