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

Professor Levi

August 24, 2011

Professor Levi, sometimes whipping boy for those seeking to rubbish Andrea Rossi’s eCat, took centre stage in self-styled journalist Steven Krivit’s most recent attack. I expected the watching of it to be painful and indeed the scientist’s discomfort in places is obvious. That said, it was not as bad as I expected.

Reading the tealeaves from comments around the Net, those who were looking for an incompetent man shaped what they saw to suit that view while Krivit-haters saw an unsuspecting and honest person ambushed by a cynic who cared nothing for the truth. I tried hard to put aside my expectations to look at the video dispassionately.

It is clear that the interviewer set out to dig dirt. This was not a balanced Q&A designed to inform his readers. At one point, as I began to wonder if I was imagining it, Professor Levi jokes (but it was no joke) that he felt under trial. The whole thing smacked of a prosecutor trying to trick a hostile witness. How many of us could say with honesty that we would have equipped ourselves better? How many could remember specific details of a demo or test performed weeks before, especially under the glare of a camera? We have all seen examples of obvious answers hidden from the brightest of people when under pressure.

I have watched the bravest of men crumble in front of the lens. Levi did not do that, but it was obviously not his thing. It is easy to criticise and I am sure that Professor Levi will not make the mistake of trusting a blogger-journalist again, but the underlying integrity shone through his discomfort. Recognising the danger that the University of Bologna was in through its association with Andrea Rossi, Levi set out with a sceptic’s eye to look at the businessman’s claims. A member of the US Sceptics’ Society and an experienced physicist, he was familiar with the signs that traditionally signal a scam artist at work.

It is important to recognise that cold fusion as a subject raises big warning flags among the physics community. Levi set out to protect his university. To do so, he needed to convince himself of the truth or otherwise of the claims. Without funding or the sanction to perform a formal scientific analysis, it is reasonable and sufficient to gauge whether the device functions with a gain in the ball-park claimed.

Many pseudosceptics want it both ways. They say that it is trivial to measure such a thing and then accuse a number of experienced scientists of being unable to do so through incompetence. As Professor Levi stated in the interview, the gain was huge (orders of magnitude) and he was able to determine to his satisfaction that this was so. I can tell if my kettle is working quite easily. An engineer could readily measure its health while a scientist conducting a formal experiment might need sophisticated equipment and much time depending on the aim of the study.

It is often said that the simple tests that would determine whether the eCat is real or not have not been conducted. The accusers have no way of knowing that and yet they are not embarrassed by the blatant disregard for their inaccurate statements. The only thing they can say with certainty is that those tests have not been conducted in public. The comments section here and elsewhere display an almost obsessive repetition of this ‘omission’ as though we the public have the right to demand anything of a private enterprise. Unless these individuals are ill or have selective intelligence, there has to be something else causing them to behave with such apparently faulty logic.

I have lost count of the number of times I’ve heard that Andrea Rossi will not allow independent scientists near his device. Here we have a Professor of physics who set out to protect his university allowed exactly that. I for one do not doubt his ability to differentiate a multi-kilowatt boiler from one driven by an electric heater in the sub-kilowatt range. I suspect that he only became incompetent and too-close to Rossi after he decided that it was real.

In watching that video, we see the mechanics of FUD in action. How many times do we hear that scam artists do not allow real scientists near their inventions? Formerly proficient practitioners (eg Pons & Fleischmann) when linked to cold fusion, suddenly become morons. Stremmenos, Focardi, Essen, Kullander, Galantini and Levi – all idiots and yet the mass of geniuses who have been nowhere near it take the word of a biased critic and a few seconds of video to denounce them.

Why they are not ashamed of stoning others with such poor logic I do not know – except for those who wear masks, of course.

Does this mean I am ready to believe? No. After all this time, the end of October is fine. However, in-as-much as it is useful to make an interim call based on the players in this game, when it comes to matters of technical competence, I would trust the physicist Levi over Krivit anytime.

Posted by on August 24, 2011. Filed under Bologna,Hands-On,Krivit,Media & Blogs,Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

104 Responses to Professor Levi

  1. georgehants

    August 24, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    I tried hard to get something new from Mr. Rossi, but no luck.
    Andrea Rossi
    August 24th, 2011 at 8:49 AM

    Dear Georgehants:
    We are working to make a very good test in the USA at end October, in the site chosen by our Customer. You bet.
    Warm Regards,

    • Ransompw

      August 24, 2011 at 7:18 pm

      I feel your anguish, but the self imposed October deadline is only 60 days away. It certainly would be nice to know if our world will forever change come October but I think based on all the debate, a person really can’t be sure one way or the other. For the pessimistic and this world is literally loaded with them (you might call this the age of pessimism) I am sure they expect October to come and go with disappointment. For the optimistic and I think there are fewer every day, the new age of Optimism is just 60 days away. I for one will keep an optimistic outlook as I just hate to live in a world of doom and gloom.

      • georgehants

        August 24, 2011 at 7:44 pm

        Ransompw, there is still all the other Cold Fusion, but Rossi would be the icing on the cake.

    • maryyugo

      August 24, 2011 at 7:22 pm

      “I tried hard to get something new from Mr. Rossi, but no luck.”

      What exactly were you trying to get?

  2. Haldor

    August 24, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    I am following the whole story about the E-Cat since January and I try to read as much VALID information as possible.
    Most valuable information I gather from the Vortex-L list, the discussions there are made with in-depth knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon.
    Second of course are the comments on the “Blog” of Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear physics.
    Third are the comments and insight on 22passi from Daniele, because he belongs to the inner circle as he is a friend of prof. Levi.
    Fourth are all the blogs, pros and cons, including this one, e-cat news which is the most reliable on providing a steady stream of information and where people can ventilate their opinion. I thank you “Paul Story” very much for this!
    FYI. On Vortex I’ll find the comments from Jed Rothwell and Alan J. Fletcher the most valuable.

    But in all I noticed that almost everybody (pros and cons) is struggling with the same dilemma; Why is there no other decisive tests performed by Rossi?
    The most simple (or oversimplified!) answer is already given by the sceptics: “because it is a fraud (duh).”

    I myself would be flabbergasted if it turns out to be a fraud, Simply because I didn’t came across any information pointing towards that direction and also there are too many people involved, that controlling all of them to not to speak against the E-Cat probably would have bankrupted Rossi by now. In other words his pay-off list has already became too big for a fraud!!!! But this is above all my opinion!

    It all (as in Why there are no decisive tests) pretty much narrows down towards 1 thing and that is the very secretive catalyzer. There was a moment during the first demo (in January) where a scientist ( I believe it was Celani) asked a tricky question. He asked Rossi why he did switch off his apparatus to measure Gamma-rays. The mystified answer from Rossi was, as far as I can remember, it would reveal to much information on what was going on in the E-Cat.
    In knowing that you can reveal secrets from a working E-Cat with an unconnected apparatus, it can explain the constant refusal of independent and more testing, someone, either an OUTSIDER or an INSIDER WITH A DOUBLE AGENDA of the so called independent test-team could probably find out with such “revealing” advanced test instruments what is exactly happening inside the E-Cat.
    Rossi is the only one who knows this and therefore he is totally aware and very afraid that any other test not fully controlled by him has a major and undeniable risk in it, that somebody can find his secret catalyst.
    On all costs he wants to prevent this, HE NEEDS TO CASH IN FIRST with his 1Mw plant launch, because he very well knows that after the 1Mw launch it is just a matter of time that he has to put all his cards on the table.

    • Tim

      August 25, 2011 at 5:32 am

      Could be much simpler than this why Rossi’s not doing anything more in public. I don’t remember his wording, but when someone asked him about this on his blog shortly after Krivit started publishing negative reports, he said something like “I have had enough of these snakes” and that he wanted to get back to commercial development and away from any more public information. “Let them chatter, I have work to do.” Something like that.

      Many-many people have been influenced by Krivit’s 14 second video of the steam exhaust, which I spent several hours yesterday showing did not mean what Krivit has been saying and actually supports Rossi’s claims.

      If Krivit or others had more data, they would have more data to misinterpret, and more bad press. This would seem to be the way things are going now, and also seems to be what Rossi said when he did not start the investigations at U of B or Uppsala.

      People who want more data will say “more data would be good because then we would know for sure”, but there is enough now for provisional support if someone finds Levi and the other observers credible. People who want more data want more data to play with it, according to whatever purpose they are using data for.

      Certainly, a lot more data is necessary for scientific evaluation, but a limited amount more data is likely not going to convince anybody who is still highly skeptical. These people took a little 14 second video, completely misinterpreted it, and made up their minds! Rossi is right about not having any more demos if he is doing it for this reason.

      • Ben

        August 25, 2011 at 1:16 pm

        @Tim. You are exactly right. If more data were available, it would likely not silence his critics but, instead, give them more information to nitpick and complain about. We have seen this throughout the development of cold fusion, where no amount of data seems sufficient to satisfy critics and only provides fodder farther for further criticism. We see frequently that right here on this blog regarding the simplest points, in that no matter how sound or clear a point is, someone people just refuse to accept it..

