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

Andrea Rossi’s eCat – Evidence For & Against

July 27, 2011

Much is made about the lack of proof when trying to place Andrea Rossi’s eCat on the reality spectrum. In a scientific sense, that is oh-so-true for those without the privilege of being on the inside of things. No scientist should take anecdotal evidence as word and, since we tend to look to them for guidance, it’s no surprise that their objections are sounded loud and clear. In their business, nothing else matters but absolute, bomb-proof facts (doubly so for something labelled as ‘junk science’).

In a recent post I suggested that a scientist’s conclusion should be that there is insufficient data for a conclusion but somehow the proclamations from some sound like accusations of fraud. Lost in this argument we can forget that, in the real world, scientists are used as one tool in the mix of evidence in our justice system. People are in prisons despite scientists swearing on their behalf, certain in their belief that one thing is true instead of another. In the real world, in the absence of data good enough to result in scientific consensus, we weigh the evidence and think for ourselves. Which begs the question: For the person in the street, what is that evidence?

Against:

  • It’s too-good-too-be-true
  • Does not conform to ‘known’ fusion rules
  • Public demos have been demos – never proof
  • Most outsiders with access have restrictions imposed
  • Andrea Rossi has a past open to attack
  • The money involved is big-big-big
  • Two people given passive access were not impressed
  • Most mainstream scientists do not believe that LENR is real
  • Some supporters of LENR are wary of believing
  • Contradicting statements among main players
  • Mainstream media is curiously silent

For:

  • LENR is almost certainly real
  • Prof Focardi published promising Ni-H results long before working with Andrea Rossi
  • Prof Piantelli (Focardi’s former Ni-H collaborator) has similar claims
  • No-one with deep access argues against the eCat
  • A number of respected scientists with privileged access publicly support Rossi
  • A number of non-aligned prominent scientists give qualified support
  • Rossi has numerous financial backers
  • Defkalion, with 200 million Euros on the table, state that their engineers have unrestricted daily access and get gains no less than 19 in tests. This means that they are not victims
  • Specific and short timescale to launch
  • Large output and gain is simple to measure to an accuracy that matters commercially
  • Andrea Rossi will lose everything if the eCat does not do as he promises
  • Professor Stremmenos, Defkalion Board member and conduit to Greek PM, is beyond reproach and in it up to his neck
  • AR’s former colleagues bought the rights for the Americas (Ampenergo) – a demonstration of credibility from those who know
  • Scientists at the University of Bologna (and the institution itself) are happy to be associated with eCat
  • Often a stick to beat him with, Andrea Rossi’s background is also indicative of a serial entrepreneur pushing at the front edge of what is possible
  • Mainstream media is not covering a 200 million Euro fraud with links to Greek government and prominent scientists

In an effort to keep eCatNews.com objective, I will not believe until proof is provided. I suggest that readers thinking about investing time and/or money do the same. However, honesty goes both ways and I have to admit that the weight of circumstantial evidence ‘against’ is weak. Most points are easy to explain away, should you wish to do so. When balancing this against the circumstantial evidence ‘for’ it appears to me that we would be foolish to bet against it being real (even as caution holds us back from investing our life savings ‘for’).

Thankfully, most of us do not have to make that call as October is near. For those wanting to take a risk, look at the evidence using the above list as a guide and decide how the scales would tilt in a court of law.

Posted by on July 27, 2011. Filed under Defkalion,Piantelli,Rossi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

42 Responses to Andrea Rossi’s eCat – Evidence For & Against

  1. Eric Blievernicht Reply

    July 28, 2011 at 3:48 am

    Thank you for this superb pro-and-con list. I’ve been following the Ecat since January, and agree with every point (on both sides) that you list. It will be an excellent resource to share with others just getting interested in this subject matter. Again, thank you for the time and thought putting it together.

    • admin Reply

      July 28, 2011 at 2:40 pm

      Thanks, Eric. I appreciate the feedback. Sharing is good.

      Paul

  2. Luca Reply

    July 28, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    Im trying to imagine what we’ll be saying about this five years from now. Will it be a forgotten embarassment by the believers, or huge dose of reality for the mainstream scientific community that will forever change it.
    We’ll find out soon.

    • admin Reply

      July 28, 2011 at 2:47 pm

      Hi Luca,

      There’s no doubt that ‘we’ve’ been fooled before and will be again. At the moment, we have to be prepared for disappointment without blinding ourselves to the true weight of evidence. It could go either way, but most of us would not be wasting our time if pessimism ruled over our logic and hope. As you say… soon.

