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
Steven Krivit has released the next instalment of his long-drawn saga, this time in three parts [ One, Two, Three]
I’ll once more let you judge for yourself before commenting.
August 26, 2011 at 2:52 pm
This is not a comment on the substance but I recall that Krivit in report #3 promised that he wouldn’t bother his head with Rossi’s e-cat until, if ever, Rossi come up with better and more scientific evidence. It seems that Krivit forgot this promise producing more and more videos. It is hard to pick between these two Drama Queens – Rossi and Krivit.
August 27, 2011 at 1:41 am
Well to be fair he said he’d do that AFTER he posted the vids Anapopei.
August 29, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Opps! It looks like I was wrong then. On the other hand, in the meantime, since my previous post here, Krivit has published further articles about the e-cat on his blog, so in some sense I was right, premature though.
August 31, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Yeah I agree with you now he pretty much lied.
August 26, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Hmmm. No comments yet.
I’ll try to say this as diplomatically as possible.
I respect the integrity and career of Focardi. He is clearly sincere. He has earned and deserves respect.
He also exhibits the impact of age that all of us will experience should we stay healthy long enough.
Rossi is very much his handler. Focardi continuously defers to Rossi. Rossi often expands on what Focardi says. He wasn’t simply a translator. It almost seemed like Rossi was using Focardi as a prop.
Focardi justifiably has pride and resents that an established scientific journal rejected his paper because it wasn’t suitably written.
I also think that Focardi is concerned about his legacy. He is at an age where he is very aware of his mortality and wants to leave a significant positive mark.
He is perfect prey for the silver-tongued Rossi.
Rossi is using Focardi’s name and reputation. The January 2011 University of Bologna demonstration was well attended out of respect for Focardi. Levi said this in his Krivit interview. Levi also attributed some of his own belief in the E-Cat
to his respect for Focardi.
The head of the University of Bologna Physics department is embarrassed about the things the Focardi said. I don’t think it’s Focardi’s fault. Rossi set up an old man with a distinguished career in academia and an unquenchable dream.
August 26, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Ok Krivit, but old or not you are trying to tell everyone that Focardi can’t tell a fake reaction from a real one. I for one think that is a stretch and your conclusions are really not credible. Good try though.
August 27, 2011 at 1:05 am
Commenting on something you can’t understand is presumably something you do a lot of. Focardi is a link in a chain larger than Rossi as he clearly states
Beh io sono convinto che anche se il reattore di Rossi con il “catalizzatore segreto” fosse una bufala, comunque la reazione Ni + H = Cu + E di Focardi-Piantelli non lo sia affatto!
Well I’m convinced that even if the reactor Rossi with the “secret catalyst” was a hoax, however the reaction H + Ni + Cu = Focardi and Piantelli-it is not at all!
August 27, 2011 at 1:45 am
You may want to rephrase your post MP because I don’t think anybody understands what you are saying.
August 27, 2011 at 10:13 am
I agree with LCD but are interested in what you mean MP.
August 27, 2011 at 4:19 am
This post assumes that the eCat is fake and works from there on how it will affect Focardi and so on. If the eCat is real, then entirely different conclusions would be drawn.
Also, the conclusion that Focardi was Rossi’s prop in this video does not seem consistent with the video itself.
Rossi has frequently refused to make statements about Piantelli’s work; stating simply that his version is not the same because it works. Focardi went into a bit of detail Rossi has refused to go into, regarding Piantelli’s version producing excess power of 2x, but that excess wasn’t enough for Piantelli’s version to power itself because a generator at its temperature would not have enough thermal efficiency to provide the electrical input.
I do not know Italian, but from the general flow of the conversation, and the little English that Focardi spoke, it appeared that he was mostly getting the questions and we were mostly getting his answeres. One place where Rossi cut in was when the interview went into details about why Focardi’s paper was not published. When Focardi apparently stated that they had not accepted it saying it was not written scientifically, Rossi cut in with Focardi’s history in science and said that from this history one would expect Focardi would know how to write a paper. Rossi merely defended Focardi in this instance; most of the interview did seem to come from Focardi.
August 27, 2011 at 4:55 am
RE: “Rossi set up an old man with a distinguished career in academia and an unquenchable dream.” (thicket)
If this does turn out to be a scam on Rossi’s part than I believe that your statement is the most plausible scenario, at least from my point of view.
I trust Focardi…to be honest, but not necessarily to to spot a well planned scam by a silver-tongued con man. Now, I am not saying that is the case here, but I am definitely not ruling it out.
One thing that has always stayed with me is the interview with the Mayor of Milan, Italy.
(“The Magic of Mr. Rossi”)
The Mayor of Milan is being interviewed about the Petroldragon fiasco, and says the following…
“In the years that he was working here he didn’t produce a single drop of oil, as far as we know. What it did was creating just a media event. He was able to persuade in a way that I can not explain, a good portion of public opinion…and that is exactly what is so hard for me to explain. He persuaded technicians of the field, scientists, important institutions, .that he was able to do magic.”
So, while I trust Focardi in the sense that I do not think that he would ever knowingly back a fraud and humiliate himself, and tarnish such a long scientific career. At the same time, Rossi past is an indicator to the level of persuasion and charm that Rossi can exert over people, and thus conning an old scientist who has striven his whole life to do exactly what is you claim to have done, does not seem so tough by comparison…Especially when you offer to make them a part of it!
Also, another thing this interview has made clear to me is the exact role of Focardi.
Although we knew in the past that Focardi does not have access to the reactor, it had never sunk in so clearly as hearing them repeat it.
By Rossi and Focardi’s admission his contributions were in safety. i.e. how to protect from gamma rays and radiation etc. i.e. the lead shielding.
He did not contribute to the reactor or to the Nickel-Hydrogen reaction in any way.
So why did Rossi need Focardi? He never evn shared the secret of the reactor with him, so it could not have been to solve any problems having to do with theory, elements, catalysts, etc.etc.
What is it only so that he could have a scientist back him up?
He obviously didn’t need Focardi or Levi to help in furthering the invention along enough to reach the point of commercialization. They don’t even know what is happening in the reactor. Was it for credibility in order to get investors?
That’s what it seems like to me.
August 27, 2011 at 5:22 am
“The Magic of Mr. Rossi” (15m 19s)
[The Mayor of Milan]
August 27, 2011 at 5:54 am
Again, thinking he was only using Focardi for credibility to be able to scam people assumes this is a scam. If it is not, there could be other reasons.
It seems the first hand statements in the link above by the Mayor of Milan are direct evidence on Rossi’s background. I have little knowledge of the details of what happened regarding PetrolDragon besides repeated rumors. [No, thicket, I did not study that part of Esowatch as carefully since Esowatch seems biased and I had nothing to compare it to] GD, thank you very much for the link.
August 27, 2011 at 6:44 am
RE: Again, thinking he was only using Focardi for credibility to be able to scam people assumes this is a scam. If it is not, there could be other reasons. (Tim)
Well yes, but that is not what I said,
What I said was, “Was it for credibility in order to get investors?”
That is different than scamming people, the second part of my post is NOT based on this being a scam necessarily, it just points to the fact of what Focardi and Levi’s role are in this.
They are not here for there scientific knowledge, as it is not being used in any way. Rossi has not shared the secrets to the reactor with Focardi or Levi, or Essen or Kullander for that matter.
So if he is not using them for there knowledge, or scientific expertise, then what is he using them for?
Is it for self validation? No, he has not shared the secret to the reaction with them so he does not want there point of view on how to create, control, or improve the reaction or reactor.
So what is there purpose? I think it is clear. They are his credibility.
He used Focardi to get Levi, who in turn used the name of his University; i.e. Bologna, the oldest and one of the most respected in the world. He wrote the press release for the demonstration of the E-Cat and Focardi invited all his scientific colleagues and people from the Department at Bologna.
This lends Rossi’s work credibility. That is fact.
Would Rossi with his past ever have been able to get scientist and reporters to believe that he had a cold fusion machine without Focardi and Levi? I doubt it. There definitely would not be the level of believers that we have presently.
Now don’t get me wrong. That in no way means that it’s a scam. Rossi has said from the beginning that his interest in this is commercial. Any legitimate business man would do the same in order to promote a product or a company. Get free marketing etc etc. Let’s just call a spade a spade.
August 27, 2011 at 7:12 am
I understand what I said is not a repetition of what you said. I put it that way, using the word scam twice, to emphasize that if someone was thinking it was a scam that could lead them to seeing evidence of a scam. Clearly you said that you had not already concluded it was a scam earlier in your post.
Focardi’s presence did lend credibility to Rossi’s work. I completely agree with you on that conclusion.
Regarding whether that is his sole, or even primary, motivation for involving Focardi requires speculation on Rossi’s motives. Maybe he has a good heart, called Focardi with some general questions about the reaction and its dangers because he didn’t want to interact with Piantelli, talked to the guy for a while, and decided, out of his good heart, to let the old man in on the new adventure. I can hear the skeptics out there laughing about what I just wrote from here, but I can also hear the believers out there saying Of Course. You see how this kind of speculation about someone’s motivation, when there is so much distance between us and them, purely lends itself to confirmation of what we already suspect?