  3. Peter Heckert

    August 24, 2011 at 9:22 pm

    It is indeed trivial to see if there is excess energy when the input is 1-2 kW and the output is 10 kW. However inexperienced people can easily do errors.
    The answer here can be “yes,yes” or “no,no” as the bible demands.
    So, why always this chattering?
    As a scientist, Levi knows, that measuring the heating of a given amount of water is an absolute secure method. There can be errors but if this is reasonably done the errors can never go in the wrong direction.
    This is an intergative measuring method.
    Levi also knows, that measuring steam temperature on an apparatus where the inner construction is invisible and therefore unknown is an unseciure method if not at the same time the steam quality and the steam amout is constantly without gaps controlled, because quality and amount can change during time.
    Fleischmann and Pons pointed out in their papers that all calorimetrie equipment must be calibrated by applying a known test power. Calorimetriemeasurement without previous calibration and experimental verification is inaccurate and unsecure.

  4. RudiD

    August 24, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    I posted 2days ago the following proposal to make a simple measurement of the output of the e-cat on Rossi’s blog. I did not get an answer so far. In an optimistic way we only have to wait at most 68 days before we will know more.

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    To convince everyone and to get the worries about the steam quality out of the whole world, why do not you just make a simple experiment and demo by putting the hose in a bucket of water and measure the time to heat the water from e.g. 25°C at t0 to e.g. 55°C at t1. At t1 the hose is removed from the bucket.

    So the time to heat the water is t1-t0.
    The temperature of the water at the inlet of the ecat is T1 at t0.
    The temperature of the water in the bucket is T2 at time t0.
    The amount of water in the bucket at t0 is V0
    The amount of water in the bucket weighed at or after t1 is V1.
    So V1-V0 is in fact the amount of water heated by the e-cat into steam.
    The calories that are produced in the period t1-t0 are then:
    The calories produced per hour are:

    I guess the losses via radiation from the hose and the sides of the bucket are small (should be less than 10%).

    Thanks in advance for taking this question into consideration.


  5. raul heining

    August 24, 2011 at 10:41 pm

    I think Rossi is interested in this ambiguity. Maybe because it does not atract too much attenction to this. An easy test without ambiguity, like mary says should be to buy a water cilinder with heat exchanger, measure water temperature in the cilinder, output temperature of water going out of heat exchanger and there you have. You have aprox. the energy produced and average power.
    Probably, I think, he will do this in october. Wait and see.

  6. Anthony

    August 25, 2011 at 2:56 am

    One possibility to explain the less than conclusive public demos with the journalists of late is the chance that the E-Cats were purposely not activated. I’ll put myself in Rossi’s shoes for a moment. Say some journalists wanted to see how it works and write something for the general public. I would likely set up a demo but leave out the catalyst, present the power numbers that were obtained in private and demonstrate it without the power gain. Why leave out the proof (actual operation) for a demo? For several reasons:

    1. Guaranteed safe.
    2. No chance that someone could try to steal and getaway with the secret catalyst when it is on public display.
    3. You can still convey the principle operation with the right setup.

    I however would have disclosed that it was a mockup demo (for the above reasons) and stated that I was quoting numbers from private tests. This would not address the skeptics but if the journalists trusted the presenter then that’s all they would need to inform the general public using their own reputation. Of course they need to have established that trust before hand. Mr Rossi doesn’t seem to have a lot of credit in this area so the message is lost and he is open to attacks.

    This is all hypothetical at best as it might be something I might do in his shoes to protect the secrets. As a hopeful skeptic instead that is waiting for more info soon or the October deadline I’m trying to interpret the data that I have to determine a possible explanation to all of my observations up until now. This is the side experiment we are all participating in on these forums. Trying to explain all of the participants actions as well as the back box.

    Rossi has presented this science class with just that. A black box, some data and other observers opinions. Some people are using only the observations that supports their initial conclusion (belief). It’s a thermal source to some and a kettle to others. Assignment passed in while hoping they get it right. Maybe the majority will be right so they will try to sway those still finishing the assignment the same way. The keener students at the front of the class can’t finish the assignment and they’re digging for more information because anything less than 100% grade won’t do and an incomplete is a fail. Some more hints at the correct answer please. Can we peek in the box please? Teacher Rossi is telling everyone to wait. Trust in what the teacher has presented. The papers will be graded and answered (by the customers) at the end of the term.

    • Tim

      August 26, 2011 at 1:47 am

      If the demos are completely fake, different than the real eCat, just to make some kind of show, then Rossi is taking a horrible risk. Some of the people at those demos, such as Focardi and Levi, have also been at private demos and might well spot the difference. Focardi and especially Levi are professors, associated with a university that is negotiating eCat projects, and it would be their careers, their reputations, essentially their entire lives to be supportive of fake demos.

      The whole system might be fake. Focardi and Levi might have been scammed all along, just like the rest of us, in that case. But the demos are not fake shows of a real effect. If there were problems with the demos, they were either accidental issues for the particular demo, measurement problems or misinterpretations on our part, or the eCat is bunk.

      • Tim

        August 26, 2011 at 1:55 am

        Besides, the demos don’t really “show how it works” in terms of a production system. Real Hyperions, or whatever name the new partner uses, would work nothing like Rossi’s little bench-top units. Only the nickel powder and catalyst would be the same. The demos can only show “that” it works, which they admittedly don’t do very well. If they are fake then they show nothing.

      • Anthony

        August 26, 2011 at 7:28 am

        I mentioned that they may have only staged the demo for Krivit and Lewan. The earlier tests with the invited experts could have been the real deal (with unfortunately poor calibration and data collection). If I was asked to do a demo for reporters and it was not initiated my me then there’s always the possibility of an ambush so I could play it safe and not bring the secret ingredients out in the open.

        Approaching it from an “it works” perspective, what might logically explain the latest reports? I thought about it some. We’ll all know in time but everyone here is obviously taking some time to think about the whole situation while waiting. In any mental exercise you need to have a Devil’s advocate.

        • Tim

          August 26, 2011 at 7:55 am

          Latest reports? Having too much fun in this forum, so haven’t followed anything else eCat the last week or so.

  7. raul heining

    August 25, 2011 at 8:40 am

    The making of a 1 Mw reactor with multiple ecats is not trivial.
    Each one is supposed to have control and the starting of the apparatus is not so simple. According to Rossi’s words he will have it ready in october. I think it will be already ready because there is testing to be done. It is, for me, hard to believe in a scam because
    building it will cost a lot of money, more than the others which are supposed to come to the market. If it is not yet ready it is to me hard to believe it will be ready on time for october, due to tests.

  8. georgehants

    August 25, 2011 at 9:49 am

    Good reports ADMIN and Anthony, science is still reaping the respect gained by the geniuses of 100 years ago, actual scientific breakthroughs since then can be counted on one hand, everything else is a narrow sophistication of technology and manufacture.
    Main-line science irrationally fights every new direction i.e. Quantum computers, Quantum biology, Quantum brain etc. all of known science is collapsing round the ears of these “experts” —-
    98% of the mass and matter of the Universe is unknown.
    The Standard Model is incomplete (Cold Fusion) and based on twenty plus hand made measurements with no fundamental understanding whatsoever.
    As nothing new has been achieved since the Quantum and science has spent 50 tears trying to hide that from everybody, it might occur to somebody the answers must lie beyond known science.

  9. Tim

    August 25, 2011 at 9:59 am


    Been looking for explanation for your statement that “readings could be off by anywhere from +/- one degree C to as much as 2.2 plus 0.75% of reading plus …”.

    The omega site you mentioned says “or 0.75%” where you say “plus 0.75%”, so that’s not a good start for your statement. Also, do you mean if Levi was incompetent and picked the wrong instrument, he might have selected one with a 2.2 degree tolerance? I could find nothing in Rothwell’s description, Lewan’s description, or anywhere else that says what he used. The 2.2 degree tolerance is just the first in the book, they have others that would be fine.

    m-y, you haven’t actually posted anything to this forum for days which casts direct doubt on the claims except the above statement. You talk about scientific validation, publications on the device that could be used in the scientific world for further publications, but most of us would not be performing such further publication. You have made posts like “He refuses to” or “He keeps saying” or “He won’t show” this or that, but such posts are not directly relevant because they are merely questions about Rossi’s motivations. You have brought up issues such as the disagreement with Defkalion’s blog or his past history which appear to be non-issues on thorough investigation.

    My point is, anybody who is following this carefully, who researched your above claim about the thermocouple, would realize you have not recently said anything that refutes the claim itself, a claim which is supported by several credible scientists such as Levi. They might take this to wonder if there really is any decent evidence to contradict these scientists’ support. They might start to think there isn’t.

    Are you actually working for Rossi? Is that why you are doing this?

    Links regarding the actual instruments used for measuring the relevant temperatures in the 18 hour test would be appreciated.

    • maryyugo

      August 25, 2011 at 4:53 pm

      Plus or minus 2.2 degrees is a possible error of 4.4 degrees. Levi’s delta T was 5 degrees. Levi won’t say what he measured and how so that’s what we’re left with. The delta T measurement could be meaningless.

      Your question regarding my working for Rossi is ridiculous. I do with somebody would pay me for debunking but nobody seems to want to. If you want to know what instrument Levi and Rossi used to measure the delta T, I suggest you ask them. You can do that on Rossi’s blog. I guarantee he will either ignore you or say that big important professors don’t make mistakes. Or that you should wait until October for the megawatt plant demo. If you get comfort from that sort of reply, lots of luck.

      • maryyugo

        August 25, 2011 at 4:54 pm

        with should be with.

