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

27Kw eCat Made from eKittens

September 16, 2011

Details continue to trickle out following Mats Lewan’s video of the 1Mw container. In the past, AR has often said that he preferred smaller units so that he could keep the reaction in a tame region for safety and control. At first sight, the 27Kw fat cat seems to fault that assertion but this is apparently not so. Each plumper is made of multiple smaller cores and, who knows, the complete ensemble may even be constructed of the original 300+ kittens we expected to see. By modularising them, we see a practical and clever way to avoid the nightmare plumbing and control issues that would otherwise follow.

  • Alessandro Casali

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    glad to see your Plant in the flash, many congratulations!

    I didn’t know you were assembling the plant in Bologna, i thought it was in US? did you manufacture also the cores in Italy or have you shipped them trom US?

    The 27MW e-cats are single core or do they have multiple cores?

    Did you already ship the plant to US?

    I was surprised by the weight (80kg) of the latest e-cats, did you increase the thickness of the lead shield?

    Mats Lewan says self sustained mode can last up to 30 min and then needs some 10 mins of input power to keep reaction going, is it exactly like that or can it last any longer?

    Do you think future generations of e-cat will be able to run always in self sustained mode or do you think they will always need input energy from time to time?

    If non always in self sustained mode, do you think future e-cats will reach a better balance than 1-6? if yes what do you think could be the maximum balance?

    Since you recently stated UNIBO is already working on e-cat R&D, does that mean that you have already provided them with an e-cat?

    Thanks for your patience in reading my lot of questions.

    Warm Regards,

    ac.

 

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Alessandro Casali:
    1- I prefer not to give this info, for security reasons
    2- multiple
    3- see 1
    4- yes
    5- longer
    6- will need drive time to time
    7- everything upgrades in time
    8- I ddid NOT say that we are already working, I said the first steps have been made: signed the contract and some other thing. The proper R&D with the University of Bologna did not start yet.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

Posted by on September 16, 2011. Filed under Bologna,products,Rossi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

149 Responses to 27Kw eCat Made from eKittens

  1. Peter Roe Reply

    September 16, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    The time of the reply, 3:39AM, indicates that AR is replying from the US where he must be working through the night, so the answers to 1 and 3 are almost certainly ‘assembled and now in the US’ and ‘Yes’.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      September 16, 2011 at 5:15 pm

      Sorry, 3:39AM was the time of receipt, AR’s reply was at 4:23AM local time. Counting time zones would narrow the location (slightly!).

  2. raul heining Reply

    September 16, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Rossi’s strategy regarding tests is correct, avoinding too much attection in one local and discouraging hided attacks. When he now says another test will be made in Upsala, he is minimalising risks.
    If it is a real thing, it is the correct approach.
    Regards
    raul

    • maryyugo Reply

      September 16, 2011 at 6:06 pm

      The correct approach, if Rossi wanted to be believed, would have been to repeat Levi’s tests with liquid coolant measurements, under proper independent observation. He could have done that anywhere he chose. It would be safe and it would prove the E-cat is real. Why he has not repeated Levi’s experiment is completely incomprehensible.

  3. maryyugo Reply

    September 16, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    It’s difficult to understand why a highly thermogenic (heat making) device requires heat input from time to time via electrical heaters. Why not reroute some of the output heat to the input and have it “self run”? -at least for a demonstration. It would be much more convincing and it would make measurements of output power more straightforward. Maybe someone can ask Rossi about it.

    I mean heat is what this thing makes out the back end–supposedly lots of it. Why does it need an electrical heater, powered from an outside source, at the front end?

    • popeye Reply

      September 16, 2011 at 5:52 pm

      Rossi’s been asked this many times, and his answer is always that it’s all about safety. Explaining exactly how additional heat provides safety would reveal secrets, don’t ya know.

      Yea, right…

      I repeat: the fact that the ecat can’t even power itself is the best evidence that there is no nuclear energy source inside.

      • maryyugo Reply

        September 16, 2011 at 6:04 pm

        Right. I think the issue is more about the source of the extra heat than the need for it. I’m fine with the device needing an input heat controller that can be increased or decreased to change the output. But why would that heat have to come from an outside supply of electricity when the entire device does nothing supposedly but make heat?!?! Why not just start it once with electricity and then supply the rest of the “safety heat” from the output? Just route some of the steam it makes back to the input through a jacket and control the flow of the steam to get your safety. Then you can disconnect the electricity entirely and “self run”. That would be quite convincing of the authenticity of the E-cat if it self-ran long enough to rule out all forms of input energy other than nuclear. Rossi really should have worked on this issue and not the bizarre “megawatt plant” idea if he wanted to be believed by those who really understand the technical issues in this whole story.