If the machine works, then he could have private demos for investors we have never heard of. Many claim that he has had such demos. Ampenergo comes to mind. If you want further references let me know but I probably don’t have time to get them. See, if you are sure this isn’t a scam (believer), then his motivations change all around.
Anyway, I regret that you thought I was saying you said something you didn’t say. I thought it was clear from the way you started your post that you weren’t going to say that.
August 28, 2011 at 2:53 am
MPBRUNELLI posted the reference for private demonstrations for investors which I mentioned but could not recall earlier in a reply to one of your posts.
Thank you MPBRUNELLI.
August 27, 2011 at 5:57 pm
To Ghost Dawg, I’m not sure what is worse, citing a POLITICIAN as a bastion of honesty and an authority, or just MAKING IT UP to further your smear campaign against Dr. Rossi. Below Francesco CH points out that that’s not the mayor of MIlan. He is an unknown small town politician. Thank you very much Francesco.
This is what happens when you start with a conclusion, which is really just a belief, and then go mining for facts to support it. You exclude contradictory evidence, focus solely on what supports your belief, and when that fails, start fabricating supporting evidence and its credibility, all the while calling yourself an unbiased skeptic that has the worlds best interest at heart.
Skepticism, especially the close minded variety, is a dis-service to humanity and here’s why. Every great discovery has been met with skepticism. The truth can’t be stopped, but sadly it can be slowed down by people just like you. So you get to be right most of the time, which is truly self serving, but it is exactly in the instances that the skeptics are wrong that all of human advances have been made. And any effort which delays those instances is holding back the betterment of humanity. Not exactly a lofty goal.
The constant reiteration that Dr. Rossi is perpetrating a fraud is just another aspect of the pseudo psmear campaign. On several occasions Rossi has stated explicitly that he will not receive any funds until he has delivered a fully scaled nuclear reactor, at HIS expense, and not until it has undergone unequivocal testing by the customers purchasing it. How much fairer, and more straight forward could a transaction be?
August 27, 2011 at 6:12 pm
“On several occasions Rossi has stated explicitly that he will not receive any funds until he has delivered a fully scaled nuclear reactor, at HIS expense, and not until it has undergone unequivocal testing by the customers purchasing it. How much fairer, and more straight forward could a transaction be?”
Ah yes– another “Rossi says”. But when the American company Ampenergo was announced, there was an interview with one of it’s board members. He explicitly said that Rossi had been paid by them a “substantial sum”. Rossi has not since said he didn’t receive money and he won’t answer questions about it on his blog. When will you learn that you can not believe something simply because someone says it?
August 27, 2011 at 6:16 pm
“Have you paid anything to Rossi yet?
Cassarino: Yes we have.
Cassarino: Let’s put it like this, it was an important piece of the equation.”
So much for Rossi not getting money!
August 27, 2011 at 7:09 pm
I can’t believe how fast you responded! That’s amazing!
You’re right of course, when anyone contradicts what Rossi has said we should automatically assume he was lying and that the other person is absolutely correct. You’re also right in that negotiations are never flexible and that something that was true 6 months ago must always necessarily be exactly the same now and for ever. And Rossi’s refusal to not discuss ongoing legal negotiations is clearly an indication of fraud, as we all know private business negotiations are usually conducted open to the public. Of course I can’t hold you responsible if my inferences are incorrect, can I?
I’m not sure how you got “substantial sum” out of “important piece of the equation” which is rather a cryptic way to answer that question. I am grateful for the link at least. Its been a while since I read that and I had forgotten that contradiction. If they did pay Rossi something, that still doesn’t indicate that Rossi solicited the funds. And if he DID convince them to pay him a “substantial amount” without any private conclusive demonstrations, then he’s my hero, just like krivit is yours.
August 27, 2011 at 9:31 pm
Thank you for getting the reply that the interviewee is not the Mayor of Milan up so close to the post. It is amazing to me that people, including myself, could so easily fall for something like that.
Also, an on a related vein, Rossi has said he would not take money from customers or licensees of eCat before eCat was delivered to them and tested. I am having so much fun in this forum I rarely check his own blog any more, but I think he is still saying that and said it just a few days ago.
He always seemed to call DGT his customer. Perhaps by this he meant his primary licensee outside of the United States regarding manufacturing of eCat outside of the kernel. That interpretation would be consistent with many other things he has said. In that sense, payment from DGT would be payment from a customer, and there is no evidence such payment occured.
On the other hand, Ampenergo seemed to be established by previous business associates of his to assist his efforts. I was never sure exactly what their contribution was claimed to be; whether they would be acting as channels to investors, acting as channels to manufacturers, performing marketing, or some other function or combination of functions. Rossi has generally not referred to Ampenergo in the same way as DGT, as a customer, so saying he has not taken money from customers is not a contradiction with his receiving money from Ampenergo.
However, I believe what maryyugo said is quite relevant. In the context of the cited interview, it is quite evident that “important piece of the equation” could be reasonably interpreted as “substantial sum”, given that the interviewer was trying to establish the sum, apparently in order to determine if it was substantial. Also, many have given Rossi considerable credibility because they think he has not received any money regarding his eCat claims, so they think that removes such a motivation for making the claims. This is directly refuted by his apparently receiving compensation from at least Ampenergo.
Also, regarding Rossi receiving a “substantial amount” without conclusive demonstrations, I have personally known people who have conned others into mortgaging their homes in order to support wild ventures, and it can get ugly. Bamboozlers are not my heros. Although I think this is not directly what you said; if his associates have high regard for Rossi through years of interaction and knowledge of private information we are not aware of, then sure it is cool that they are backing him.
Also, I mentioned yesterday in a reply to a different post specifically that Ampenergo comes to mind as receiving private demos in the United States, but I can not remember the reference. Anyone else who has seen that reference, please provide a link. Thank you.
August 27, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Tim, an amount of 100 million euros has been suggested as the remuneration Rossi is receiving. That’s not a few sorry investors mortgaging their house but rather a major investment consortium providing venture capital. The notion they would hand over such amounts on weak and unsubstantiated data is preposterous. Now if it was public money being handed over to criminal banks by corrupt politicians then maybe I could believe it.
As far as the discrepancy between what Rossi and Ampenergo have said, we really have no way of knowing if they are talking about the same thing at all. Nyteknik asked if they had paid anything to Rossi yet. This could have been an amount for an exchange in shares of one of their businesses, it could have been an allowance to help Rossi continue his work as he nears the limit of his personal funds. We don’t know the amount, and we don’t know what for, and to assume the only possible interpretation must be the one that contradicts Rossi is to start with a conclusion and work backwards. That was the main point of my post and maryyugo arrived within minutes to demonstrate it.
August 27, 2011 at 10:41 pm
@ John Dlouhy
RE: “To Ghost Dawg, I’m not sure what is worse, citing a POLITICIAN as a bastion of honesty and an authority, or just MAKING IT UP to further your smear campaign against Dr. Rossi. Below Francesco CH points out that that’s not the mayor of MIlan. He is an unknown small town politician.”(J.Dlouhy)
First of all when did I ever say that the mayor was “a bastion of honesty and an authority”?
I didn’t. Also I have not made anything up. If I have please point out the EXACT instance so that I may at the very least defend myself, as you clearly have chosen to attack me personally rather that address the contents of my post.
” Below Francesco CH points out that that’s not the mayor of MIlan. He is an unknown small town politician” (J. Dlouhy)
So what. I was wrong. He is the Mayor of Lachiarella, Italy which is a suburb of Milan. Your point is? How do you know he is “unknown”, or that he is a “small town politician”? You don’t.
Does that fact that he is the mayor of a suburb of Milan vs. Milan itself really matter that much. I think not, as he clearly knows much more about what happened than you or I. Now that IS a fact.
You also say…
“This is what happens when you start with a conclusion, which is really just a belief, and then go mining for facts to support it. You exclude contradictory evidence, focus solely on what supports your belief, and when that fails, start fabricating supporting evidence and its credibility, all the while calling yourself an unbiased skeptic that has the worlds best interest at heart.” (J.Dlouhy)
No, this what happens when a overzealous follower hears anything which might be contrary to there predefined perception of what they believe to be the truth. No matter what evidence presents itself to the contrary. Do us both a favor and save the edification for yourself.
As far as being a skeptic or any of the other hogwash that you spewed my way…
My position is this: I honestly do not know. My gut tells me this is a scam. On the other hand it seems plausible and there are people who I seem honest like Focardi, Levi, Essen, and Kullander who say it works. I don’t think that any of those scientists would knowingly support a fraud.
So either Rossi is an unbeievable con man and charmer (I think he could be)
It’s the Real Deal and the World is about to change for the better
I suspect the former, but pray for the latter.