        • Derivative

          August 26, 2011 at 12:00 am

          With is with. It should probably be wish.

          • maryyugo

            August 26, 2011 at 7:11 am

            Yah, Tanks!

      • Tim

        August 26, 2011 at 2:23 am

        Hey, do you ever laugh maryyugo? Everybody seems to think you work for Krivit or the power industry or something, so I was just pointing out, oh whatever. I think my sense of humor sometimes is wasted on mere humans.

        Thank you for answering my question regarding your not having any evidence that Levi was incompetent and he used a 2.2 degree instrument to say he had measured a 5 degee interval with confidence. Yes, I can add 2.2+2.2, and I am aware of temperature measurement instruments with even larger tolerances, but the way you expressed yourself in your previous post I thought you had some evidence that he actually used that instrument. Maybe I’ll ask Levi directly if he is incompetent, but then maybe I’ll just leave that to Krivit.

        Anyway, none of our discussion here really matters that much. I hope you are smiling and laughing, and I just don’t see it! And I don’t mean laughing at the idiots because they disagree with you, that is not laughing in my book.

        And for all of you keeping score at home:

        actual evidence that Levi made a mistake and eCat is not real: 0
        actual evidence that eCat is scientifically valid: 0
        number of apparently competent scientists supporting it: 2+
        actual supporting evidence, not scientific or strong: considerable
        actual refuting evidence: 0
        number of conclusions drawn completely misintepreting evidence: huge
        number of conclusions drawn from Rossi’s motivations: huge
        number of conclusions drawn from Rossi’s background: huge
        evidence of (non-tax) fraud, scams, or bamboozling by Rossi: 0

        Thank you for playing!

        • maryyugo

          August 26, 2011 at 7:17 am

          “I thought you had some evidence that he actually used that instrument.”

          You’re absolutely right– thanks. I forgot the reason I mentioned the instrument is that someone else showed me one and *suggested* Rossi used it or one like it. I don’t know what he used. I’m pretty sure he or Levi said “thermocouple” though and the most common one is K type and those have the above cited error band plus whatever error the millivoltmeter that reads them out has and that includes such things as calibration errors, drift with time, baseline shift, environmental electrical noise and so on. It’s a bad idea, IMHO to use two thermocouple thermometers to measure a delta T of 5 degrees C. It might be OK, as someone else noted in another forum, to use two thermocouples in a differential arrangement.

          The point still is that we have no idea what took place because Dr. Levi refuses to give the details.

          The number of people who support the E-cat based on inadequate evidence doesn’t matter. It’s the evidence that matters. And it is very poor quality.

          Sense of humor? Yeah. The way people assume the E-cat is real from the available info is absolutely hilarious! So are some of Rossi’s claims and his fight with Defkalion.

  10. georgehants

    August 25, 2011 at 10:01 am

    Mr. Rossi answers some critics.

    Andrea Rossi
    August 25th, 2011 at 3:51 AM

    Dear Bill Nochols:
    A report will be published regarding the test of our first industrial plant. Of course the instrumantation is fit for the purpose. The measure of the quality of the steam will be made by an “idiot proof system”, not because it is necessary ( what made in all our former tests was technically correct) but to avoid chatters from idiots. There are few, in the great People waiting for this event, but still there are, and I will answer, as usually, with facts to the chatters of snakes and clowns. By the way: the Customer will pay after the test, not before, just to answer to one of the clowns.
    Warm regards,

    • maryyugo

      August 25, 2011 at 4:56 pm

      Nothing new there. It’s what Rossi always says.

      • John Dlouhy

        August 26, 2011 at 12:54 am

        I beg to differ. This time Dr. Rossi seems to concede that a change in measurement techniques is warranted to satisfy the vocal skeptics. I think you should take a bow.

      • Ghost Dawg

        August 26, 2011 at 9:29 pm

        “Nothing new”..Are you seious?

        He just basically said, that they will use better methods of measurement so that there will be no doubt BECAUSE of “the chatter of snakes and clowns”

        Thank god for skeptics!

  11. georgehants

    August 25, 2011 at 11:00 am

    Not wishing to spoil the fun but would not a scientific explanation for the thousands of comments on steam boil down (ha) to either —
    science understands very little about the transition from water to steam or there is not enough information to give a definitive answer.
    If the second, everybody may as well relax and wait for more information.

    • maryyugo

      August 25, 2011 at 4:55 pm

      Nonsense, George, as usual. There’s probably little in science which is as well understood as the phase change from water to steam. That you don’t get it doesn’t mean that “science” doesn’t — along with thousands, maybe millions, or technicians, engineers and end users of steam related products.

      • georgehants

        August 25, 2011 at 5:24 pm

        Perhaps you would apologise as I never said they did not know, I said either —

      • Ransompw

        August 25, 2011 at 7:13 pm

        No offense but while the phase change from water to steam maybe well understood, how these know principles physically manifest themselves seem to be anything but well understood. I have seen so many theories on vortex for example, which is a site with supposed expertise, I can’t even count them. I really don’t think I have seen anything that really explains very wet steam(<5% by mass). so actually while the science may be well know the real life experience seems very lacking.

  12. Jimr

    August 25, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    It will be amazing to me if a Rossi project ever gets off the ground, let alone in Oct time frame, in the U.S. Just the mention of nuclear/cold fusion/lanr will tie up projects with licensing, approval, location concerns, etc for years.

    • Peter Roe

      August 25, 2011 at 8:36 pm

      Likewise in the UK and probably in most N. European countries. However if Italy (or possibly Greece) license operation of an LENR device it would become more difficult for US and European ‘authorities’ to withhold the technology from their people, Difficult, but unfortunately far from impossible.

  13. Dwayne

    August 25, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    There was question in my mind (and it is clear that it is in others’ minds) to why a person would have a non-scientific demonstration and then no scientific follow-up. It’s not unreasonable to think that since the project had been in-progress for a while before the public test, that the test was sort of a “me first” demonstration. Rossi never did seem to like the idea of a public test (even after he had done one); maybe Rossi felt like someone else was close enough to also getting an e-cat like device so he made a demonstration.

  14. Marco

    August 25, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    Defkalion project is going to be dismissed (bankrupted) just because Rossi is willing not to show a very simple definitive demo (may be measuring the gamma ray produced) not involving ambiguous steam production.
    Having done this, financing to Defkalion and Rossi will start immediately.
    Is it better to wait for a 300 e-cat apparatus ?
    Is this logic?

    The patent request is not describing the catalyzer. Better to wait that some other scientist will unveil the secret catalyzer, asking for a patent?
    Does this make sense?

    • maryyugo

      August 25, 2011 at 4:58 pm

      Exactly, Marco. None of what Rossi says and does makes sense. Add his past history of failed technology and he doesn’t inspire confidence.

    • jcragris

      August 25, 2011 at 6:44 pm

      please give the links on these statements!!

  15. maryyugo

    August 25, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    Those of you who dislike skeptics and debunkers might like to read what people who are firm believers in and followers of cold fusion and LENR are saying about Rossi. Here are a few excerpts with links:

    “The problem with such an “anomaly” is there is no confirming source. It can be due to intermittent measurement error, such as momentary contact with a metal surface whereby heat is transferred directly through metal from the source to the thermometer. It can be a real temperature rise due to pressure increase in the hose due to water accumulation in the hose and the significant rise from the floor to the drain. It might be due to momentary electrical contact problems, corrosion and/or electro-chemical reactions. It could be due to digitizer or computer problems, parts overheating or operated out of spec. There are probably many other explanations to be ruled out as well.

    The correct thing to do is to do calorimetry on the output using a well calibrated professionally designed calorimeter independent of the device itself, preferably using dual methods. Then there is little need for issues like this that involve a lot of guesswork. Alarm bells should go off in your head when you see the amount of discussion this issue has had, and the lack of meaningful progress. Lots of response, but no progress. Just a lot of churning churning churning.

    I still find it incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and inexpensive science being applied. This is not a moon mission.

    I expect Rossi could have had competent high quality calorimetry done for free many months ago, and without divulging anything about his device.

    I find all this very depressing. Billions of people are likely going to be affected by timely development of the LENR field. If the Rossi thing is a bust it could cost a major setback for LENR research support, and millions of lives. ”

    -Horace Heffner here:

    Note that Heffner has a published article in Rossi’s own blog — misnamed as The Journal of Nuclear Physics.

    And Jed Rothwell, ardent supporter of LENR and librarian of it says “Brief public demos have been repeated 4 times in 8 months, I think. That is
    a small number. Anyone would invest in this based on those demos would be insane, in my opinion.”

    Read the statement in context here:

    Everything we think we know is based on what Rossi says what Defkalion says and they roundly and soundly contradict each other. That just makes no sense at all. This whole affair is simply weird.

    • Tim

      August 26, 2011 at 3:46 am

      At this point most of the cf world is opposed to Rossi; they seem to prefer Panatelli. Their lack of enthusiasm for the eCat is not surprising. Also, they really need to have more info to bounce off each other, so of course they would emphasize that there is not very much.

      However, I think you mischaracterize Jed Rothwell. Ardent supporter he may be, but he tries to be very cautious, and so he would hope that everyone else is and not invest just on these demos. My understanding is that potential investors have had further demos, but since they have been private they have no impact on our public discussions.