      Paul

  3. Greg Meadows Reply

    July 28, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    I vividly remember Fleischman and Pons and the following controversy. When I first heard of this, I was very skeptical.

    I’ve been following this for several months now. The more I see of it, the greater the probability of it being real has risen in my estimation. I’d say it has reached about a 95% chance of being real, according to my own estimation.

    I am not 100% convinced yet, but I can see a way forward that will “close the sale”. Whether or not that happens is entirely dependent upon factors over which I have no control. So, like everyone else, I am watching, waiting and hoping.

    • admin Reply

      July 28, 2011 at 2:58 pm

      Hi Greg,

      Every time you delve a little deeper you discover something that is self-evident to those on the inside but invisible to others. There is a small army of people who ‘know’ and many clues a mere click away. When I started this project, I had no idea where those tracks would lead but with the furore surrounding the subject, I expected to find a rack of smoking guns. So far, that has not been the case. To best serve this community, I resist the urge to jump into the believers’ camp. Even so, when logic and objectivity lead us down the same road, we have to seriously think about the implications of this all being true – should it prove so.

  4. Rockyspoon Reply

    July 28, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    I think it is important to note that the sequence of people that must be convinced include:
    1) The inventor himself.
    2) His working associates.
    3) Investors needed to bankroll the enterprise.
    4) Engineers and fabricators that must commercialize the item.
    5) Government officials and bureaucrats so the necessary permits to build and operate the units can be obtained.
    6) Customers.
    7) Scientists.

    Sorry, but the theoretical inner workings of the process (the realm of the theoretical physicist) are relegated to the very last–similar to the way many things inside a computer aren’t known in absolute theory but the behavior is known well enough to controll it and benefit from it. I’m cautiously optimistic Rossi’s device is real if for no other reason that other LENR devices are appearing also. Certainly these are exciting times.

    • admin Reply

      July 29, 2011 at 10:20 am

      Hi Rockyspoon,

      Given Rossi’S self-determined strategy I’d put the wider scientific community low down on the list, too. This is not to denigrate them but because they are smart and spending time trying to convince them would only accellerate competition. If the eCat pans out, scientists will shift their focus. Their time will come and we will all benefit.

      Paul

  5. John Dlouhy Reply

    July 28, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    Most of what people think they know they actually believe without evidence. They believe the world is round but haven’t measured it . They believe in electrons but with what evidence? They believe that DNA shapes life, but why? Because we were told by people we trusted and because others believe it, not because we had evidence presented to us. So the real question is, who will they have to hear it from before they believe the E-Cat is real? A TV commercial? CNN? The President? Really…

    • admin Reply

      July 29, 2011 at 10:23 am

      Justin Timberlake.

  6. Ben Reply

    July 28, 2011 at 10:26 pm

    Until 6 months ago, I throughout cold fusion had been debunked in 1989 and had pretty much forgotten about it. When I first heard about the E-cat I was shocked to say the least. I was even more shocked to do some further reading and find out that not only had the funeral for cold fusion been a sham, but that many people had been working on this technology for 20+ years! The jury is still out on the E-cat as far as I’m concerned. I am keeping an open mind but have no illusions However, I am 99% convinced that cold fusion, LENR, LANR, CANR or whatever you want to call it is very real. If Rossi hasn’t figure it out, someone will in the very near future. I have resolved to be vigilant this time and not let the lies of the media and established scientific community, or the constant negativity of the cynics and pathological skeptics, sweep this back under the rug for another 20 years.

    • admin Reply

      July 29, 2011 at 10:27 am

      Hi Ben,

      You stole my thoughts!

      Paul

  7. Pingback: Audio Bologna Business Defkalion Drama Hands-On History Hyperion Krivit licencing Media/Blogs Piantelli products Rossi test Videos eCat’s Global Spread July 28, 2011 | Author: admin An eCatNews What If? article. What if Andrea Rossi manages a successful

  8. James Reply

    July 29, 2011 at 3:58 am

    I have a big iron box here in my house into which I put large chunks of wood. This heats my home nicely every winter. When I see a L A N R box the same size that will do the same job I will believe but so far all I have seen is B.S.
    No product has ever been delivered.
    Ether way, we will know in two months. I will not be surprised to hear delay after delay for delivery dates. That will be a sure sign of HOAX.