        • mcap Reply

          September 16, 2011 at 7:03 pm

          Maryyugo
          I guess that if the ecat is really working what you suggest would be more complex than just using electricity. It would require time and resources to be designed that Rossi is probably not having right now.
          It has been suggested in many posts that Rossi might be struggling to control the device. If this is the case using electricity in this first (or second) design iteration simplifies things. Once he’ll be able to get a better grip on controlling the device I guess he could use the power produced by the ecat to self-sustain it.

          • popeye

            September 16, 2011 at 7:49 pm

            > It would require time and resources to be designed that Rossi is probably not having right now.

            Instead he designs 3 different ecat sizes and puts all his resources into a 1 MW plant. And now he’s talking about a new ecat with a closed cycle and a heat exchanger. All these things are much more complicated than designing a cooling system to control it, if that’s a problem, or even running some of the output steam back into the machine.

            > It has been suggested in many posts that Rossi might be struggling to control the device. If this is the case using electricity in this first (or second) design iteration simplifies things.

            There is little indication in the demos that he is struggling to control them. There is no feedback that controls the input. He has not had to suddenly shut off the power to prevent an accident. He is allowing members of the public near the machine during operation, and he is not constantly monitoring the temperature.

            In the Dec run, they talked about it running after shut down, and then they increased the flow to shut it down. That’s available to them in a self-powered device.

            In the latest demo, they leaked the hydrogen out to shut it down. That’s available to them in a self-powered device.

            In the Jan demo, the input power level is changed several times, but clearly not for safety. It is reduced to demonstrate higher “gain”, and then increased sharply because the temperature dropped below the bp.

            I just don’t see how using electricity for control simplifies things. He seems to use other means when he really needs to control it anyway.

            > Once he’ll be able to get a better grip on controlling the device I guess he could use the power produced by the ecat to self-sustain it.

            If this were possible, the cost-benefit of going from finite gain to infinite gain in a public demo, or in an industrial application, would easily make it worth it. He’s an engineer, after all.

        • popeye Reply

          September 16, 2011 at 7:36 pm

          > Just route some of the steam it makes back to the input through a jacket and control the flow of the steam to get your safety.

          I completely agree with the idea of making it self-powered, but the problem with using the heat output carried away by the steam is that it is probably a much lower temperature than the ecat core. Of course, sending the heat back into the ecat, means less heat is extracted from the ecat to boil water, and so on, but it’s a kind of an indirect control.

          I don’t see why the heat produced in the reactor couldn’t be used in the reactor to maintain the reaction. Control could be provided, and would make much more sense, by adjusting the cooling, using a battery-powered solenoid valve or something like that.

          The idea that reducing the input heat by less than 1/6 or 1/20 or 1/100 of the output (depending on the demo), which is fluctuating (apparently) by much more than that (at least in the 18-hour test), could control the reaction seems implausible to me.

          And the latest demonstration, in which the power is off for 30 minutes, suggests it is not that dangerous after all. Does the risk of runaway somehow increase with time after shutoff? I don’t see why, but the risk of energy depletion certainly does increase with time after shutoff. That’s a much more believable reason for why he needs to cycle the power on at intervals.

          • RERT

            September 16, 2011 at 7:50 pm

            All this makes some sense. If the power input only generates heat, he could replace that with excess heat and do without it. It may be that using an electric heater is simpler than a feedback loop with control. If the electricity is providing more than just heat (potentials or magnetic fields) it might be essential to keep the power input. Brillouin Energy seems to use electric stimulation with NiH. Overall the fact that he hasn’t chosen to design it in a particular way (without power input) proves nothing in particular.

          • popeye

            September 16, 2011 at 8:16 pm

            > If the electricity is providing more than just heat

            Rossi says the input is just about heat, but I agree, if he’s lying, and it is used for some other purpose, then electricity may be needed.

            Even then, with the sort of gains he has claimed, it would be quite easy to generate the necessary electricity by running a generator on the output steam. It’s not that hard. My car needs electricity for the spark plugs, but the battery is only needed to start the engine. Then the engine not only generates the sparks, but also recharges the battery.