      • maryyugo

        August 26, 2011 at 7:20 am

        I can’t speak for Jed but I think he is indeed cautious when it comes to advising investors (which is why I posted the quote). However, he ardently supports the idea that the E-cat has been adequately demonstrated to work as advertised and that’s where we differ. He really thinks it works essentially for sure. Oh yes, more tests are needed, but he’s sure they’ll come out OK. I’m much more skeptical about that. I smell a rat (or several) and he doesn’t.

  16. Peter Heckert

    August 25, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    A thumb question:
    If this all works with quantum physics, how can we know, the energy is still there when we go to seriously use it?
    You know, quantum physics is quite funny, as soon as we try to observe an object, is changes its behaviour.
    Could it be, the energy is virtual and will vanish as soon as it is put to serious use? 😉
    Has this ever been tried?

  17. Thicket

    August 25, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    The University of Bologna has been touted as supporting Rossi’s E-Cat. The following doesn’t contradicts this. It’s to Krivit.
    Paolo Capiluppi, the head of the Department of Physics at the University of Bologna, wrote to me on June 19 about his concerns.

    “We are embarrassed about the declarations of Prof. Focardi, one of the physicists formerly from our department. However, he is NOT a member of the department, being retired, even if professor emeritus,” Capiluppi wrote.
    Levi was partially responsible for giving the impression that the University of Bologna supported Rossi’s E-Cat.

    In my interview with Levi on June 14, he states that he wrote the press release and that Capiluppi edited and approved the press release as an official university document. However, a June 9 e-mail from Simona Storchi, an official with the university’s press office, contradicts this.

    “I checked as requested with the Physics Department (I copied this email to the department’s director, Prof. Paolo Capiluppi), and I can confirm there’s not an official press release by the department (nor by the university). The press release you sent me (may I ask you, Where did you find it?) is a personal message by Focardi-Rossi, an invitation to the January experiment. We don’t handle or have any information about it.”

    I suspect that Levi is eating humble pie and will have little further to say about E-Cat.

    • Tim

      August 26, 2011 at 3:49 am

      I suspect Levi will lose his job for having the guts to talk to people about something he observed without getting University approval. Considering the potential impact of eCat if it turns out to be real, I applaud him for that.

      • Ransompw

        August 26, 2011 at 4:11 am

        If turns out to be real I suspect the university will be quite happy with him, if not his position will be lost.

        • Tim

          August 26, 2011 at 5:12 am

          Yes but if something holds up the October demo then people will assume it’s not real. I think even if it is legit the October deadline is optimistic, especially because of the recent change in primary client.

          Perhaps if he loses his job and then it turns out to be real a few months later, he will return to it with a big promotion.

    • Haldor

      August 26, 2011 at 9:23 am

      Thicket is quoting:
      “a June 9 e-mail from Simona Storchi, an official with the university’s press office, the following contradicts this.”
      “I checked as requested with the Physics Department (I copied this email to the department’s director, Prof. Paolo Capiluppi), and I can confirm there’s not an official press release by the department (nor by the university). The press release you sent me (may I ask you, Where did you find it?) is a personal message by Focardi-Rossi, an invitation to the January experiment. We don’t handle or have any information about it.”

      Again here is the official R&D contract announcement press relase from June 19th on the webpage of the University of Bologna:
      This is the direct link to the pdf:

      The quote of Storchi is outdated as it was made on June 9th. EFA is the firm owned by the family of Rossi.

      • Thicket

        August 26, 2011 at 5:13 pm

        I don’t see why Storchi’s statement is dated. I think that the later U of B document is a direct result of Levi’s shenanigans. The document is very clear. University of Bologna will do no work on the E-Cat unless Rossi pays 500,000 Euro. This has been widely discussed.

        My feeling is that the U of B evaluation will never happen. Rossi won’t agree to anyone doing a proper E-Cat evaluation. U of B would do a proper E-Cat evaluation.

        The whole 500,000 Euro cost is a bit silly. Even with the E-Cat being obviously bogus, there would surely be labs that would do a proper job for little or no cost. Earth Tech is one example. Doing a proper heat and mass balance around the E-Cat is not difficult, if Rossi would allow it.

  18. Thicket

    August 25, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    I wish there was an edit function.

    Second sentence should read “The following contradicts this.”

  19. Thicket

    August 25, 2011 at 9:36 pm


    Links to Rossi’s two previous technology failures.

    For the thermolelectric converter failure, look under the Leonardo Technologies section.

    This is the English translation from the Italian of the Petroldragon waste to oil failure. The translation isn’t that great but the content is fairly clear. One funny and quirky piece of translation is that Andrea Rossi is translated to Andrea Smith (:->)


      August 26, 2011 at 12:05 am

      Sometimes people need the truth.

      Fact- Fuel from waste technology has and does exist. Rossi produced twenty tons of fuel oil a day.

      Fact- Rossi product was 30% cheaper than comparable fossil oils.

      Fact- Without any judicial process the Italian government suddenly declared that all materials used in Rossi’s process and all products derived from this material were considered toxic.

      Fact- Suddenly the new law allows for more taxes and permit fees to be collected.

      Fact- New law makes Rossi’s Petroldragon an illegal business.

      Fact- Petroldragon lost all production orders,backing from banking and credit institutions and their funds were taken by the state.

      Fact- Rossi was forced into bankruptcy, briefly incarcerated, but finally acquitted of all charges, 56 to be exact,.(except the few that would justify his imprisonment).

      Fact- Rossi’s contract with the US Army Corps of Engineers was a research and development arrangement.

      Fact- After early success at University of New Hampshire, a fire destroyed his work, and an Italian subcontractor caused device failure with over 80 bad electrical connections.

      Fact- The Italian subcontractor was determined to be the problem, so a new research lab was designed. The LTI-NH lab had great success.
      The results of the study will assist the development of future demonstrations of
      LTI’s TE technology at a DOD facility. The report documents the findings that
      are germane to facility and non-facility applications within the DOD:
      • TE Devices have the potential to generate 464,000 MWh of electricity each
      year when applied to low-grade waste heat (LGH) generated from military
      applications. This equates to:
      – 53 MWe of generation capacity
      – $34.5 million cost avoidance for the production of electricity
      – 1.5 billion BTUs of energy production from normally discarded LGH
      – 268,000 barrels of oil equivalent saved annually
      – 21,000 metric tons per year savings in carbon emissions.
      • Potential savings are in the area of $250,000 per year from a typical facility’s
      utility bill.
      • Over 40 specific applications were identified and ranked within these sectors.
      • The TE Device is environmentally benign and requires no fuel for the produc-
      tion of electricity.

  20. Mark

    August 25, 2011 at 11:19 pm

    It’s fitting that Rossi’s test takes place on the end of October, just in time for Halloween. Will it be a Trick or a Treat. My money is on the Trick. When this test gets delayed in October I suggest all further cold fusion investment ponzi schemes; “The Rossi Scheme”. If Rossi wants to make money, why doesn’t he connect a whole bunch of ecats to the electric grid and sell electricity to the electric company?

  21. Thicket

    August 26, 2011 at 12:15 am

    There you go again MPBRUNELLI.

    ‘Rossi says’ has no credibility. So much for the first seven ‘FACTS’.

    Thank you for linking the Department of Defense document. I agree that the document is very credible.

    A description of Rossi’s work starts at the bottom of page 5 and ends on page 7. I will summarize these pages.


  22. Thicket

    August 26, 2011 at 12:26 am

    Perhaps we should have a link to the Department of Defense document that works.

    • Thicket

      August 26, 2011 at 1:21 am

      For those that want more than a DISMAL FAILURE statement about Rossi’s thermoelectric converter work, here is a list of Design Issues at the conclusion of the Department of Defense study.

      1. It showed poor consistency in internal device resistance.
      2. Solder melted at low temperatures.
      3. The cooling tank had poor mechanical stability (expanded with water pressure)
      4. The cooling tank corroded rapidly, contaminating facility chilled water system.
      5. The original cooling tank had no baffles, and poor heat transfer consistency.
      6. The second generation cooling tank had baffles but unknown heat transfer efficiency; it still had corrosion problems.
      7. The material used for mounting the thermoelectric wafers had very poor thermal conductivity (fiberglass/phenolic circuit board material).
      8. It had poor surface-to-surface contact of thermoelectric wafers to conductive pads, resulting in poor electrical and thermal conductivity.
      9. Thermoelectric wafers were very brittle and break easily, affecting overall energy production.

      Despite Rossi’s claims of 20% efficiency, the Leonardo Corp. devices did not meet the 16% efficiency criteria of the Department of Defense.


        August 26, 2011 at 1:36 am

        A few paragraphs down it reads: Recently, however,
        Leonardo Technologies Inc. (LTI) has addressed these issues and developed a
        more economical TE Device that has previously demonstrated an order of magnitude
        increase in power generation efficiency in preliminary laboratory investigations.
        The LTI device is therefore potentially suitable for supplemental electric
        power generation from fuel cells and other sources of waste heat.

        • Thicket

          August 26, 2011 at 2:10 am

          Yes. After the study was over. Another ‘Rossi says’. So where is this wonderful device? It’s been years. You’d think we’d have heard about it.

          • Tim

            August 26, 2011 at 2:56 am

            As you say the study was over, so they stopped working on it. Why is it relevant that it’s been years and why would we have heard about it; the study was over.

            I believe Rossi has been working on something else since, I think it’s called eCat.