August 27, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Sorry. I did say that my reply did not reflect directly what you said, but I did not understand what you said about Rossi being your hero for receiving a substantial investment without any evidence being a complete joke, and that you thought such a situation was preposterous. You said it with such a straight face!
Btw, given how gullible people seem to be, even large organizations, I don’t consider it preposterous someone could receive a large investment without unequivocal evidence. Unlikely, and so evidence of such investment would be evidence of the claims, but not preposterous so I would take such evidence as weak.
As far as us not knowing details regarding Rossi’s transactions with Ampenergo, I agree completely. I pointed out that it is possible there is no discrepency between these transactions and what Rossi has said. Not only do we not know the basis of these transactions, we don’t (or at least I don’t) really have a clear idea what Ampenergo’s role in eCat is at all, as I explained in my previous post.
However, many have used a belief that Rossi has received no money regarding eCat whatsoever, and has done all of his work on his own savings made from other projects, as a reason to support Rossi. I am not aware of Rossi himself saying this, but many believe he has. A certain poster sure is fast when something comes up that contradicts this poster’s lack of support, and in this particular case I find it relevant given what the believers have said supports their belief.
August 27, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Ghost Dawg and John D,
I find both of your inputs in this particular thread relevant, and entertaining. I hope neither of you is actually harboring as much ill will as you have expressed. “smear campaign” and “overzealous follower”? How about skeptical observer taking into suppositions of motivation, and provisional supporter (or at least not as strong a skeptic) based on limited indirect observations and a few credible direct observers?
It is not necessary that we get ulcers here, or explain to people why our opponent’s minds are closed. Most people’s minds are closed most of the time, this is just something I have observed, so get over it.
August 27, 2011 at 11:23 pm
In addition to what I just posted (to bad there is no edit):
Not that I am not entertained by what you are posting, and don’t see the occasional gem.
“, but it is exactly in the instances that the skeptics are wrong that all of human advances have been made.”
“I suspect the former, but pray for the latter.”
August 28, 2011 at 12:59 am
Sorry Ghost Dawg, I know you didn’t say politicians are “a bastion of honesty and an authority” I just thought it was implied by the fact that you were referencing one. After all, why would someone reference a dishonest and un-authoritative source to support their own argument?
I also apologize for suggesting you made something up. I was just being sardonic implying that your mistake was actually an intentional deception to fool us “believers”. We know that it wasn’t, it was just the result of ignorance.
I’m not offended that you refer to my comment about scientific discovery and its importance to humanity as hogwash. Its important to let people know what you think. That’s why they have a comment section.
I’m glad you indicate that you maintain an open mind as the large number of negative remarks you make, copy, and reiterate repeatedly, might incorrectly mislead some to think that you were ever so slightly biased.
August 27, 2011 at 6:15 am
Mayor Luigi Acergi’s position that Rossi able to persuaded all these people without any proof for over ten years is ludicrous. To call something magic because you can’t understand it is nothing new, and turning waste to oil is a patent he held in 1978. There are many that use the technology now. Rossi was the first.
August 29, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Rossi’s was the first to do what exactly? If he had the technology to transform waste to oil at a feasible cost why did he accumulate 100,000 tons of toxic waste in various sites in Northern Italy and cashing in tons of money at the same time from all the companies that would have had to dispose of this waste at much higher costs anyway? Maybe just-in-time manufacturing was not a well-known concept in the early 80’s but what’s the reason to accumulate 100,000 tons of waste (or raw materials if you will) other than just cashing the money associated to its collection? After the oil crisis of the 70’s oil would have been flying out of Rossi’s plants if he would have been just able to produce it.
I’m not a skeptic on the ecat, quite the opposite, but I think Rossi’s behavior in the Petroldragon affair is not defendable. Rossi himself in a recent interview admitted his mistakes in the past although not specifically referring to any in particular.
If Rossi’s ecat turns out to be a scam and in 30 years LERNs will be finally proved to be real and viable I hope nobody should give credit to Rossi for that, am I wrong?
August 29, 2011 at 3:56 pm
My post has nothing to do with defending Rossi’s mistakes(which were obvious). I believe Rossi’s account of the sitution is more relevant than someone who wasn’t involved. Acergi’s story is only believable for those not concerned with probability. It is highly unlikely that Rossi only collected trash for over ten years. Italy produces 30 million tons of waste annually so if he must be the worst trashman ever.
August 29, 2011 at 4:15 pm
I’m glad you’re not a skeptic mcap, and are concerned about preserving the image of LENR. However your reasoning against Rossi is specious and misleading. Here’s how your wrong.
Rossi’s business took IN toxic waste from OTHER industries. It did not create it. In fact, it reduced it precisely by converting it to a usable product. The fact that it could not convert it ALL due to limitations of the technology does not change this fact. You, yourself use the word “accumulate” and not create. You should know that that waste was “created” by the industries that provide people like you with energy and goods. Ironically, Rossi was working to reduce that waste for which YOU YOURSELF are responsible, in aggregate with others.
Also the law did not consider those materials toxic when he began his venture. They were changed after it was in operation. The government even collected taxes on his business activities which it later decreed illegal. If you have had experience with politics you would not find that surprising.
Apart from this, let me add that you guys are changing your tactics and from a rhetorical perspective its probably necessary. You are now representing yourselves as sympathetic to LENR, hopeful of new energy technology, empathetic towards the poor scientists and investors who have been duped, but all the while hardening your assault against Dr. Rossi in insidious ways. I am really the last person to believe that someone could be paid to do this, but the coordination of your (plural) efforts seems otherwise difficult to explain. Very curious…
August 30, 2011 at 11:18 am
John you wrote: Apart from this, let me add that you guys are changing your tactics and from a rhetorical perspective its probably necessary.
John you don’t know how much you’re wrong about that, I’m following the ecat saga since a few months ago and I’ve always been on the positive side because I know LENR are real and I trust the integrity and experience of people like Focardi, Levi and Stremmenos. I rarely write posts but if you look for the few I’ve made in the past on various you’ll find this true.
Being positive on the ecat does not mean I have to deny all Rossi’s past.
I know Rossi did not “create” the waste but only accumulated it, the thing is that this same waste was supposed to be disposed in incinerators or so by the companies who produced it at a cost that was twice of more of the cost charged by Rossi to them (400 Italian Lira per Kg). Rossi’s stored 100,000 tons of this waste that the community later had to pay for disposal at the market cost and clean the waterbed. The process is still not finished yet and 10 million euros more are still needed to finish up the cleanup.
And by the way John, thank you of reminding me this same waste was produced by people like ME, but I don’t understand why you’re not including yourself in this people by using the word YOU instead of WE?
If the oil produced by Rossi was good why 1,500 tons of this was sent to Sigicar, a closed paper manufacturing plant in center Italy, and just buried underground?
John when you lecture me about politicians and the law you should tell the whole story and not only part of it. The possibility to classify this waste as raw materials was introduced by a law only in 1982 by the than socialist undersecretary Francesco Colucci (later stockholder of the Pisante Group). After a few years, because of the rising pressure from numerous local authorities worried by the rising ecological bomb this was generating the law was finally changed.
August 31, 2011 at 3:43 am
I stand corrected, mcap.
August 27, 2011 at 6:33 am
Rossi’s version of what happened at PetrolDragon differs significantly, and I do mean SIGNIFICANTLY, from the Mayor of Milan. Krivit posted it on his site some time ago. It is quite interesting and provides a broader context to the current saga, although I cannot vouch for validity of Rossi’s accounting.
August 27, 2011 at 11:35 am
That guy IS NOT THE MAYOR OF MILAN. The Mayor of Milan is a semi-god and it is very difficult to interview. That guy was a mayor of a small town in Lombardy.
August 27, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Francesco CH. Thank you for that clarification.
August 27, 2011 at 10:17 pm
I guess he is the mayor of Lachiarella, Italy which is a suburb of Milan. What does that matter? It’s the exact same thing.
Here is Google Maps:
August 27, 2011 at 6:08 pm
On Passi blog:
About the relationship between Focardi and Rossi:
After that, at a certain point … I was running the risk of dying of a tumor. I was lucky, I found a good doctor who saved my life, and so I retired, I stopped working (as a professor, obviously), but kept on … then I did quit for a while … until Rossi looked me up.
Rossi had gotten this notion to use fusion … this process is called cold fusion. The “hot fusionists”, the ones who are supposed to get fusion at high temperatures (and haven’t gotten there yet), are the ones who labeled it with this nickname, cold fusion — it’s slightly disparaging, of course. So this is what Rossi had made up his mind to work on, had asked around, then he phoned a colleague of mine in Bologna who had written a report on cold fusion, and asked him who the leading expert in Italy was. My colleague named me, because he knew I had gone ahead. So Rossi calls me and tells me he’s interested in the subject. We met, talked things over, and I could see that he had some innovative ideas; for instance, he immediately thought of using powder. Powder increases the surfaces involved and thereby increases the hydrogen which gets into the metal. We came to an agreement and began conducting experiments — this happened about two and a half /three years ago — in Bondeno, where he had an assembly plant, he was running a business there.