          • Peter_Roe

            September 16, 2011 at 9:01 pm

            “If the electricity is providing more than just heat (potentials or magnetic fields) it might be essential to keep the power input.”

            This has been my suspicion for some time. I never did see the need for two ‘heaters’ on the original version and thought that one could be a feed for something else. It seemed reasonable that magnetostrictive effects on an Ni lattice might speed things along. An AC current flow might well do something similar. However, the amount of power pulled seems excessive for these purposes unless a heavy current flowing through the nickel powder is used to provide both heat and EM stirring of the pot.

          • Peter_Roe

            September 16, 2011 at 9:13 pm

            …. and possibly hydrogen ionisation.

          • maryyugo

            September 16, 2011 at 9:56 pm

            [This has been my suspicion for some time. I never did see the need for two ‘heaters’ on the original version and thought that one could be a feed for something else.]

            That’s a pretty wild guess. The original E-cats each have two obvious standard commercial heaters (cheapies at that) in plain sight and the wiring and control circuits are in plain sight as well. That would be some fancy footwork if it was all misdirection. Funny– some people see misdirection where it’s very unlikely but they fail to see deception where it is way more plausible.

          • Peter_Roe

            September 16, 2011 at 10:25 pm

            In fact only one ‘heater’ is in plain sight – the band heater. The other set of wires lead to what looks like the end of a tubular heater but this can’t actually be seen.

            Actually it is the external band heater never made much sense to me as it is presumably separated from the nickel core by a water jacket, which would actively prevent heat transfer to the core. Anomalies like this are a cause for doubting that we are being given all the facts, which is only to be expected.

            Of course, fraud also remains a possibility as well – for my part I have never fully excluded this explanation; I simply consider it (increasingly) less likely than the alternative.

            .. and I do agree about the value of the much requested edit function. I am using it rather a lot.

          • maryyugo

            September 17, 2011 at 12:08 am

            “Actually it is the external band heater never made much sense to me as it is presumably separated from the nickel core by a water jacket, which would actively prevent heat transfer to the core.”

            Yes but it’s just peachy for transferring lots and lots of heat to THE WATER!

    • D Reply

      September 16, 2011 at 7:33 pm

      It’s not too terribly difficult to think of a similar analog to the self-sustaining problem. Consider a typical fissile chain reaction where neutrons are generated. If you could not capture the extra liberated neutrons, the reaction would quickly run out of control. You can funnel out or capture the excess neutrons to limit the reaction. You could also absorb all neutrons, and have a secondary source to only generate as many neutrons as you require. Each of these situations would generate positive net energy, but some are inherently more stable.

      I guess it’s entirely possible that (through some unknown mechanism) a heat addition into Rossi’s system liberates more heat (replace “neutron” with “heat” in the previous paragraph). If the process were unstable and unpredictable, remove feedback and you remove the runaway problem. By no means is this proof or presented by me as truth, but just a “devil’s advocate” point of view to what has been said.

      On a side note, I’ve heard people suggest that Rossi appears to be “covering something up” in that one steam video. I’m not saying he is (none of us know him or the situation well enough to compare his normal actions), but if he was covering something up, then saying “it’s stable” a few times could hint toward some instability. Not necessarily a bad thing in this case, perhaps even a promising notion.

      • popeye Reply

        September 16, 2011 at 8:09 pm

        > You can funnel out or capture the excess neutrons to limit the reaction. You could also absorb all neutrons, and have a secondary source to only generate as many neutrons as you require. Each of these situations would generate positive net energy, but some are inherently more stable.

        In the first place, fission is only successful because of the chain reaction. I don’t think you could get net output energy if you had to produce the neutrons for each fission. Neutron production uses energy, and only a fraction would cause fission.

        In the second place neutrons are not heat. If you were talking about using neutrons to trigger a neutron source, then the analogy would be relevant, but then capturing all the neutrons would not be an option.

        The electricity is used for heating according to Rossi, and the ecat itself is used to produce heat, so your scenario doesn’t apply.

        > I guess it’s entirely possible that (through some unknown mechanism) a heat addition into Rossi’s system liberates more heat (replace “neutron” with “heat” in the previous paragraph).

        The problem is, your example doesn’t work if you replace neutron with heat.

        Heat is heat, and if you use heat to trigger heat, the heat that is triggered should produce more heat. Like combustion.

        Combustion can be unstable, but it is not controlled by varying the input heat, but by varying the fuel or the oxygen, or conceivably through cooling. Once the fire is going, blowing out the match has no effect.