          • MPBRUNELLI

            August 26, 2011 at 3:36 am

            There is room to argue about about any R&D agreement. You know debating
            this really does nothing to move anything forward. If Rossi can bring technology to us, why fight it? Piantelli wasn’t as interested, Widom & Larson’s process can’t be amplified, and Mills method can’t be scaled down. LENR doesn’t have any inventor or owner, and if Rossi says his method is viable, then we should hope for the best. Why not embrace the obvious changes in the application of science, unless intended malice is involved. No matter what your agenda is, all human wisdom is summed up in two words- wait and hope.

      • Tim

        August 26, 2011 at 3:27 am

        Months ago I read this DOD report with concerns about his previous work, and found that it does not say Rossi fraudulently claimed that the devices had a particular efficiency which later they were found not to. He was paid to create a factory with a goal of 16% efficiency, he said he hoped the efficiency would actually be higher, he built the factory as he was paid to do, and the TE devices did not work for technical reasons, most of which the report explains as inherent difficulties in scaling up TE to a production process.

        Rossi did not make claims that were not true. He made a factory for a new technology that did not work as he hoped. This happens more often than not.

        In other words, “Rossi’s claims of 20% efficiency” is not a statement anywhere in that report. If people on this forum want to write things that are explicitly dishonest in order to discredit Rossi, there are plenty of other forums for them to use.

        Look, you’re a smart guy. I’m sure you read and understood the report accurately. Yet a statement was in your post that is contradicted by the report it is supposedly taken from, which is the only statement really discrediting Rossi. Please ask yourself why you are doing this.

        • maryyugo

          August 26, 2011 at 7:31 am

          This is a reply to Brunelli:

          “wait and hope” and $5.00 will get you a cup of Starbucks coffee but probably not an E-cat.

        • Thicket

          August 26, 2011 at 10:54 am


          The LTI claim of 20% efficiency came from the Esowatch link further up the page. Please explain why you think this is explicitly dishonest? You’re a smart guy and realize that not everything about Rossi’s thermoelectric convertor is documented in one report. It’s your turn. You say I’ve made a statement that is explicitly dishonest. Please ask yourself why you are doing this.

          You’re right. The DoD document says nothing about a ‘fraudulent’ Rossi claim. Neither did I. Rossi’s thermoelectric converter work was a technological failure.

          • Tim

            August 26, 2011 at 10:00 pm

            I’m doing this because I frequently check the links, for both sides, and when somebody says something that explicitly inaccurately reflects the contents of their link, I call them on it.

            I too am aware of the contents on that Esowatch link you gave on another post. The only reference for the statement on the link is the DOD report. You just admitted this report does not support your statement that Rossi made “claims of 20% efficiency”, which would have been fraudulent, and that the report only shows that he entered a venture to develop new technology, which failed, as they frequently do.

            I am trying to understand the people on this forum, checking their links and seeing if they match what they say, trying to figure out things. The post your statement was in referenced the DOD study, which we both find highly credible, but the statement was not supported by that study, or to my knowledge by any other equally credible source.

            Again, I ask why are you making statements that do not match? Do you have reliable sources I am just not aware of? If so, please let us know what they are. Otherwise, why not ask yourself if there is some other reason.

          • Thicket

            August 26, 2011 at 10:36 pm


            You’re using a tried and true debating technique when a debater faces an indefensible position. It’s called ‘deflection’. You’re trying to shift the debate to the credibility of the Esowatch reference. The issue is why you said that I was explicitly dishonest.

            To be clear, It’s perfectly legitimate to question the credibility and accuracy of a reference such as Esowatch.

            In my opinion, it’s not legitimate to call someone ‘explicitly dishonest’ for using the information in such a reference.

            I’ll ask the question again. please explain why you think my use of the 20% efficiency claim from the Esowatch reference was explicitly dishonest.

          • Tim

            August 27, 2011 at 2:10 am

            I’m afraid you’re the one with the indefensible position. Let’s go back to what you said:

            “For those that want more than a DISMAL FAILURE statement about Rossi’s thermoelectric converter work, here is a list of Design Issues at the conclusion of the Department of Defense study.

            1. It showed poor consistency in internal device resistance.
            2. Solder melted at low temperatures.
            3. The cooling tank had poor mechanical stability (expanded with water pressure)
            4. The cooling tank corroded rapidly, contaminating facility chilled water system.
            5. The original cooling tank had no baffles, and poor heat transfer consistency.
            6. The second generation cooling tank had baffles but unknown heat transfer efficiency; it still had corrosion problems.
            7. The material used for mounting the thermoelectric wafers had very poor thermal conductivity (fiberglass/phenolic circuit board material).
            8. It had poor surface-to-surface contact of thermoelectric wafers to conductive pads, resulting in poor electrical and thermal conductivity.
            9. Thermoelectric wafers were very brittle and break easily, affecting overall energy production.

            Despite Rossi’s claims of 20% efficiency, the Leonardo Corp. devices did not meet the 16% efficiency criteria of the Department of Defense.”

            This is a post summarizing the DOD report. The conclusion of this post contains your statement. The DOD report does not support your statement. Deflection of these issues to a previous post regarding Esowatch is not relevant. Therefore, your post was explicitly dishonest.

            Why are you even debating this? If you had gone back and looked at your post, you would have realized the issue here. Perhaps you would have explained that in your need to let us know about something, you had mixed your references.

            I did not say the post was intentionally, consciously, dishonest. I have no way of knowing what you were thinking as you typed it, and I suspect it was not. Much of what people say is unconsidered, unconscious, but that is not an excuse for them to say things that are inaccurate, which they know are inaccurate. Such is dishonesty. However, your posts in general do not seem to be unconsidered or inaccurate, outside this case. So again, ask yourself why.

          • Thicket

            August 27, 2011 at 2:28 am


            You painted yourself into a corner, and you’re dancing around trying to justify your statement. Did you really know about the 20% efficiency comment in Esowatch or did I catch you by surprise by actually having a documented quote from a reference? You’re the only one that knows that for sure.

            The topic being discussed was Rossi’s work for the Department of Defense. Both the DoD report, and the excerpt from Esowatch explicitly dealt with that topic. For me to extract a piece of information from Esowatch was in no way dishonest and I think you know that.

            I will drop this subject because we’re going in circles.

          • Tim

            August 27, 2011 at 2:44 am

            Thicket –

            Do you know what confirmation bias is? Sometimes people’s beliefs will subtly affect how they express themselves or how they interpret things. They may hear information from unreliable sources and lump it in with reliable sources. They may make statements attributed to sources that are regarded as highly credible, and mix in something from a less credible source.

            Most people seem to be unaware of these activities as they perform them. If such actions are brought to their attention, they will become very defensive, and try to explain that some disparate sources may be linked in some manner, or offer a similar explanation.

            As well as affecting the person performing them, these activities strongly affect other people who they communicate with. Soon, there are groups of people in separate camps with highly divergent understanding, even if these people share their regard for the most credible sources. It is most unfortunate.

            That is why I am pursuing this. I feel no need to prove myself correct in any manner regarding what I said here (although I may have such a need unconsciously). I simply observed this type of action, and said for you to ask yourself why, so that it does not lead to these negative effects if that is not your intent.


  23. Ransompw

    August 26, 2011 at 12:47 am

    I can understand that you desperately want Rossi to fail. If he doesn’t you look like the buffoon of the century. But wishing doesn’t make make it so. It certainly will be hillarious if he turns out something in October. By the way, I would suggest that what Thicket says has equally NO Credibility.

    • maryyugo

      August 26, 2011 at 3:37 am

      “I can understand that you desperately want Rossi to fail.”

      Nobody, except maybe James Bond’s mythical and terminally evil adversary Bloefeld, wants Rossi to fail. Where do you get such an idea? Who has said they want Rossi to fail? Where did they say it? It’s preposterous. Everyone wants Rossi to succeed and the E-cat to be real.

      Unfortunately, it’s not Thicket and Krivet and the other critics who have no credibility– it’s Rossi. It’s Rossi who makes highly unlikely claims such as self-destruct devices and inexpensive isotope enrichment. It’s Rossi who calls his critics clowns and snakes. It’s Rossi who won’t repeat a simple experiment that would prove that the E-cat works. And it’s Rossi who categorically contradicts his own client, Defkalion and what Rossi said about them requires that either party be a complete liar. None of those things are the faults of critics. Critics simply point them out because believers in their blind zeal tend to overlook them.

      If Rossi succeeds, the skeptics will still be right and the believers will be the buffoons. The issue at this point in time isn’t whether Rossi is right or not — we have no way to know that. The issue is the quality of evidence so far given for the E-cat. Not opinions but evidence. And so far, it’s dismal and since the Krivit demo, it has not improved one little bit.

      • Ransompw

        August 26, 2011 at 5:30 am

        You are quite wrong. Krivit wants Rossi to fail and he will be quite happy when another LENR researcher succeeds.

        You are also deceiving yourself if you think a Rossi success will vindicate the skeptic community. If Rossi, come October demonstrates his 1MgW reactor and it is tested to everyone’s satisfaction, real people, not the few obsessed individuals who post on these sites (me included), will know with absolute certainty (and nothing you say will matter) that people like you were quite wrong about the previous tests, that you deluded yourselves about the steam quality and that you really had no idea what you were talking about. Rossi will win the Nobel Prize, the world will chear the great discovery and people like you will disappear into the ether. If you think anything else will occur you are not in touch with the real world.