They worked together for three years and Focardi did not see that the whole story was false!!!!!!!
I doubt it
August 27, 2011 at 10:13 pm
RE: They worked together for three years and Focardi did not see that the whole story was false!!!!!!! I doubt it (jcragris)
And yet during those 3 years Focardi not once saw the reactor or asked what the secret was. I find that equally hard to believe, when you consider that he spent pretty much his whole career trying to solve the very same problem.
August 27, 2011 at 10:33 pm
I believe there are priority issues involved in new technology patents. If Piantelli can say that Rossi got all his ideas from him through Focardi, and Piantelli’s consortium is bigger than Rossi’s and has better lawyers, they could knock off any Rossi patents quite easily I suspect.
Rossi, as a long time businessman in the field of new technology, would understand these issues quite well, and would have discussed them with Focardi before Focardi’s involvement. So whether this is a scam or not, it makes perfect sense that Focardi and Rossi would not be discussing the core new patentable technologies.
August 28, 2011 at 5:15 am
RE: I believe there are priority issues involved in new technology patents. If Piantelli can say that Rossi got all his ideas from him through Focardi, and Piantelli’s consortium is bigger than Rossi’s and has better lawyers, they could knock off any Rossi patents quite easily I suspect. (TIM)
Bravo. In my mind, The legal situation with Piantelli is the only fathomable reason I can comprehend for Focardi saying that he knows nothing of the reactor, and that he was only their for safety purposes.
I think it’s feasible that Focardi DOES know the secrets to the reactor and has seen it with his own eyes…but insisting that he is ignorant protects them from any legal claims by Piantelli.
If that is the case, than it is a very smart move on the part of Rossi and Focardi claiming that he was only there for safety and had no technical input on the reactor
August 28, 2011 at 5:23 am
Ghost Dawg – You bring up issues that could hold commercial sales up in patent court for years. I hope that doesn’t happen!
Daniel de Franca
August 28, 2011 at 6:33 am
Forcardi saw everything, including the powder and the reactor. What he doesn`t know is how the secret sauce is made.
August 29, 2011 at 10:12 am
Tim and Ghost Down
If what you say is true it implies Focardi is lying about is knowledge of the catalyzer just to favor Rossi against Piantelli with whom he’d worked for several years in the past on the very same research. Of course by doing that there could be a lot of money for Focardi but I’d give this man more moral rectitude than that.
Your humble servant
August 27, 2011 at 3:37 am
The moderator of this blog has done a fantastic job of covering this exciting and potentially revolutionary subject in a fair, incisive, and well-balanced manner. This character Krivit appears to be nothing more than a phony, paid shill whose sole purpose is to discredit Rossi, Focardi, and their developments. Even if their developments do not ultimately prove out to yield the benefits that they believe they will, Krivit’s attitude and behavior toward them is beneath contempt, so potentially important is this subject. What is this clown Krivit contributing the well-being of mankind? Nothing. All he can do is attack and disparage well-meaning people who are attempting in good faith to make an incredible contribution. They have no obligation at this point to “prove” to the world that the e-cat is all that they say it is. Personally, I am inclined to believe that the new process does work just as they say and will ultimately revolutionize the economical production of energy on this planet. If that proves to be true, the benefits can hardly be overstated. Rossi and Focardi deserve our admiration and support.
August 27, 2011 at 9:48 am
It is quite known that Krivit is now, and has been in the past a staunch supporter of LENR.
I am neither a supporter nor a detractor of Krivit, but I think it’s quite evident that whether right or not, his main motivation in this whole thing is to not let Rossi’s invention destroy the whole field of LENR if does turn out to be a fake.
He is making the argument that the community who follows LENR is as sceptical of Rossi as the rest, and in no way should the outcome of Rossi’s invention be representative of the entire LENR field if it does turn out to be a scam.
August 27, 2011 at 2:23 pm
The problem with Krivit is he is not writing about IF, he has concluded the IF and is picking and choosing evidence to try and support his conclusions. That’s not journalism. Read Krivit’s blog back before Rossi and you will get a true flavor of this guy. He constantly writes with an agenda, for example, the stuff about NO cold fusion but YES LENR is nonsense. Cold Fusion is a label. He is doing it because of his warped sense of how this technology needs to play out.
Then you have his support for Widom-Larson’s Theory as though this is the mechanism of Cold Fusion, it’s a theory and this guy is running around acting like anyone who questions it is in on a conspiracy.
In short he’s a flake. I’ve seen his kind before in the space activist community where I have been very active. They are certain they know just how to make it all turn into reality and oblivious to other points of view. He certainly might turn out to be right about Rossi that remains to be seen, but assuming he as any real insight about any of this is misplaced. He’s not objective, so his conclusions are warped by his agenda. In short he is trying to manipulate the progress of LENR, as though he can (which is just silly) because he thinks he knows how to guide it through the skeptics and naysayers. So he imagines an end game (and is certain he is right) and fills in the blanks with whatever he can find. He is a bulldog though and very thorough, I will give him that, just sadly misguided.
August 27, 2011 at 6:21 pm
As always, arguments about Krivit and skeptics in general are silly nonsense. Reality is that Rossi could do another experiment that would prove the reality of the E-cat and he says he won’t do it until the end of October or later. I’m not talking about the legendary megawatt plant which can be faked. I refer to having independent confirmation by a reputable university given an E-cat to work with WITHOUT ROSSI. Rossi could have done that last January. The real issue is why he hasn’t. The critics can’t change facts. Nor can proponents. The evidence is what it is and there is very little of it except bad observations done “on the fly” and Levi’s report which is strictly anecdotal and can’t be confirmed.
August 27, 2011 at 6:44 pm
The megawatt plant can’t be faked anymore then the smaller unit if those testing it know what they are doing. That is just ridiculous and seems to be a code phrase for I won’t even believe it in October. If a real customer (Known and respected company) tests it and announces the purchase in October you can be well assured you were wrong.
August 27, 2011 at 6:54 pm
“If a real customer (Known and respected company) tests it and announces the purchase in October you can be well assured you were wrong.”
That’s always been the case. If a known and respected university or laboratory PROPERLY tests the E-cat, everyone will believe it– me among the first. If a company like GM or Boeing or Google tests it and makes an official announcement describing a proper and independent test, I will believe that. Why not?
However, all we have so far is a few professors doing inadequate tests and improperly documented tests.
Consider this scenario — Rossi shows off a megawatt plant in October with brief glimpses of an interior full of what look like E-cats. He provides output power numbers of a megawatt and his client is Ampernego (or some other similar company recently formed and associated with Rossi’s friends). Are you going to believe him then? What will you say then?
I am reminded of Steorn. In 2007, they promised a convincing demo in July. They rented a beautiful venue, the Kinetica museum. They gave details of the device– it would be a magnetic motor that required no input power. It would make up to 550 HP. It would have a power density of 0.5W/cc. And critics could examine it closely– even “take a screwdriver and a hammer to it” — all those claims direct from the president of the company. If you don’t know how that ended, look it up. Rossi’s could claim could (I say “could” not necessarily “will”) end up the same way.
August 27, 2011 at 6:59 pm
And by the way, he has said before and recently that the “customer” is going to be testing the plant in September before the more public demonstration in October. Who knows what will happen, but according to Rossi it will all occur in the next 60 days.
August 27, 2011 at 7:18 pm
maryyugo, nobody denies you the right to have no confidence in Rossi’s words. To be intellectually coherent, you should, the same way, not deny Rossi the right to have no confidence in other people, for instance the “independent” testers. As you should know, business intelligence exists, and an entrepreneur must take it into account. Business world is not the Care Bears world.
August 27, 2011 at 8:53 pm
And of course your point about the need for proper testing is a given. If Rossi opens a curtain and says “see here it is”, no one will believe him. Or least no one here. You act like you are the only one here that has any sense and everyone else just fell off the turnip truck. You flatter yourself too much and misjudge everyone else.
August 28, 2011 at 6:35 am
He is not a supporter of LENR itself, but only of those who support Widom Larsen theory.
August 27, 2011 at 6:53 am
In the last few days there has been a lot of discussion in this forum about scientists and science in general, including discussions of the general philosophy and methodology of science, as well as its application to technology development. This issue is very relevant to this forum because of the effect of this on the development of LENR. Many have accused dogmatism they say is exhibited by scientists, and the field in general, for slowing the development; and I think this might well be true.
However, there are likely a number of younger people reading this forum, who may be thinking about their own future. These people may have read science fiction in which a genius hero observes some new thing, such as a mysteriously pulsating meteorite falling into the garden. The hero takes the meteorite into his/her basement, figures out some new physics from it, talks to some investors, builds a spaceship based on the new physics, and explores the stars. I certainly read those books.
Now everybody knows these books are not true, even younger people. But such books lead people to think that someone can figure out new physics, which means characterize new phenomena, then engineer that phenomena into new technology, and then progress from there. And it is quite possible that someone can do this! I have no question, with luck, patience, and genius, this is still possible.