    • admin Reply

      July 29, 2011 at 10:30 am

      Hi James

      If multiple delays become the norm, we should all be suspicious.

      Paul

  9. georgehants Reply

    July 29, 2011 at 7:37 am

    good article admin,

    The question for everybody shortly (if true) is how quickly Rossi receives the Nobel prizes for both Physics and Chemistry.
    Main-line science, journals etc. will probably do everything they can to deflect and belittle Rossi’s achievements, it will be up to ordinary people to push for the prizes to be awarded quickly, not in twenty years time.

    • admin Reply

      July 29, 2011 at 10:35 am

      Hi George,

      If the eCat works as advertised he’d deserve it. If so, I would love to see it shared by Pons and Fleischman. Justice served even if too late for some.

      Paul

      • georgehants Reply

        July 29, 2011 at 10:48 am

        Admin, if only everybody was as fair and open-minded, Pons of course as you say has died but there is still time to give Fleischman the recognition and apologies he deserves.
        How can we protect in the future the Rebels who try to go beyond known science and are destroyed by the establishment for daring to be true scientists.

        • Jed Rothwell Reply

          July 29, 2011 at 6:28 pm

          Pons has not died!

          • admin

            July 29, 2011 at 8:02 pm

            Thanks, Jed. He will be pleased to know that.

            Paul

          • georgehants

            July 30, 2011 at 8:27 am

            Jed, I do apologise, and happy to do so for Pons as well.
            Still time to atone to them both.

      • Ben Reply

        July 29, 2011 at 5:52 pm

        I agree whole-heartedly with you Admin. If the e-Cat works anywhere near as advertised, Pons needs to get props nod for taking the arrows as a pioneer. It would also serve Rossi well to acknowledge Francesco Piantelli’s work in Nickel-Hydrogen, lest the two of them become ensnarled in a nasty patent dispute. It would be another sad day in LENR history if the E-cat turns out to be real but gets held up in the courts over patent issues. I already have an inkling that something like that just might happen.

        • Ben Reply

          July 29, 2011 at 5:55 pm

          I met Fleishmann, as Pons has already passed. Of course, just to acknowledge Pons’ work with Fleishmann, even posthumously. would be a nice touch.

          • admin

            July 29, 2011 at 8:07 pm

            Hi Ben,

            See Jed’s comment. We can but hope. The first hurdle of course is to see a successful eCat. With luck, that will be the first prize.

            Paul

          • Ben

            July 29, 2011 at 9:44 pm

            Thank you Admin and Mr. Rothwell for straightening out the confusion regarding the status of Mr. Pons. It seems that death of both cold fusion and Stanley Pons have both been greatly exaggerated.

  10. Jibbguy Reply

    July 29, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    Thank you for this balanced and well-done site, and the comprehensive for-and-against list. We need more matter-of-fact information on these subjects. I have linked you several times to our Facebook Group (https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=55551307954 “the Free Energy FB Group”), as well as any other credible sources regarding the “ECat”. It is important “News” ( … even if the U.S. corporate-owned mainstream media is reluctant to report it).
    Please keep up the great work!

  11. Peter Heckert Reply

    July 29, 2011 at 9:38 pm

    Now, what I cannot understand: They do this for years now and still are unable to proof the energy input and energy output beyond all doubt. All this discussions about steam and nuclear theories are so distracting.
    Proof the abnormal energy output scientifically and you have a scientific proof!
    Connect the whole system to a transformer. A self running system is not required. If it pulls much more power than the maximum rating, the transformer will burn down or the fuse will blow. Measure the energy output by water heating.
    With this degree of efficiency as they claim it it would be so easy to proof the effect beyond all doubts, especially if they had a lot of independent witnesses that make photos and videos about everything.

  12. keltoria Reply

    July 29, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    Mainstream science funded by big business with the complicity of Government has pushed many technologies on us that don’t work, particuarly in the biological sciences, and often with deadly consequences. If the eCat doesn’t work, then at least its done no harm. Whereas if it does work (or it it’s allowed to work!) then wow!

  13. pix Reply

    July 29, 2011 at 10:06 pm

    I do wish Piantelli the best.For a long time he was interested only with scientific side of reaction and he devoted himself for medical scientific project ( electrotherapeutic treatment method).
    Nobody heard about Rossi at that time ( in 1991) when Piantelli did research and wrote articles about Ni-H anomaly.
    At that time Rossi was herding a sheeps.
    Now Rossi wants to stole this invention from Piantelli by quickly commercialising the cell – get as much media attention and interested investors as possible- before someone else wake up and do somethingin this matter.”Grab the money and go”.
    What Rossi is doing is highly unethical.