        • maryyugo Reply

          September 16, 2011 at 8:18 pm

          [Once the fire is going, blowing out the match has no effect.]

          Excellent analogy!

      • maryyugo Reply

        September 16, 2011 at 8:15 pm

        I don’t think heat works like neutron flux in the course of a nuclear fission chain reaction.

        But be that as it may, we once again have to note that all Rossi has to do to prove that the E-cat works is to repeat Levi’s experiment with proper record keeping. And that took only 18 hours and existing equipment. The only change I’d make to what Levi described would be to lower the flow rate of coolant a bit to get an easier to measure accurately delta-T, to calibrate the measuring equipment including using a (calibrated and metered) heater to simulate the E-cat, and to run longer. None of that is expensive, difficult or time consuming– especially not compared to the unreliable and bizarre “testing” and “demos” that have happened after Levi’s experiment. Levi is very silent these days. I wonder why.

    • Anthony Reply

      September 16, 2011 at 8:10 pm

      My guess on the added heat has always been based on conducted heat and radiated energy that was converted into heat at another point. People have been speculating on what happens inside the reaction chamber and trying to derive a cutaway view. My speculation back when I first saw the photos was that he needed electricity to heat the nickle powder directly and then the nuclear reaction provided the low energy radiation that could be absorbed by the water or lead or boron or whatever and convert it into heat at another point thus not self heating the powder. This prevents a runaway that is limited by how fast the heat can conduct back to the nickle powder. Turning off the electric heater and / or increasing the water flow would cool the nickle below it’s critical ignition temperature which seems to be about 60 deg and it shuts down. If you loose the water then the conducted heat would cause the nickle to melt and again the reaction stops although in this case you need to replace the chamber and recycle the metal.

      I’m hoping we see something conclusive soon and I’m sure many people want to know how close our guesses are at putting the pieces of this great puzzle together. As for money, Mr Rossi could have many investors and engineering talent if he was able to do the demonstration that we all wish he would.

      • popeye Reply

        September 16, 2011 at 8:58 pm

        > My speculation back when I first saw the photos was that he needed electricity to heat the nickle powder directly and then the nuclear reaction provided the low energy radiation that could be absorbed by the water or lead or boron or whatever and convert it into heat at another point thus not self heating the powder.

        I agree, that’s a way that input heat could control the output heat, but only if heat conduction back to the nickel were inhibited.

        But then the system could not self-sustain, and Rossi claims the system can self-sustain. And that the input is needed for safety.

        It seems to me that if the heat it generates is available for self-power as Rossi claims it is, then you lose control by adjusting the input heat. Or at least you lose the ability to shut it down by removing the input.

        > This prevents a runaway that is limited by how fast the heat can conduct back to the nickle powder.

        I’m not sure. The ecat is enclosed, and the only way heat gets out is by the water. Once the entire system is heated up, and if there is a thermal path back to the nickel, you’d have the same problem with runaway.

        > Turning off the electric heater and / or increasing the water flow would cool the nickle below it’s critical ignition temperature

        I agree about the water, which is why I don’t understand why he doesn’t vary the water to provide control, but I’m skeptical you could do it with the electricity alone if there is a thermal path back to the nickel.

        > which seems to be about 60 deg

        If you’re referring the the kink at 60 C in one of the heating curves, that is the water temperature. The temperature of the ecat itself is surely much higher.

        > Mr Rossi could have many investors and engineering talent if he was able to do the demonstration that we all wish he would.

        Agreed.

    • Roger Barker Reply

      September 16, 2011 at 11:33 pm

      Yes, and this is where Rossi’s whole charade falls over. Forget about the complicated steam analysis etc. If Rossi has a viable device all he has to do is re-route some of the heat to sustain the “reaction” and leave the rest to continuously boil water. A closed loop demonstration left to run for 24 hours would be impossible to fake.

    • Bruno CAUDANA Reply

      September 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm

      I try a possible answer. Heat from electric heaters may be required for its higher temperature than is possible with the water/steam output. From my point of view it is not important if an additional source of energy is necessary. It is only important that the overall energy balance, properly corrected by the enthalpy levels of the heat involved, is positive. Any heat may be converted to electrical power (e.g. by a Stirling motor and an alternator) thus restoring the energy and enthalpy used as an external input, provided that the energy gain is big enough to sustain all the conversion losses, that may be high. In any case it is not difficult to measure all the energy inputs and outputs and estimate the balance, taking into account the proper energy conversions needed to restore the original enthalpy. In my opinion, at this stage, it would be very important to make accurate energy measurements and balances taking the E-CAT as a black-box. I would welcome an energy measurement with water that does not change of state (that is with water flowing at temperatures below vaporisation). This would simplify energy measurements and make them more accurate. All other issues are of secondary importance for understanding if this technology works.