        • Anthony

          August 26, 2011 at 7:46 am

          Krivit does not want him to fail but from what information he’s gathered and what he’s seen first hand he seems convinced that Rossi has failed. There is a difference there.

          • Ransompw

            August 26, 2011 at 1:00 pm

            And what makes you think that. Krivit’s report is full of fudged data as in the steam calculations, one sided expert opinions, biased conclusions and was clearly written with an agenda. I don’t doubt Krivit has convinced himself that Rossi is a fraud, but more then anything he went in with that position or the position Rossi had just used someone elses work. Read his first reports in January, they are not flattering to Rossi at all and clearly establish his mind set.
            And of course now that he has really upset Rossi, the last thing this reporter of LENR wants is for Rossi to be the father of Cold Fusion. Do you think he may have cut his bridges if that is the case.
            Finally, try to post some positive information on his blog site, it won’t see the light of day. Is that an objective reporter?

  24. Ben

    August 26, 2011 at 12:59 am

    A new film about cold fusion is set to be relased soon called “The Believers.”

    As I understand it, it covers mostly the history of Pons and Fleishmann but also explores the work of many cold fusion researchers who have and to this day continue to work on this technology despite the never ending criticism and negativity. As far as I know, it does not cover Andrea Rossi or the Ecat.

    It is important to note that while people continue to attack Rossi personally, cold fusion is not about Andrea Rossi. It is about a promising technology that continues to be discredited despite substantial evidence of its existence. Rossi is merely a player in a much bigger picture. Michael Nelson of NASA agrees. Every cynic’s critic of the hour, S. Krivit, quoted him as saying:

    “LENR is another avenue. It’s not just about Rossi. If the Rossi thing
    doesn’t happen, then maybe something else will. Rossi has brought a lot of
    attention to the field. Any researchers who have a legitimate claim are
    going to benefit from this.”

    Whether the publicity for the Ecat and Rossi will be a good thing remains to be seen, but either way it is important to remember that unlike other “free energy scams” LENR is not just a flash in the pan. There are over 3000 scientific papers describing this phenomenon and scientists and layman alike are finally beginning to realize that this is very real. It is funny to see how even the professional antagonists are this page don’t outright dismiss the viability of LENR anymore. Even if Rossi fails, perhaps he will succeed in bringing this technology to the mainstream and changing the nature of the discussion. I hope the movie “The Believers” will do the same.

    • Thicket

      August 26, 2011 at 1:10 am

      I agree in part Ben. While LENR may not succeed, it’s a technology worth pursuing. I suspect that is why Krivit has been so harsh on Rossi’s E-Cat. Krivit has been a staunch supporter of LENR for many years. It likely annoys him to have someone like Rossi besmirch worthwhile research.

      I think Rossi is giving legitimate LENR research a black eye.

      • Ransompw

        August 26, 2011 at 1:50 am

        You don’t get to choose who succeeds in bringing commercial LENR to the world. If LENR really exists and I think it does, Rossi is as likely to bring it to the world as anyone. All that is needed is a really good engineer. In fact based on what I have seen, one of the reasons LENR hasn’t advanced since 1989 is that most think it doesn’t exist so engineers haven’t really been trying to increase the effect. If the effect is real, I could care less whether I proved it to anyone or more importantly explained it. What I would want to know is WHEN it happens and under WHAT circumstances. Once that is known advancing the process, making it happen more often is just engineering. WHY it happens could help advance the process but frankly it is not nearly as important as WHEN and under WHAT circumstances.

        So my guess is Rossi saw the following study done by Focardi and company, realized it was a primer to learning the WHEN and under WHAT and engineered a more vigorous reaction and developed the Ecat.

        Finally, Krivit’s recent moronic nonsense about Science first then Technology (what did he say Horse first then Cart) is just that moronic nonsense. Engineering makes technology, science just gives engineers ideas. Krivit is as wrong as he can be about so much it is difficult to understand why anyone would bother to read his drivel.

        • Tim

          August 26, 2011 at 2:45 am

          Unfortunately, the world does not work like this outside of science fiction. In the last 100+ years significant new science has almost always been developed by scientists, frequently working for academia, not by engineers. Once the science is developed, then it is formed into technoloy. I could list hundreds of examples of this. Maybe it has to do with the budgets and deadlines the engineers have, but in the real world that is the way it is.

          Once there is a working formula for something, then an engineer comes along and figures it into a device, product, etc and it changes the world. Bypassing the scientific world just hasn’t happened except in very rare cases the way things actually are these days. Science turns obscure, not understood phenomena, or completely new phenomena, into formulas.

          Engineers work for people that want to make money, in this world (not in sf). Given the state of LENR 22 years ago, where results, such as they were, could not be reliably reproduced, there is no way money could have been made of the phenomena as it existed. Also, there were no formula about how to optimize it or make it better. In sf, the genius inventor engineer would have gone into his basement, figured it out, and come up with the formula. Then he would have talked to investors, and built a LENR rocket for the stars. But in the real world, no.

          eCat may be an almost unique counter-example of this. But that is only if it is not a scam, and many think that it is.

          • Ransompw

            August 26, 2011 at 2:56 am

            Actually, the world works exactly like that except in mind of scientists. People with money to invest don’t care about science they care about making money with their money. All science has to say is LENR is real and money will flood into the pockets of engineers to make it work. It won’t matter a wit if science understands how it works. Sorry but you are wrong, what do you do for a living.

          • Ransompw

            August 26, 2011 at 3:26 am


            I would also point out that it depends to some degree on the cost or investment necessary. A lot of modern tech costs a lot to engineer which has a chilling effect on investment. So in those cases, real science needs to be pretty advanced before the investment money will flow. But if the cost isn’t great the science becomes really meaningless if the potential profits are large. In the case of LENR the cost of development is really not great. If people thought it was real it wouldn’t matter at all if they understood the science, the end profits are huge and the investment small, massive amounts of money would flow and results would follow.

          • Tim

            August 26, 2011 at 4:04 am


            It doesn’t really matter what you think, what logic you think the world follows, or how much sf you read. I have worked with many engineers and many scientists, I see what they actually do. I understand that you do not care how LENR works, just so long as it does work, and also that it really does not matter anyway in the end. However, there is a real world process that develops new technology in almost every case. Please re-read my previous post if you want to understand the relevance of that.

          • Ransompw

            August 26, 2011 at 4:22 am

            I really don’t think I understand your point. If you are suggesting that the How of LENR is necessary for a commercial development I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. By the way, I don’t really work with engineers or scientists, I work with people who do lots of investing.

          • Tim

            August 26, 2011 at 5:41 am

            I am not suggesting that the how of LENR is necessary for commercial development. I have just observed that scientists investigate things up to a certain point, typically up to formula reasonably fully describing the behaviour of specific phenomena, and then engineers take it from there.

            Frequently the scientific formulas are based on models, which essentially answer the “How” question, but that is not what I meant, and it is not actually required. However, characterizing something without models is not usually practical for complex phenomena.

            When engineers design stuff involving new technology in the real world, they get out the books to figure out how to make it work or optimize it. These books contain the formulas I am referring to, and they are usually written by scientists, either in academia or industrial research centers.

            Perhaps LENR is too simple to require models for the kind of characterization that an engineer would usually use when developing new technology. However, the F&P replication attempts seem to getting more complicated as people try to make them more reliable, and Ni-H has not seemed very reliable before eCat. As I said before, LENR may be an exception to what I have seen regarding science preceeding engineering, but if it is then it is a rare one.

          • John Dlouhy

            August 26, 2011 at 4:42 pm

            I think there are examples both ways in the question of science preceding engineering and vise versa.

            The magnetic core materials used in inductors in most common electronic equipment are well characterized but not at all understood by science. When you search for information on the subject in company documents, you find some odd statements that skirt the issue, not willing to out-rightly contradict mainstream science, and at the same time, absolutely unable to provide necessary engineering info without showing some non conforming data. They handle it by avoiding comment and simply showing the graphs.

            On the other hand, transistors were developed in a well know laboratory and then became commercially important many years later. Clearly an academic understanding was established before it was made useful.

            These are only 2 examples but my point is it happens both ways so I think both your theses are flawed. Clouding the issue is the reality that sometimes engineers are acting like scientists, and sometimes scientists are behaving like engineers regardless of the labels they wear. To engineer something only requires sufficiently well characterized parameters of the constituent parts. A theoretical understanding is not necessary and indeed is often lacking, or at the least, limited in its scope.

          • Tim

            August 26, 2011 at 10:36 pm

            John D,

            I completely agree with what you just said. As I had previously said, the characterization of phenomena does not actually require answering the How question, or coming up with models. Engineering just requires the characterization, not the How. However, in todays world for new technology development involving new phenomena I have observed that the kind of characterization required is usually pretty complicated, and models are made to assist this.

            Inductors have been around for a long time, before the last 100 years I mentioned in my initial post as being the amount of time things seem to have worked this way. Perhaps they were characterized by alchemists back in the mists of time, playing with static electricity and twitching frog legs? I do not have any idea if that is true (although I probably just caused georgehants to get pretty excited and start all sorts of internet rumors), but I agree that the methods used before the last 100 years most definitely were different than those today, and have led to some older fundamental characterization, some even used for new technology, to be outside of the understanding of science.