    • Don Reply

      July 30, 2011 at 5:26 am

      History is fraught with great inventors who for whatever reason got left in the dust by another who commercialized faster, had more investors or connections to make it work out or simply beat them to the punch. It is ever evident today in foreign and US inventions, which I agree it’s sad. But, I’d rather have something come to fruition that get lost or shelved any day.

  14. pix Reply

    July 29, 2011 at 10:07 pm

    Finally!
    Piantelli takes an action.He is the”" father of Ni-H reaction.
    Rossi is only a clever bussinesman, he took Piantelli work as his own, and with help from former Piantelli collegue Focardi – they did mastered cell for high output.The only difference from Piantelli approach is- Rossi is using nickel powders instead of solid metal. Reaction surface is orders of magnitude bigger- so is the power output.

  15. Rockyspoon Reply

    July 30, 2011 at 3:11 am

    While Piantelli may indeed be the “father of Ni-H reactions”, why he didn’t pursue commercialization is because his approach wasn’t as energetic as Rossi’s. That certain “nuclear activator” substance that’s still under wraps is what has made the difference, along with Rossi’s dogged pursuit of changing the world’s energy paradigm to a much higher, cleaner, and more promising level–so there is a bigger difference than just particle size of the nickel metal. Give Piantelli a hand but give Rossi the throne.

  16. Brad Arnold Reply

    July 30, 2011 at 5:38 am

    This is just like the media coverage of politics: false equivalence. I understand being skeptical, but there is a non-brilliant between that and being obtuse. This device is yielding something like over 6 times unity. It has been demonstrated to work for tens of hours. Public demonstrations in front of experts. Furthermore, they (Defkalion and AmpEnergo) are investing big time in factories, plus are past phase one testing (you know, where you are sure that it works). To make the (false) equivalence between fraud and legitimacy is not open minded, nor is it cautious, but instead it is simply poor judgement. Ni+H+KaCO3 (heated over 60C at 22 bars) = Cu + lots of heat. Get used to it (and spread the word because people take awhile to get used to it).

  17. georgehants Reply

    July 30, 2011 at 8:44 am

    One wonders what it would take to make some people happy, Cold Fusion is proven, that should be enough to celebrate.
    We only have to wait a short while and see if Rossi is legit, if so the greatest utilisation of Cold Fusion yet, has been achieved.
    Plus the proof that believing nothing “beyond known science” is inane.
    There is no down side, without Rossi Cold Fusion can still bloom.
    The world, despite the establishment is moving forward, be happy.

  18. Jim Reply

    July 30, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    There isn’t any ‘for’ evidence. It’s an electric water heater which plugs into the wall.

  19. Leon Reply

    August 1, 2011 at 3:25 am

    Jim, today you have tainted all Jims upon this planet for every time one sees a Jim from now on there’s the regrettable possibility that that Jim is you.
    To the admin, the best independent article on the subject so far. None of this preposterous 10 page calculations with a foreword stating that no workable data was provided by Rossi so all calculations are guess work. Ridiculous!
    To all,
    Much has been said warning people to do their “due diligence” before investing into the E-Cat but how the hell is one supposed to invest into the E-Cat if there’s nothing that is publicly traded nor a product to be had. Can anyone explain to me how can anybody invest into the E-Cat and be duped if there’s nothing to be bought yet?

    • Jim Reply

      August 2, 2011 at 2:50 am

      Leon, sorry sorry if the truth hurts. The E-Cat is an electric water heater, and Rossi is a con man.

      • Leon Reply

        August 2, 2011 at 12:25 pm

        Jim, Rossi could very well be a con man but do you think your take on the matter is any more credible? This is not a CNN comment page and to spout nonsense about a matter you know nothing of in a smug manner shows neither intellect nor good will.

        • Jim Reply

          August 3, 2011 at 12:00 am

          I base my comments on Rossi’s history, the inadequacy of his tests, and the fact that the E-Cat plugs into an electric outlet.