However, in the world as it actually is today, in almost every case new phenomena are characterized by people working in particular ways in particular settings that we call science. The resources required by people who are doing this work are in those settings. The jobs for this work are mostly in those settings. That is just the way the world works today.
Once new phenomena are characterized, scientists write books about it or distribute what they have found in other ways. Engineers use the formulas in these books, their own observations of related phenomena, and a lot of ingenuity to develop the new technology we have today. This is the way the world almost always works, for the last 100 years, as I have seen through many, many observations.
Decades ago, younger people who were interested in understanding the world around them, particularly in the context where this understanding was to be used for developing new technology, had a number of role models available. The lives of these role models would show them how things work in terms of this process. Also, there was a lot of interest in this whole process from the standpoint of documentaries, histories, and so on. Currently, most of this type of effort seems to go into creating reality TV with overall storylines that are chosen to be dramatic, and not to show the world as it really works.
In any case, if a young person today has a pulsating meteorite fall into their garden, by all means take it into the basement and go for it! After calling someone first to make sure it is not radiactive. And if a young person interested in learning about the world around them and directly developing technology from that has other opportunities besides going into science, if that is what they want to do, I also say go for it! However, the way I have observed the world working today, if you want to characterize new phenomena in nature as a profession, even new phenomena that can be developed into new technology, your best bet is a career in science.
August 27, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Tim, this may not be the forum to discuss such philosophical issues but since you broached the subject I will jump in with my perspective. I have been active for many years in the space activist community. It has nothing to do with my work or in truth with my life but I joined the movement and became active becuase of its importance.
In short frontiers are important to society and there are all types. Frontiers are liberating, they encourage new ideas, they break dogmatic thinking, they challenge creativity and they in a very real sense provide new and unknow stimulous to the ideas of human kind. Physical frontiers are probably the most important and sadly this world has lacked one for some time. At the edge of the frontier (physical) people tend to be liberated from the ways of the past and in a real sense are allowed to experiment with all types of ideas without criticism. The edge is also difficult and if any adage is true the one “necessity is the mother of invention” is particularly true at th edge of the frontier.
The problem with society today in a real sense is the lack of a physical frontier. It has caused a lot of inward thinking, inhibited new ideas in the physical sciences and in political thinking and in general stiffled creativity. Now don’t get me wrong, some of this is very subtle and there are certainly exceptions, but the peolple of this world would be much better off if they were free of this planet for many reasons, most important of which is the mental freedom it would promote. So to me the problem with science today is it exists in closed society and exhibits the fabric of a closed society. Open the frontier and everything chancges, and create free energy (or something close) and it will open. That’s why Rossi and LENR intrigues me.
August 27, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Yes, physical frontiers have stimulated progress, including our understanding of nature we call science, in myriad ways. Right now, the field of science itself is just so much larger; there are less than 10 people on the ISS, there are millions in science. In the U.S. alone there were over a million scientists, not even including computer scientists, in 2001.
If a younger person wants to go into the “high” frontier in the world as it is today, a good bet is a career on the frontier of knowledge.
Also, as I pointed out in my main post, new technology development based on new stuff requires that new stuff to be understood, which means new phenomena be characterized. The story of LENR, including eCat, has made science look bad to many people because of perceptions that it is slowing their development; and I have to admit this is possible. This is not something I want to debate at this point. However, in the world today, new phenomena are almost always characterized in a scientific setting.
So in order to start the way for those new rockets into space based on truly new physics, a good bet today would be to think about a profession in science. You could plan to get rich setting up a .com and then invest a billion dollars in a rocket company; or just buy a lottery ticket; but neither of those is as good a bet as a career in science.
August 27, 2011 at 10:57 pm
My first thought when I heard of Rossi’s claim, was what an incredible boost such a technology could be to some of the existing space projects. In particular, VASIMR plasma rockets, Skylon single stage to orbit space planes, and Nautilus-X interplanetary space craft. Suddenly, within this century we could see interplanetary space travel become a reality. The first steps occurring possibly in our lifetimes. It was encouraging that one of the first scientists to speak openly about Rossi’s device was from NASA.
Skeptics told us that reaching the moon was impossible. (Some are still making that claim.) This unnecessary opposition from the guardians of the status quo does not improve life but only impedes those trying to push back boundaries and increase our freedom. I simply cannot understand that mindset. I think it was Confucius that said “the person who says it can’t be done should never interrupt the person who is doing it.” The physical frontier of space continues to serve as an excellent metaphor for freedom while ,ironically, mobilizing our practical efforts toward building a better world.
August 28, 2011 at 6:56 am
In thinking about this previously, I had thought that the eCat power density was nowhere near that in typical rockets, such as the SRB shuttle boosters, so that even if eCat would be very useful for applications like VASIMR and Nautilus-X, it would not help us with the big problem, getting stuff off the ground.
However, I just did some back of the envelope calcs, and I think I was wrong. SRB burns propellant at a chemical power rate of around 150GW. However, from
SRB only needs about 15 GW for the thrust it produces at it’s specific impulse. I did not realize the SRB were so inefficient. I think the SRB are a meaningful case since they produced most of the shuttle takeoff thrust and were actually more powerful than a single Saturn V rocket.
Of course an eCat rocket would not work the same as an SRB, but the physics of rocket propulsion does not change. Some might expect that an eCat rocket would be made to have much different characteristics, such as a much higher specific impulse, but this actually reduces the power efficiency as explained in the specific impulse reference. To keep the power needed from growing substantially larger and allow a practical size eCat reactor, a huge specific impulse is likely not a good solution in this case. Because of the reduced power efficiency, an eCat powered rocket with a much larger specific impulse would require a heavier eCat reactor and would not be able to lift itself off earth. Determining the best specific impulse requires optimizations considering propellant requirements as well as the eCat power generator weight for particular applications, but is likely near the system outlined below if earth launch is required since the component weights approximately balance and the system produces enough power to lift off. Variable impulse is even better.
Taking 15 GW as the power used by the rocket, with 5KW / 100g Ni in an eCat power system, an eCat powered rocket would require 300,000kg of Ni, only about half the weight of fuel in an SRB. This calculation uses a much higher thrust power efficiency than SRB, but SRB seems quite inefficient.
Additionally, there would be weight from inert propellant, e.g. water, used as reaction mass by the rocket. It would seem an eCat powered rocket would not need something like SSME engines since the eCat engines would be the main engines, so that removes the requirement for the SSME and the over 700,000kg of fuel and oxidizer they consume. This leaves additional weight for the inert propellant.
An interesting point about this particular rocket- the energy source lasts 6 months. OMG WTF. SRB lasts 2 minutes. If the inert propellant could be refilled in orbit or at other locations during space flight, e.g. by some available inert liquid such as water on the moon or in comets, then this rocket, alone, would allow direct flight throughout the solar system.
I am imagining an eCat rocket that looks a little like a shuttle at liftoff without the SSME, replacing the SRB with separate eCat reactor engines, and a big external tank between them holding most of the inert propellant, but with much bigger wings in order to land the whole thing. Note that there is nothing in the physics to prevent scaling this up or down, depending on the desired payload, and it could still launch from earth.
I am imagining eCat powered catapults on the moon launching giant balloons full of water back to earth to be used as propellent. Moon-earth LEO has significantly less delta-v than earth-earth LEO, and all that annoying atmospheric drag is avoided at the moon. Aerodynamic balloons which slightly enter earth’s upper atmosphere, and bleed off enough energy to stay near the earth as they go back up to apogee. eCat powered tugs that capture the slowed giant water balloons, maybe several tugs per balloon, and pull them into circular LEO. The occasional balloon goes too deep into air, and boom all that energy goes into white hot water vapor, making a giant light show miles up in the atmosphere as it cools through various colors.
I am imagining eCat powered ships pulling giant nickel asteroids back towards earth to use for building more power generators in space.
Isn’t pure speculation fun!
August 28, 2011 at 4:26 pm
I enjoy this sort of brainstorming. If we learn more about the reactors, it may become evident how to use them directly. I think presently, the best way to get to orbit is with a space plane like Skylon. Plans for Skylon were just vetted by a large number of aerodynamicists in an inquiry posed by the ESA. Their result was that the plane is now viable. No technological barriers remain that would prevent its development. Its just a matter of engineering and finance.
There are several reasons why Skylon is significant. The first is that it flies like a conventional airplane to the limits of our atmosphere. This is much more fuel efficient from the point of view of gravity drag. The second is that its rocket engines are hybrids and can breathe air like a jet for the first part of its journey. This saves even more weight by requiring less oxidizer. Third, it is built almost entirely from carbon fiber composite. This not only reduces weight for an additional fuel savings, but has an interesting consequence on reentry. It is so light for its size, or low in density, that the temp reached upon reentry is only a few hundred degrees, a little hotter than your oven. This makes it very easy to shield against.