            And also, of course, there are the occasional exceptions even for current understanding of new phenomena. I’m just describing what I’ve seen and read about current new technology development and where the characterization of the new phenomena comes from, not about something that necessarily applies in every case.

            Also, of course I have seen engineers perform tests and measurements and come up with formulas, frequently appearing to be doing the same things as scientists. Sometimes they are, but sometimes they are performing further characterization, and in that case it would seem the phenomena are no longer new.

          • John Dlouhy

            August 27, 2011 at 4:44 am

            I think I see your point. As the body of scientific knowledge has grown over the centuries, it is much more likely now that a new phenomenon or observation will fit somewhere in the existing understanding helping to refine it rather than create a whole new field. This was not the case in the early days of science when the body of knowledge was small.

            I wonder if cold fusion will fit in somewhere or will require a make over. Dr. Rossi originally believed no new physics would be required to explain what was happening but was then not entirely certain of the explanation. His tone seems to have changed with recent posts. In one response he said “we have not neutrons and high energy gamma emissions, and we know now perfectly why.” Later georgie boy asked if his theory would lead to new science and Dr. Rossi replied “I think so, yes.”

          • Tim

            August 27, 2011 at 6:01 am

            John D,

            Umm georgie boy; isn’t that a song? A little respect for the alchemist in the crowd, unless you want to be turned into a frog.

            Also, my point is not about why things are the way they are. Your explanation seems perfectly reasonable, but I didn’t want to get into that particularly. It is simply that I have observed how scientists and engineers frequently actually relate developing new technology based on new phenomena these days. It is drastically different than some, e.g. investment advisors, or science fiction fans, which I seem to have had a little difficulty telling apart, or some cf fans, seem to think. I think I will make a big post about this on today’s topic. I hope people don’t mind.

          • John Dlouhy

            August 27, 2011 at 6:29 pm

            Never heard of the song “georgie boy”, no reference intended.

  25. Ben

    August 26, 2011 at 4:19 am

    The personal computer, one of the most revolutionary products in the history of man, was brought to market by a college drop-out and a garage inventor. Science may have explained how it worked but it took individuals removed from the scientific community to make it practical. If we had to wait for scientists to bring the PC to market, we would still be waiting. The same may end up holding true for cold fusion/LENR. It may take a practical inventor like Rossi rather than a formally trained scientist to bring LENR to market.

    • Tim

      August 26, 2011 at 5:24 am

      The personal computer was a combination of microchips and computer design. Semiconductor research and computer design research. That is a perfect example where scientists were key and led the way to these technologies.

      Once the separate technologies were fully implemented, then anybody could build a PC out of them, many did, and for a while big companies could not keep up. That has to do with the problems with big companies, and not anything to do with scientists affecting the speed things are brought to market.

      Scientists do not directly bring things to market, but their work, at least in the case mentioned here, was a critical factor.

      Many of us know how to do it better, throw out the scientists, their dogma just holds everything up. In some cases that might be true. But in the real world, for almost every new technology development effort, scientists have led the way by their pursuit of understanding new phenomena. Fleischmann and Pons are scientists, and Piantelli.

      • Ben

        August 26, 2011 at 4:19 pm

        I have said my peace about science and scientific dogma already (which was quite a bit more than 2 cents in value). But, to reiterate, the problem is not with science or scientists per se, it is with the current practice of the discipline. Fleischmann/Pons and Piantelli all followed accepted scientific protocol but their claims were rejected because they violated scientific dogma, i.e. the widely held belief that such claims were impossible… spite of data that suggested that their claims were very real. Perhaps more disturbing than that, it was outright fraud at places such as MIT that helped to discredit P&F, not lack of a scientific evidence. While it is often alleged that Mr. Rossi is committing fraud in an effort to perpetuate a “free energy scheme,” the first documented fraud regarding cold fusion was in fact committed by those in the established scientific community in an effort to preserve a large amount of government funding for a competing technology.

        Piantelli’s experience was similar. He attempted to go thru the traditional and accepted scientific channels and received the same treatment. Although he was not criticized and ostracized in the same manner as P&F, his findings were rejected nonetheless for the same reasons, i.e. they violated scientific dogma. Piantelli and Focardi had their worked reviewed by CERN, another institution that receives a large amount of government funding. CERN rejected the work of Piantelli/Focardi for reasons that go beyond lack of scientific evidence and a review of the whole affair is quite confusing and bewildering actually. Krivit covers the affair in New Energy Times. Given Krivit’s general knowledge of the history of conflict between LENR researchers and the scientific community, it is quite odd that he has taken the stance against Focardi, Rossi and Levi that he has. He is well aware that every LENR researcher that has attempted to have his work validated thru established scientific channels has been rejected, yet he still criticizes Rossi for his failure to attempt to navigate the same trecherous waters. It as if Krivit is suffering from scientific Stockholm syndrome of sorts, in that he has been exposed to such much mistreatment of LENR reseachers by the scientific community that he has taken on the persona and mentality of the abusers. Watching the interviews, it is apparent that Krivit has become the Inquisitor.

        Even if the claims of Pons, Fleishmann and Piantelli had been accepted by the established scientific community, it is likely that LENR would have followed the same path of development it has and perhaps even the same time frame. Replications would have had to taken place (which they have), competing theories of mechanism would have had to be explored (which they have), improvements of the original experiments would have had to be made (which they have), the technology itself would have had to gained wider acceptance (which it has), an engineer or team of engineers would have had to refine the technology and improve the process further to make it highly reproducible, reliable, safe and commercially reliable (which both Rossi claim to have done) and, finally, a business entity would have had to be put in charge of marketing, sales, manufacturing, etc. (which purpose AmpEnergo and DGT have both apparently serve/severed).

        Going back to DGT, while they now superficially appear as a sidetrack to the whole process, it is likely the case that their input was crucial on the road to commercialization. It was missed in the whole steam debate, but Rossi claims to have made the Ecat even more efficient and has totally replaced all 330 Ecats he originally manufactured for the 1MW plant. Rossi may have in fact demonstrated an old prototype to you know, with the final product being much more efficient. No doubt the input of the DGT team helped in this process. Rossi may have brought them a very rough prototype and DGT spent large sums of money refining it, to the point they burned through a large portion of their capital and were not able to set aside funds to pay Rossi in October or felt like they were not entitled to pay the agreed upon sum due to the amount of effort and money it took to refine the final product. In the end, both parties may have decided that they did not each other anymore. DGT had a marketable product, with or without Rossi, and Rossi had a refined product to bring to AmpEnergo to market. Not having to engage in extensive R&D costs may ultimately have put AmpEnergo in a better position to pay royalties more in line with Rossi’s expectations and prior agreements.

        In any event, while scientists were crucial in the development of LENR, ultimately it will take others to bring it to market. The established scientific community as a whole has been an impediment to progress, not a help. It took individual scientists risking their careers and reputations, staying true to the spirit of the discipline to provide the demonstrable results and theoretical underpinnings to move LENR forward. It will take someone other than scientists to bring it to market. Rossi may be that person. On the other hand, Pianteill, having had someone else pass some of the roadblocks, may himself now be in a position to do as much. In a way it would be fitting if he were the one to do this but it would be anomaly in the development of any technology to have the scientist bring it to market. I personally hope that Piantelli is the one to bring it to market but I do not know if he has the wherewithall to make it happen. Hopefully he has surrounded himself to a good team with Nichenergy and they will be able to bring to the table those things that he lacks in terms of engineering expertise, business knowledge and marketing skills. If Pianteill is able to pull it off and even ir Rossi fails, he will still owe his success in some degree to Rossi for his efforts. Of course, if Rossi ultimately succeeds, he will owe a debt of gratitude to Piantelli, P&F and the myriad of other scientists that have developed and advanced this technology.

        • John Dlouhy

          August 26, 2011 at 4:50 pm

          “If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the heads of giants”…Isaac Newton.

        • Ransompw

          August 26, 2011 at 4:58 pm

          Generally I agree with much of your post. I do think because of the rejection of Pons and Fleischmann and the general position of the scientific community toward Cold Fusion (LENR) that much more emphasis has been placed on the IF question by researchers then the WHEN question. As a result the direction of the experimental tests have been more focused on demonstrating the effect and less on trying to issolate the precise environment surrounding the effect. A different stategy, ie different type of tests may have allowed more rapid progress.

          In other words if the debate over whether the effect was real had never created such a dogmatic mindset we might have seen a different chronology of events.

        • Tim

          August 26, 2011 at 11:18 pm


          Wow. I am not sure I follow entirely what you say here, there is a lot to it. But I agree with Ransompw, in this case the actions of the scientific community have affected progress in the field. If LENR is real, then scientific rejection of it based on scientific dogma has made this process take 22 years, for the reasons given by Ransompw. However, F&P, Piantelli, and many others involved are scientists, the field would not exist without them in the way it does, so one way to put it is “science giveth, then science taketh away”.