      • popeye Reply

        September 21, 2011 at 7:27 pm

        > I try a possible answer. Heat from electric heaters may be required for its higher temperature than is possible with the water/steam output.

        Maybe, but presumably they could route the heat back before it is used to produce steam.

        > From my point of view it is not important if an additional source of energy is necessary. It is only important that the overall energy balance, properly corrected by the enthalpy levels of the heat involved, is positive.

        But if it powers itself, proper correction of enthalpy levels is not needed. All that’s needed is evidence of heat. Much, much simpler, and more difficult to fake.

        > Any heat may be converted to electrical power (e.g. by a Stirling motor and an alternator) thus restoring the energy and enthalpy used as an external input, provided that the energy gain is big enough to sustain all the conversion losses, that may be high.

        High is right. If you’re using steam at 100C to make electricity, the Carnot efficiency alone is low; overall you could expect 10% efficiency or so.

        > In any case it is not difficult to measure all the energy inputs and outputs and estimate the balance,

        It shouldn’t be difficult, but as we’ve seen, when partial phase change is involved, few people agree with the inputs and outputs.

        > In my opinion, at this stage, it would be very important to make accurate energy measurements and balances taking the E-CAT as a black-box. I would welcome an energy measurement with water that does not change of state (that is with water flowing at temperatures below vaporisation). This would simplify energy measurements and make them more accurate. All other issues are of secondary importance for understanding if this technology works.

        This is true, but as the first post in this thread states, if it’s producing heat, and using heat to trigger it, it should be straightforward to make it self-sustaining, like combustion. And then accurate energy measurements and balances would be far less important, and the demo far more impressive. If it’s possible, it’s just odd that Rossi wouldn’t do it.

  4. raul heining Reply

    September 16, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    The point is, we do not know for sure what is the electricity for. Heat is a positive feedback
    not a negative one, and thus not providing feedback control. One could argue that it is to maintain a temperature control in the reactor against the negative feedback of the cooling water and that is the only explanation in this case if the control is through heat. The other idea is controlling of a chemical reaction through electric current.
    Regards
    raul

    • maryyugo Reply

      September 16, 2011 at 9:58 pm

      Why not just control the water flow directly though an automated proportional controller circuit with thermal sensors? It’s a well established technology and has been for decades.

      As for what the heater is doing, there is a distinct possibility it is the *only* source of heat for the E-cat and that always has to be definitively ruled out for each demonstration which, so far, has not been entirely possible.

  5. Dale G. Basgall Reply

    September 16, 2011 at 10:24 pm

    Eliminate the water, place the elements in the reactor chamber, pressurize the mixture, take a propane torche and heat it up until it gets hot.

    Measure the temperature while blowing air on it and heat the mixture up to the point it melts down around 1450. If it works after it gets to almost critical on the temp for the elements it should continue to produce heat. That’s proof of concept.

    If you built several hundred versions of this don’t you think you would have your own instruments for safety purposes? At least a temp gauge, a pressure gauge and a flow meter on the input and output for the water?

  6. Ben Reply

    September 17, 2011 at 12:18 am

    Interesting post on 22Passi. Raises more questions than it answers….but what did you expect.

    “This machine – especially in version 1 MW – can not be assessed on the basis of short videos, if only because the time scale at which the process of energy production goes to the system are considerably longer than the patience of a normal viewer, as well the fact that it is at least partially unstable and to have a mean value that takes into account observation times and measure even longer. I do not think, then, that would change much if Lewan had been there a couple of hours, not enough even with the single E-Cat 10 kW, for which requires a minimum of 2 days of 24 hour monitoring. I think that Rossi has not previously had an interest in doing serious public measures, since it was not yet close to commercialization, and therefore would have been premature. The fact that the E-Cat was almost “under our noses” while they believed in the U.S. I think that shows how to do things Rossi, on the one hand, one step at a time and, secondly, with “twists “It took the media more or less. When the time comes, I think there will be a conclusive test. Even the speech of a webcam that continuously monitor the functioning of the 1 MW seems to me, at least in principle, a significant step forward in this respect, for the reasons mentioned above.”