Where the E-Cat becomes important is in its low cost of electricity and independent operation. The main propellants Skylon uses are hydrogen and oxygen, which both have very high embodied energy costs. E-Cat powered hydrolysis and air liquefaction could very economically produce both. Producing them right on site would obviate fuel transportation for even more savings. This would also allow the location of space ports to be anywhere, and placing them near the equator further reduces the energy requirement to reach orbit.
If you want cheap access to low earth orbit, use E-Cats to make fuel and put it in Skylons. Once you’re up there, transfer to a VASIMR powered Nautilus-X and go anywhere you want in the solar system. Its fun to dream.
August 28, 2011 at 4:36 pm
I forgot to add, I’ll see you all you guys on Mars, except for maryyugo, I’d like to see you on Uranus!
August 28, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Probably quite useful for rather more mundane transport too – steamships, steam locomotives, steam cars…..
August 28, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Personally, I hope we all end up on the planet of our dreams.
Don’t get my wrong; the eCat reactor powered rocket in the previous post would require a lot of work. Most of the weight in the current eCat design is not the reactant; an incredible amount of engineering would be required to make an eCat rocket engine whose weight is mostly the nickel in an eCat starting from this design. It is not clear to me how to distribute high pressure inert propellant through this engine without many heavy pipes. How it lands; I proposed giant wings, which might double as extra propellant tanks, but I am not aware of real designs for landing big rockets with giant wings. Also, if water is used as the propellant; in vacuum liquid water boils, the heat of vaporization takes energy from the water and rapidly cools it, it freezes, then it sublimates, so the water needs to be kept under pressure or it will be frozen and not flow through the pipes. This would also be a problem with heaving enormous balloons of water at the earth from the moon; if they leak, they’ll freeze, and the giant ice chunk could take out a city if the aim is slightly off; so it’s safer to hurl smaller ice structures, but keeping track of these could be a nightmare in space. It may not be possible to engineer the rocket light enough so that the rocket could actually lift itself and launch, but I would love to give it a try!
In the meantime, this Skylon sounds great. Is it related to Falcon HTV? And I assume you suspect eCat technology might be used to power the VASIMR engine in space; interestingly new proposed TE technology by someone related to eCat might someday be useful in converting this power.
Personally I follow StarTram, for no good reason. This project considers power requirements to be the biggest initial hurdle, and eCat would of course change all that.
Regarding StarTram, it seems relevant that Japan recently decided to build a big maglev, since that will lead to further mainstreaming of the technology.
There is a synergy; StarTram proposes an initial version launching something like Skylon at below orbital velocity.
August 28, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Indeed, some new ships are being driven by electric motors, the power provided by diesel electric generators (eg.QM2). The diesels have pistons as big as an oil drum and are more than 50% thermally efficient. They hold the record for thermal efficiency. Replacing the generators with E-Cat organic Rankine cycle turbines would allow the ships the ability to function for months, maybe more than a year without stopping. It also would increase cargo capacity by the 3 to 4 million pounds of fuel no longer carried.
Trains are already diesel electric and can be similarly modified. The new engines can simply be swapped for the existing ones preserving most of the large existing investment in train cars and rails.
I think the best bet for cars in the near future would be fuel synthesis. The world has about 5 billion car years of capital to use up. Synthesized butanol is a direct gasoline substitute and would allow the vehicles to serve out their useful life. Synthesis plants can be built up gradually as net oil production declines.
August 29, 2011 at 12:15 am
An interesting point about your mention that a major potential application of this technology, if real, involves fuel synthesis. One of the main participants in developing the technology has a long and colorful history in this field, in more ways than casual followers seem to be aware of, which might be quite relevant.
August 29, 2011 at 2:06 am
Thanks for the link, Tim, I’ll be reading about StarTram tonight.
August 27, 2011 at 9:13 am
Tim, from my point of view it boils down like everything to attitude, without writing a long comment could I refer you to my previous on UFO’s, I use this specifically because it demonstrates the attitude of science on all subjects excluding say drugs, weaponry and computers that are purely driven by profits or power.
You talk of the young, imagine a post-grad applying for funding for Cold Fusion or to research UFO’s.
My point is that encouraging a more open-minded, searching and tolerant scientific attitude to new, different or unknown directions the young will be able to follow their naturally inquisitive, rebellious directions that now as in the past have led to the breakthroughs and new science.
If Einstein where here now, imagine an unknown getting his staggering 1905 papers published.
The point I make about UFO’s could include many other subjects closed-mindedly laughed at and discouraged by scientific leadership.
August 27, 2011 at 9:19 am
August 26th, 2011 at 6:44 PM
The tests closed doors for the US Customer will start in september. As for the other issue, which I want not to deal publicly, the problem has been resolved.
August 27, 2011 at 7:38 pm
It is worth noting that the Interview and the (apparently) well documented work at Brillouin Energy speaks of 2X energy output by other researchers. Getting to 6X from there could be just a matter of engineering if the phenomemon is real. The cluster of researchers in the field are either jumping on a real effect, or all scam artists jumping on the same bandwagon – and the scam theory gets more complex yet.
While I’m here, I find the statement that the test will start in September as somewhat encouraging. All through this one of the least plausible pieces has been the commercial readiness of the e-cat. Rossi’s fairly amateurish looking plumbing looked like a million miles from a commercial product. To release something in October, it better be ready months before, even if it were much less revolutionary. Having the October system to the customer in September is at least vaguely sane….
August 28, 2011 at 2:36 am
>>“On several occasions Rossi has stated explicitly that he will not receive any funds until he has delivered a fully scaled nuclear reactor, at HIS expense, and not until it has undergone unequivocal testing by the customers purchasing it. How much fairer, and more straight forward could a transaction be?<<
Rossi said that with regard to Defkalion in Greece, and I have heard that in
this arrangement. He never said anything about the U.S. contract, as far as I know. He never said he would not be paid up front for licenses.
Ampenergo has paid Andrea Rossi for these rights (an undisclosed amount), and in return they will receive a share of all royalties from the sale of E-Cat licenses and products in the Americas. Conveniently left out is the fact no reactors were being sold in this deal and the link was not added because of the positive information. Like the private demonstrations.
Cassarino: We did three demonstrations here in the US, and these were non public. We did have a group of scientists here that understood exactly what was going on, and we helped actually set up the demonstrations
August 28, 2011 at 5:36 am
I made a big post around 4 hours ago about an eCat application, and it hasn’t shown up yet. Anyone care if I repost, so it might end up duplicate?
August 28, 2011 at 6:34 am
I say go for it.
August 28, 2011 at 7:00 am
Seems to be held up again, maybe admin has put a limit on the post size. I hope admin eventually puts the second one through; but without putting through the first since the second is a little more interesting.
August 28, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Hi Tim. One of my posts was marked as being held for moderation and it eventually got through. It only happened once.
I think the software for the forum may have bugs or unadvertised limitations. Interestingly, our host doesn’t seem to comment on the blog except for original posts. Once he’s done that, if he comments, it must be using an anonymous sign on.
August 28, 2011 at 10:44 pm
Yay! Not only did it go through, admin put the more intersting and not the less interesting. Thanks admin.
August 28, 2011 at 9:10 am
August 27th, 2011 at 2:58 PM
Dear Dr Rossi
I have been following your story since January with mixed feelings of skepticism and hope.
In this blog many people ask questions about the progress of your work and I think it would be to satisfaction of many (including me) if you could post pictures of the various type of ecats you are building and testing in your laboratory and/or farms.
August 27th, 2011 at 3:10 PM
OK, you will have satisfaction before the end of September.
August 28, 2011 at 5:11 pm
I do not intend to try to convince those who do not want to believe. I would simply refer to the history of relations between Rossi and Focardi at the beginning of the story in 2007. I found this link who Rossi was asked about the motivations for working with Focardi:
“And I knew him as an expert so I hired him as a consultant, and I asked him not to see if my process could work, but I demanded him to demonstrate that it could not work. Because I wanted… You know a very strong to be sure it was worth ???? another activity to put myself in this one. And he has taken… It was July 2007.”
For me, honestly Rossi him even at that time wanted the advice of a specialist to be convinced himself of the reality of his discovery. It is important to always refer to this as the main actors are saying and therefore not to think for them.
A priori Focardi not find enough reasons to question the work already done by Rossi and instead he decided to work for more than three years with him.
In addition, Focardi has pushing Rossi to make a public demonstration.
Re-reading these statements, I do not understand people who say Focardi is handled by Rossi. Focardi did everything with knowledge of the cause.
August 28, 2011 at 10:36 pm
“I do not intend to try to convince those who do not want to believe.”
I don’t think you understand the skeptical view. Actually, most skeptics would like to believe in a nice, safe, inexpensive and almost inexhaustible source of energy. I’d certainly like to believe in it. The problem isn’t the skeptical viewpoint. The problem is that Rossi and Defkalion (and all the reporters and scientists except maybe Krivit) have so far provided only conflicting stories and insufficient, badly documented evidence or poorly conceived experiments with equivocal results. If this were not the case, there would be little or no argument and everybody would believe it.