          Regarding Krivit and “scientific Stockholm syndrome”, that is funny! However, my guess is that Krivit’s current state of mind is based on his 14 second observation of water vapor coming out of a hose. Most people do not realize that because water vapor has 1/1600 the density of liquid water, at the same speed as the liquid it has much less momentum and does not behave the same. The hose would not wildly snake around with 2g/sec. Also, vapor coming out of the hose behaves as a gas flowing into a gas, which is completely different than the flow of a liquid into a gas. In particular, the gas into gas is dependent on the speed in highly non-linear ways, for various fluid dynamic reasons. When blowing out a birthday candle, the flow appears to act as a liquid for a while, several inches, because of the very high speed at the aperture when you purse your lips. However, even with a reasonably high speed at the aperture such as in what Krivit saw, the flow would disperse much more quickly, so estimates of the speed of the vapor flow based on the idea that it would flow like liquid water in a stream are inaccurate by orders of magnitude. Krivit is not a scientist, nor am I, but I spent several hours trying to figure out what was happening in that case instead of just jumping to Krivit’s conclusions.

          The above link was written while I was developing these ideas and is only consistent until my last Reply to it, since we can’t edit our posts. I have put it in a more formal document, but have no idea how to post that.

          My gut feeling regarding Krivit is that once he makes up his mind about something, he sticks to it. I doubt he thinks the steam video is relevant any longer, he has experienced confirmation bias for several months now and has selected a lot of other evidence to support his beliefs as well, so I think trying to directly send him anything about the video would not be useful.

          Your points about DGT are very interesting. Also, I agree it is useful to see how this illustrates the difference between big technology development driven by high dollar companies with their supporting scientific establishments, versus the smaller, more nimble, little guy. Good points all.

    • Jay

      August 26, 2011 at 5:26 am

      I agree, Ben. Cold Fusion science in general, and the Rossi/Focardi e-Cat in particular, illustrate so perfectly the contrast between big grant money, taxpayer-funded science and small, privately-funded, entrepreneur-driven science. Which side will bring a practical device to market first? The hot fusion guys have had a 30-year, multi-billion dollar head start.

      • Ben

        August 26, 2011 at 2:46 pm

        Jay, I am glad my points where not lost on everyone. I do appreciate your insight.

  26. georgehants

    August 26, 2011 at 8:27 am

    Perhaps some of our skeptical or even open-minded friends would like to comment on the total lack of response to the French 1999 COMETA Report confirming the reality of UFO’s and calling for honest, clear disclosure and assistance from America in the research of this important Enigma.
    As the reality of UFO’s is beyond any reasonable dispute and they scientifically can only fit into the groupings of—
    Psychological–A wonderful opportunity for a “soft” science to actually do something useful and research the workings of the human mind.
    Beyond known science– A wonderful opportunity for real scientists to find new science.
    Material– A wonderful opportunity for real science to discover about advanced technology.
    The one thing indisputable is the irrational response of Academia, Etc. to a subject of immense importance and interest to all of humanity.
    Would anybody like to give one Rational and sensible reason that could Justify the common, small minded, attitude encouraged by the Establishment.
    I like most people have no evidence as to which of the above categories, the Enigma falls into, only that it certainly falls into one of them.
    One would think science should by now have honestly and openly researched the issue. What are they frightened of, perhaps finding another Cold Fusion

  27. georgehants

    August 26, 2011 at 8:59 am

    From Rossi’s page today.

    Andrea Rossi
    August 25th, 2011 at 2:42 PM

    Dear Rick Gresham:
    We are testing other solutions than water, to raise higher temperatures in a closed circuit and then exchange heat with water to make steam at temp and press enough high to make electricity: I want to have ready an E-Cat able to give heat, cold and el. power to everybody. We are arriving.
    Warmest regards,

  28. georgehants

    August 26, 2011 at 9:27 am

    A report in-
    Behavioral Science
    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
    Helps to partly explain irrational skepticism.

  29. georgehants

    August 26, 2011 at 9:29 am

    From Rossi’s page today.
    August 26th, 2011 at 2:51 AM

    Dear Mr Rossi,
    When you publish your report on the theory behind the E-CAT will it, if you are correct, lead to other possible applications, or new science.

    Andrea Rossi
    August 26th, 2011 at 3:27 AM

    Dear Georgehants:
    I think so, yes.
    Warm Regards,
    August 26th, 2011 at 2:51 AM

  30. Thicket

    August 26, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    I find it interesting at some people’s attempt to rewrite history. Pons and Fleischmann’s cold fusion announcement was met with widespread enthusiasm and optimism. It was only after many failures to replicate the results that hopes dimmed and faded.

    Also, Pons and Fleischmann’s work was faulty. It was wrong. They admitted it, in writing, twice. They made fundamental measurement errors.

    The mistakes of P&F doesn’t mean that cold fusion is impossible. If possible, it doesn’t match the initial reported findings of P&F.

    Folks need to educate themselves on factual history instead of perpetuating myths.

    For example, did you know that Pons and Fleischman didn’t want to prematurely go public, but were pressured into it by the University of Utah?

    Did you know that the University of Utah’s pressure was based on commercial considerations?

    Did you know that the Pons and Fleischmann announcement froze out Steven Jones of Brigham Young University even though they had an agreement to publish cold fusion finding simultaneously? The colloquial term for such behavior is ‘backstabbing’.

    Did you know that there was extensive cold fusion work going on when Pons and Fleischmann made their ill-advised announcement? Did you know that serious cold fusion researchers were subsequently considered pariahs after the P&F fiasco? Cold fusion was considered pathological science for a long time.

    Did you know that the term LENR was used because of the stigma associated with the term cold fusion? It’s been a struggle to legitimize cold fusion work, but significant progress has been made.

    The besmirching of cold fusion research is the legacy of Pons and Fleischmann. How can anyone glorify the cold fusion research blight initiated by Pons and Fleischmann?

    If you want to glorify cold fusion research, then praise the scientists that persisted in their work despite the burden placed on them by Pons and Fleischmann.

    • Tim

      August 27, 2011 at 12:03 am


      Thank you for your overview of the F&P contributions to the LENR field. It has many points, but most are familiar to those following this field, and some clarifications might be relevant.

      – There certainly were many problems replicating the initial results. Creating the reaction was harder than it looked. Since then, some have stated many of these problems can be attributed to the loading level of the reactants, an effect not well understood at the time.

      – Fleischmann is considered an expert in the field of electrochemistry. The experiment involved electrochemistry and related calorimetry. He took some shortcuts that he later has admitted he should not have, which I expect is one of the admissions to mistakes in writing you are referring to. Years later in France he performed similar experiments without the shortcuts, and said they had no effect, as he thought they wouldn’t all along. Also, he has admitted errors regarding his initial publications involving instruments and so on from the physics field. His admission of these errors does not detract from his credibility, but does point out that the early work was certainly not perfect.

      – Those following this know of the pressure from Pons’s bosses at University of Utah.

      – Those following this know of University of Utah’s desire for the patents.

      – Most following are aware of the controversy between F&P and Jones regarding their agreement, and are aware of the situation when Pons’s bosses ordered him to make the announcement. Jones certainly would call it ‘backstabbing’, I believe Fleischmann and Pons might differ regarding the agreement and might call it something else.

      – I did not know about extensive cold fusion work going on already when F&P started working on their project. I new about much older projects, but nothing current at that time. News to me! Links please.

      There certainly is a stigma associated with cold fusion. However, blaming the victim in this case because they did not publish perfect reports, because they had bosses that put them under pressure to do things they might have done differently otherwise, and because they were working in a field that was not well understood regarding the reaction and the reactants, does not seem to be sensible.

      Fleischmann and Pons set up a laboratory in France where they worked for several years, and claimed significant replication and enhancement of the initial claims, before the person sponsoring the lab suddenly died and his heirs cut them off. Fleischmann and Pons worked with many other scientists in the field around the world, including some in Italy that may have led reasonably directly to the Piantelli involvement, after the initial claims. Fleischmann and Pons did persist, and if this works out their long term efforts will have made the world a better place.

    • Ben

      August 27, 2011 at 12:43 am

      Thicket – Once again you show you are the master of mixing obvious facts, misinformation and lies together to tell a tale. Not really a fan of your methods but I do admire your consistency. No doubt you will be re-telling this tale repeatedly over the next couple of weeks. Can’t wait.

      • Thicket

        August 27, 2011 at 2:40 am


        Personal attacks Ben? That’s a sure sign of an inability to reasonably debate a topic.


        You’re correct about the lack of cold fusion work taking place before or at the time of P&F. I was wrong.

        I do maintain that P&F failed in their attempts to demonstrate cold fusion and are not worthy of any form of exalted status. I agree that the Univ. of Utah is also culpable in the P&F fiasco, but P&F carry some of the responsibility as well. I don’t consider them victims of the cold fusion stigma.

        I recall that the University of Utah allowed the P&F cold fusion patents to lapse due to the failure of anyone to replicate the results.

  31. raul heining

    August 26, 2011 at 11:46 pm

    At least someone has some understanding of the conditions. What Tim said is the truth, you cannot analyse steam with your eyes because even if it was double the output power, it would loose momentum very quickly. Krivit only puts in his articles what suits him to throw mud to Rossi’s side.

    • Tim

      August 27, 2011 at 12:12 am

      raul heining –

      I do not think it is bad to observe steam with your eyes. However, understanding what you observe must take into account that water vapor flows as a gas, with different rules than liquid water, and this behavior is much more complicated. Taking this into account, what is observed actually supports Rossi’s claims, although not strongly at all because the situation is complex and not well characterized.
      The above link was written while I was developing these ideas and is only complete after considering my last Reply to it, since we can’t edit our posts. I have rewritten it as a single document, but have no idea how to post that.