      • kade Reply

        August 5, 2011 at 3:21 am

        Jim
        A connection to a stable source of power is often a good idea with systems that tend to instability.
        If the japanese power generation facility had a proper connection to an outside power source, the disaster that is now being delt with would not have happened at all.
        That is to say that if a stability problem with the power generation system, requires a stable source of power to correct the problem, as it appears the E cat does, connecting the output of the power generator (ecat) to its control input is not a very wize move.
        The e cat from what I have gleaned from public information, is both driven by and produces heat. This is a tentatively unstable system, since it presumably can cause itself to increase its own reaction rate if the heat generated exceeds the heat removed in the water. To ensure that the system remains stable, one would need to ensure that the heat removed is greater than the heat that could possibly be generated by the reaction on its own. This can be done, and requires an external controllable heat source to start and stop or control the reactor (as the ecat has).
        To me, that an external source of power is required to demonstrate this device is further evidence that it is what it claims to be, it makes total sense.

        In terms of the power gains claimed, I believe that close examination of the very first report by Levi, which shows a photograph of the temperature traces during a test of an ecat, show very clearly that the power gain is about a factor of 12 higher than the input power, before any steam is produced, this is there for anyone to examine but seems to have been overlooked.
        This power gain is evidenced in the rate of change of the water exit temperature immediately after what appears to be the initial ignition point, as compared to immediately prior to the ignition point when only the 1120 watts electrical input was applied to the system.
        The rate of change of temperature in my estimation is at least a factor of 12 times faster following the initial ignition point than before that point (take only the first five minutes after ignition as the measurement period since the system seems to temporarily malfunction just after that). Keeping in mind that at this time, the water temperature is far below the boiling point, so the question about wet or dry steam is not relevent at this time, simply the temperature of the water being discharged from the unit.
        Since the temprature of the bulk mass of the system must be increased with the water temeprature, the temperature of the water + system bulk can not change instantaniously but will change as a function of the heat input value divided by the heat capacity of the system. The initial rate of change of the system and water temperature provides a calibration of what about 1120 watts of heat input causes in terms of rate of change of temperature of the complete system + the water.
        A 12 times heat input rate to the same system bulk would cause a rate of change in temprature that is about 12 times faster, which is about what is shown by the much more rapid heating rate. It is very interesting to me that this fact is not mentioned in the Levi report, even though it supports the power gain value that Levi calculated using other methods.
        This is pretty convincing experimental data to me, considering there is no steam issue to cloud the data. I also wonder why Krivit has not commented on this, he seems to have examined everything else so well.
        It seems obvious at this point that the functioning of the device is still a bit unreliable, so non repeatability in testing in reality is likely to continue to be an issue until the reliability can be greatly improved. The non repetability in tests as a result of the sporadic functioning of the unit (which is also evidenced in the Levi report )is likely resposible for the apparently poor test results and the related criticisms and outright claims of fraud.
        Experienced experimentalists should be able to see where the problems lie by looking at the data that is already out there, namly the initial report by Levi, and the data is supprting the claims in my opinion.
        Other experienced experimentalists who examine the data as I have described should find similar evidence, I would be happy to defend what I have seen, and is available to everyone else to examine.
        KD

  20. Dr. Johannes Hagel Reply

    August 3, 2011 at 9:54 am

    Dear admin, thanks for this very good compilation of arguments pro and contra. Being a physicist I have been very sceptical from the beginning but following up as closely as possible I am becoming more and mor convinced. What I think to be atypical for fraud is the definite and very short deadline of delivery of the thing.
    If it is true (mor than 90 % I guess) than the internet for the first time should prevent disappearence of the idea in some drawers of certain companies. Like the web plays an important role of giving a voice to people in restrictive political systems around the world it should warranty a breakthrough of this energy revolution despite of mighty groups not wantig the thing!!

  21. Julius C. Siador Reply

    August 8, 2011 at 2:30 am

    Stanley Pons had said in one of his 1989 interviews that the heat produced from the (lattice-assisted) nuclear reaction is proportional to the volume of the metal, not to the surface area. He is right, and still the eCat does not violate this instance. What the eCat has vastly improved upon is the rate of hydrogen permeation to the metal lattice through increase in surface area. Although Rossi iterates that the nickel is in micrometer range while experiments show that the most favorable particle size is in certain nanometer, it is safe to conjecture that Rossi prepared the nickel powders through nucleation of nickel whiskers with thickness not lesser than the specified optimum nanometer range: The individual nucleated particles are grown up to a few millimeter diameter, then covered by catalyst, most probably benzene, to suspend the whiskers stably.

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>