Yes, I know Rossi doesn’t have to prove anything to me but then he shouldn’t give demonstrations at all until he’s ready to make them clear and unequivocal.
August 28, 2011 at 10:51 pm
I think the moderator summed up the problem with a particular brand a skeptic a couple of posts ago with the following comments:
“A true sceptic will keep an open mind or close it and turn away. Trawling through maryyugo’s comments we see the same chants appear again and again, often laced with insults and direct accusations of fraud. Such repetition could be born of conviction but when they are shoehorned into conversations that barely warrant it, the fingerprints of an agenda begin to take shape. A genuine skeptic might recognise that no proof has been given to the public regarding the reality or otherwise of Andrea Rossi’s eCat. He or she may also ask for proof now instead of the 4th week in October. An intelligent sceptic who is being honest will also recognise that, as a privately funded individual operating in a free capitalistic world, Andrea Rossi is perfectly right to politely deny that request. Indeed, anyone who understands business might think it stupid to jump to an anonymous entity’s tune and change their plans to pacify stamping feet and beetroot faces.
It is useful to point out that we have no proof yet but disingenuous to imply that there is no evidence worth talking about and that when Rossi does not change his plan to accommodate their timescale, that in itself is proof of fraud. Given the obvious intelligence behind the maryyugo handle, I am sure that it does not expect to persuade Rossi one way or another. Rather, by constantly asking for something they know will not be delivered, they get the chance of sounding reasonable to those coming fresh to the subject or with a view predisposed to agree in the first place.”
August 29, 2011 at 12:02 am
Yes, but as I said in response when the above was initially posted (and was roundly trounced for), speculation on m-y’s motives is about as sensible as speculation on Rossi’s.
In particular, I saw m-y posts a long time ago that suggested improvements in the demonstrations back when public demonstrations, involving outsiders such as those from Sweden, were still being held and the outsiders seemed to have some influence over them. These suggestions were made in forums that were relevant to the demonstration participants. If these posts had been followed, we all might have a lot more information now.
Speculating that asking for these improvements is sinister in some way (obvious intelligence behind … asking for something they know will not be … sounding reasonable to those … fresh – seems sinister to me) because these suggestions are not going to be followed currently should be tempered by realization that these suggestions were also made, by the same handle, back when it was reasonable to think they might have been.
I forget; am I a troll or darth vader for posting this?
August 28, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Not at all what I expected you to say, maryyugo. I saw this previously, and my first thought was “of course Rossi would say this, say that Focardi has been trying to disprove it from the beginning. It would make his claims stronger whether they are real or not. This is just another ‘Rossi says’, one that actually works against him since he has invested considerable resources in his claims and here he is saying he was not confident in them.”
However, I did not realize how long ago he was talking about. July 2007. Perhaps Rossi was not putting so much resources into this back then. In any case, a ‘Rossi says’ proves nothing, and for something like this I would take it with a major grain of salt.
Further, I see no reason to consider Rossi’s motivations or obligations. What he should or should not do, why or why not Focardi is involved, seem like third hand rumors that were probably based on no evidence in the first place.
Paying attention to what we can directly observe, e.g. videos of the participants and our judgement of their credibility, as well as analysis of the observed data, such as that Krivit’s analysis of the hose steam exhaust is invalid, seem like primary factors.
Of course none of the above proves anything in a scientific sense. Science is based on the exchange of ideas through scientific publications, typically papers. Observers, even possibly credible observers, have not provided any scientific evidence if they have not published anything in a scientific setting, like Levi hasn’t to my knowledge.
Scientific publications are quite useful in establishing claims. They typically provide further information regarding the actual observations such as tolerances, as well as frequently detail how the author interpreted observations to come to conclusions. Without these, it is difficult for another person to come to strong conclusions, and I would say not possible to come to scientific conclusions. However, I see no reason not to have some personal inclinations regarding a claim just based on other observers, their credibility, and analysis of their observations. Probably wouldn’t invest significant money based on a personal inclination. Perhaps more thorough non-public investigation has been performed by potential investors; does not really seem worth it to speculate on this.
August 28, 2011 at 11:33 pm
Another thing maryyugo, in regards to what you actually did say. I doubt you would like to believe in a nice, safe, inexpensive energy source that wasn’t real; you seem like the type who would not want to believe in anything that isn’t real. I suspect most people wouldn’t. And perhaps in this case reality is based on the real world; what some might consider scientific knowledge; with perhaps some math, philosophy, history, current events, etc thrown in.
Some people are not like that; for them faith is more important than scientific knowledge. I am not saying you are not a person of faith; some people would be deeply offended by that; that does not seem relevant here; but it seems to me you are also a person of science.
I too find current scientific knowledge to be reasonably credible, although I have witnessed first hand significant failures of the assumed scientific method in the cold fusion area. I consider myself a person of science, although definitely not a scientist, and try to rarely say I believe in anything except a few core spiritual beliefs.
I definitely don’t have faith in Rossi or believe his claims. I expect just about everyone in this forum would agree they do not believe in Rossi or his claims. This post is way too long for having almost no meaningful content…
August 29, 2011 at 1:05 am
“This post is way too long for having almost no meaningful content”
Well, that’s never stopped you before, now has it? Lol. But, seriously, over the last week or so you have taken a quite reasonable approach to this whole thing. I can see you thinking aloud and trying to work some things out by putting them down in writing. I think that is constructive and a lot of us are doing that one way or another. I think most of us have a reasonable doubt. I think that is what this forum is for, to help us sort through both our doubt and our belief.
What is not helpful to that endeavor is those who claim they know with absolute certainty when there is no evidence to support certainty. Suspicion, repetition, accusations and innuendo are not evidence and should not be treated as such. They speak of pathology and neuroses, not honest inquiry.
I have a feeling someone reading this blog has a significant insight into this whole thing that the most people have missed amongst the arguments about steam, Rossi’s past, Defkalion, Krivit, etc., etc. Those people who have true wisdom and insight are most often the ones that have sense enough to keep their mouth shut and just observe. Whoever that person(s) is, they most likely will not discuss that insight here due to the contentious and often nasty tone of the conversation here. Such a shame.
August 29, 2011 at 1:48 am
Ben, there is other blogs.
August 29, 2011 at 1:50 am
I was like that person until y’all started pickin on m-y. That triggered memories of similar occurences involving others on both sides of this controversy, when I had just held my piece, and I thought f-it, this time, why not.
August 29, 2011 at 1:57 am
I have followed other blogs. Many seem to be clearly biased towards skepticism (e.g. those involving Esowatch) or belief (e.g. Rossi’s). These seem to be the ones without the contention that I believe Ben is referring to.
This blog does not seem to ban or moderate much; it has attracted believers, deniers, and a full spectrum in between. It is perhaps a place where the results of the debate, nasty as the debate may sometimes get, is most relevant in generating meaning instead of just confirming what people already ‘know’.
August 29, 2011 at 4:54 am
Dr. Focardi sheds light on one of the important questions. In video #2 at 2:45 Krivit asks why they did the demonstration in January and then suggests a response. Focardi agrees but adds the interesting answer that he expected a battle after the demonstration because a lot of people are skeptical of LENR and wanted time to debate the skeptics. In his words (Rossi’s translation) “to have all the necessary time to fight”
The need for enough time suggests a deadline of sorts which seems to imply they were planning a more important demonstration in the future. That makes the first demonstrations kind of dry runs to work out the issues regarding dealing with skepticism and how to raise public awareness. If this was indeed their plan from the start it was quite clever as they are able to arm themselves against potential objections by designing a more comprehensive testing procedure. Rossi has indicated exactly that in a recent post saying that the steam measurements would be modified to satisfy some skeptics.
In 2 days it will be September, the month in which a company, which supposedly big enough to be recognized based on the name of its location, will receive a fully functioning 1 megawatt nickel fed aneutronic nuclear fusion reactor produced by the Leonardo Corporation. They will submit it to a private testing for evaluation and those of us who follow this saga are promised some recent photos of the E-Cat assemblies that have already been built. Lets see what happens…
August 29, 2011 at 8:10 am
Interesting. When I saw that part I thought the context involved Focardi’s age, so “necessary time to fight” seemed to have to do with him soon becoming too old to deal with the skeptics than having to do with timing around an upcoming demonstration. Just how I saw it, and I’m not going to go back and watch it again in order to see if I can tell if either interpretation seems more plausible.
August 29, 2011 at 2:37 pm
I hoped someone would respond with that. So you see how easy it is to interpret an event through the filter of your own personal bias? When this is really understood, a person will question a lot more of what he thinks he knows. And others too for that matter. Just ask the Mayor of Milan.
August 29, 2011 at 10:59 am
In terms of a more important demonstration of E-Cat, apparently there’s been at least one already. According to Deflakion, it was a failure. Defkalion certainly tried to minimize the failure by saying it was small, they still believed in Rossi and that they had a better E-Cat developed. Nevertheless Deflkalion didn’t pay Rossi, Rossi is threatening legal action and the Defkalion/Rossi relationship seems to be broken beyond repair.
If Focardi expected a battle back in January, it seems he was right. It wasn’t only with the skeptics though. It was with Rossi’s own partner.
August 29, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Actually, I don’t remember any authenticated press release from defkalion or their board which claimed a test failure. Please post the source as a good journalist would.
August 29, 2011 at 2:15 pm
The information regarding a failed test was a hoax. Someone posted it on a Swedish discussion form (see bottom link) as a joke and then it was posted on Vortex-1 and PESWiki. In the post from the Swedish form, the Swedes laugh about how people are so desperate for news that they will post any kind of garbage as fact. They were right. In the top link, Greven and Fredrik K inform PESWiki that the information was fabricated.
Leave it to Thicket to allude to an an obvious hoax as a fact.
August 29, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Thicket, alas I never read this report. It is a fatal blow not just to us, hopeful “believers” but to Defkalion’s business plan, to Rossi’s fraud attempt, to the careers of the scientists and journalists who supported it, to Ampenergo and their specialists who conducted 3 successful private tests, and dare I say it, to the world and the future of Humanity which is quickly running out of time. I shall lower the flags to half mast and open that bottle I was saving to celebrate, instead hoping that intoxication will help dull the pain of my, nay, OUR collective and unbearable defeat. I know it must have been painful to be the bearer of such bad news and I thank you for not relinquishing this onus.
By the way, where’d ya read it?
August 29, 2011 at 3:22 pm
The report describing the failed test was a hoax. I already wrote a post describing the nature of the hoax and provided links where the hoaxer admits he wrote a fake press release as a joke, which unfortunately was posted on by another web site that has a habit of not checking facts.
My original post containing links and more information is being moderated and hopefully will be posted later in the day.
August 29, 2011 at 4:17 pm
I don’t think Thicket (who I suggest my be Krivit lurking under an assumed name on this board) wants the truth to get in the way of his crusade.
August 29, 2011 at 6:28 pm
I reviewed the various posts and announcements and concede that there is nothing definitive about a Rossi E-Cat test for Defkalion that failed to meet their contract.
There is a muddle. Rossi says that there were no tests in Greece and contends that Defkalion knows nothing about the core E-Cat technology, Defkalion says they saw convincing tests in Italy, and they both seem to agree that their conflict is financial. I perhaps read the ‘failed test’ on some blog, but since I can find no reference to it, and since I don’t recall any other communication from Rossi or Defkalion, I retract my statement.
The phony Defkalion statement has no bearing on any failed tests.
There still is the fundamental issue of whether Defkalion has the E-Cat ‘secret’ or not. The discrepancy is disturbing to some, but not to those of us that think there isn’t a secret.
I’m interested in what, if anything, will be revealed in October. I see several options.
* There aren’t any revelations because of ‘unavoidable’ delays.
* There aren’t any revelations because snakes and clowns got the upper hand. (conspiracy theory)
* There are revelations, but only ‘Rossi says’ ones. There are no credible third party validations.
* For completeness, I will include the possibility of a valid, verifiable, independent validation of Rossi’s E-Cat. It should be obvious to all that I don’t think this will happen.
I’m also curious about the reaction of folks here, especially the ones who encourage folks to ‘wait until October’. How many will rationalize and move the goalposts when nothing significant happens?
August 29, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Its like building a house of cards. Each additional claim/card makes the whole house/story that much more spectacular, but at the same time that much more unlikely to stand. At this point Rossi is being watched through a microscope, and I think any delay, change, or unsatisfactory demonstration would be devastating to credibility. It wouldn’t prove it false, but it would be difficult to maintain enthusiasm at that point based on the circumstantial evidence. It really is interesting to follow though and speculate how it will turn out.
August 29, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Far from being a senile old man, Focardi comes across as shrewd and possessing some savvy. He suggests the demos were done in part to gauge the nature of the opposition, much like a boxer throw jabs to probe his opponents defenses or a casual swimmer dipping their toes in the pool to gauge the temperature of the water. Some of us have been asserting that the demos were just that, demos, and were never intended to be full on scientific tests or attempts at validation. Focardi confirms this.
Come October we may find that we have been have been played but, for now, it seems like it is the cynics and snakes hold that distinction.
August 29, 2011 at 3:17 pm
What has captivated me by this story is that as more information surfaces, it becomes more understandable, not less. This is in contradistinction to the scams of other individuals referenced by Rossi’s detractors.
August 29, 2011 at 4:25 pm
I totaly agree with the review from John.
Rossi interviews with journalists and the public demonstrations show its good will and show no intent to fraud!!!!
Wait and see.
August 29, 2011 at 9:20 am
August 28th, 2011 at 5:23 PM
Dear Koen Vandewalle:
Yes, the war is started, for now financing a small army of snakes to discredit the work, aiming to discourage investors. This move has been strategically wrong, therefore a waste of money, because we have structured our policy in a way that anyway we will hit the market in alliance with very strong Partners. But the biggest Partner will be the Universe of our Customers. Even if, accidentally, something would happen to me to forbid the continuation of my work, a structure is ready to go on anyway.
You are right, I expect a toughest action against us, but a man with my past is not easy to be impressed.
August 29, 2011 at 9:31 am
The Internet will never again allow the travesty imposed on Pons etc.
In it’s own way true Democracy is arising of it’s own accord.
Any attempt by Governments to in any hidden ways restrict the free speech of the Internet must be watched for and resisted.
August 29, 2011 at 4:12 pm
August 28th, 2011 at 7:18 PM
I recently wrote the Canadian Minister of Energy about Mr. Rossi’s invention and some of the progress on the theory. Scientific issues are redirected to the appropriate science official.
Believe it or not, they actually wrote me back. They said Canada is watching this phenomena with great interest.
August 29, 2011 at 5:03 pm
“I don’t think Thicket (who I suggest my be Krivit lurking under an assumed name on this board) wants the truth to get in the way of his crusade.”
You guys are hilarious. I suppose if Thicket and Krivet (the rhyme proves they’re the same person) had been alive when Marie Curie did her work, he would have discredited her and suppressed radioactivity for more than a century. Right? Yah shoore.
“The Internet will never again allow the travesty imposed on Pons etc.”
There was never a travesty imposed on Pons etc. (whatever the heck that means). Pons and Fleischman never provided adequate evidence of a nuclear reaction taking place and far as I know, they still have not provided a cell that makes a consistent amount of energy over a long period of time. Try reading something as simple as the Wikipedia entry:
August 29, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Wilkapedia as any open-minded person knows, which is why you don’t know, is a low grade record of who spends the most time editing and censoring the truth, people who have open, fair minds have better things to do, for example researching Cold Fusion like Mr.Rossi.
Their is a very old saying, Talk is cheap, Empty vessels make most sound, etc.
You are Irrationally skeptical, and people like you are extremely dangerous to fair minded examination of any subject, you are strangely the easiest to be taken by for example a lynch mob.
you are also not a gentleman as you have not yet apologised for your mistake from the last topic, please let me know if you wish me to put it up here again.
Until the final true History of Pons etc. is written in future times by honest historians I will give them the benefit of the doubt, BECAUSE it makes no difference if they where correct, the insane reaction of fools who could not replicate the results they achieved was pathetic, now we know that there was enough evidence there, is proven by today’s replication in many areas. Rather a coincident don’t you think.
Your ridiculous persecution of Rossi would be of no importance except that you and people like you are likely to stop investigation of other important subjects, such as the Placebo effect.
By all means reply with your usual one track rubbish, but just as nobody could change your mind about fair open-mindedness you will never change the minds of rational people, I am very pleased to be on the side I am on.
Thank you for your reply,
August 29, 2011 at 6:34 pm
I have NO idea what lurks in the mind of Thicket or Krivit. I don’t believe either can change what will occur in the Rossi saga, that’s just not how this will play out.
What is obvious from Thicket’s posts and Krivit’s blogs is they are both all in. They have made their conclusions about how this will play out and are trying to convince others they are right.
Now from my point of view, the end of this saga is still up in the air. I don’t think you can conclude either way if you fairly evaluate the real evidence, so their decision to go all in (in my opinion) is based on emotion, illogic or some other motive which makes understanding them difficult. Which is also why they are not letting the facts get in the way of their position but use one sided and sometimes fake evidence to support what they say.
August 29, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Hi Ransom, I think its a little like gambling for some, you have to pick your “pony” and commit or you’ll find spending time at the track to be a little bit boring. Personally I don’t gamble. My interest in this is the fun of entertaining the possibility “what if”.
Hey Paul, what ever happened to the “what if?” series? I guess that was before the dark cloud settled over middle earth and the trolls descended from Mordor forever vanquishing our hopes and dreams…
© 2011, ↑ eCat News
Log in- Posts -
Powered by WordPress -
Designed by Gabfire Themes