  7. LCD Reply

    September 17, 2011 at 4:30 am

    Popeye, little bit of a late response but I’ve been busy.
    Lets try to keep this civil before it degrades into mud slinging.

    Now from the beginning you said
    “A much bigger problem with Rossi’s claim of ecat temperatures anywhere close to 1000C in the boiling water demos (let alone 1500C), is that it makes his claim of 120 kW in the 18-hour test completely unbelievable.”

    LCD>”That sounds like 18 hours of 120 kW.” You later clarified it. So that’s fine. I forgive you.

    Later you say
    “But I really wasn’t speculating. I was pointing the inconsistency in Rossi/Levi’s claims. If Rossi’s claim of around 1500C in the boiling water demos is true, then Levi’s claim of 130 kW simply can’t be true. And since we’ve caught them making false claims, then only independent evidence can validate the ecat. And so far, there’s none of that.

    That’s a mouthful. First off your still speculating, about inconsistencies. Rossi’s claim can be true and Levi’s can still be true and I have shown you how and will continue to do so below.

    Now later on you clarify your point even more.
    “Lewan’s interview of Levi leaves no doubt that it was the same version of the ecat.”

    “The question to Rossi about the temperature was: “Have you reached increased temperatures (500°C) already in a more stable mode now?” His answer was that “Inside the reactor temperatures are around 1500 °C”.

    Since Levi makes it clear that the 130 kW was transient, this would not correspond to a stable mode, and in any case, there was no indication in the context that this should be a reference to a brief energy spike. You can believe it if you want. It’s the kind of flailing believers have to do, as referred to elsewhere.”

    Later on you go on to say
    “You see, the whole point of introducing the results of the 18-hour test is to validate the January test. If it’s a much larger version, then that really doesn’t work.

    But you made me check the reports on it, and there is really no way to deny it is the same device. Levi repeatedly refers to it as “the ecat”, never a larger version, or this version, or another version. It’s always the ecat, as if there is only only one version, and at the time, there was only one known to the public.”

    Yeah still making assumptions there Popeye. You got 1500C on all demos and ecat versions are all the same from this? I’ll let the public decide on that but my stance is it’s just another one of your assumptions from shotty 2nd hand knowledge. Sorry you fail to convince me, no offense as I understand you’re desire to blow all this off as mistakes and such. But you must be careful not to tip too much the other way as well.

    You go on to provide more less than convincing evidence for the same thing which I am just going to generalize as more speculation.

    But the crux of your issue is the 1500C so let me address that.

    In the video I referenced earlier Focardi says that the reaction seems to start at low temperature. In this case 60 deg C , and not knowing exactly what that is measuring we can assume the reactor is a little hotter than that. So why you feel the need to categorically claim all ecats run at 1500C all the time or have 1500C be the stability point all the time based on an anectodal quote at best from Rossi is beyond me.

    Now about Aleklett

    I stated
    “I don’t find it necessary to assume those things. I’ll take Kullander, Aleklett and Essens word for it right now that the calorimetry was acceptable and wait for further developments.” — Which I think is a perfectly sane statement to make.

    However you said
    “Aleklett did not give thumbs up to the calorimetry.”

    Yet here is Aleklett, and I quote,
    “To calculate how much energy it takes to heat water to boiling point and how much energy it takes to evaporate the water required only elementary thermodynamics. I think the amount of produced energy is OK.”

    This is directly relating to Kullander and Essen’t report. You can find the reference here.
    http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/rossi-energy-catalyst-a-big-hoax-or-new-physics/

    Finally you accuse Bushnell of being confused and making mistakes
    “He talks about ultra-weak neutrons when WL refer to ultra low momentum neutrons.”

    Really? Okay what’s the scientific difference Popeye, please?

    Pop>”He says the energy comes from beta decay, but it comes from neutron capture. The beta decay basically just returns the energy needed for the electron capture in the first place.”

    Me>Neutron capture, or electron capture? Which is it? Or are you saying both happen?

    Pop>”He says Rossi attributed the energy to WL, when in fact Rossi explicitly says it’s not WL.”

    Me>I could be wrong but I don’t think he said that, I think he stated that he thought it was due to WL and then afterwards Rossi stated that it wasn’t. Hardly something to scoff at since we don’t even know if Rossi knows what the heck it is. He has a theory at best.

    I forgot you also said
    “Bushnell says WL involves only weak interactions, but in fact the energy in WL still comes from strong interactions, although the process involves weak interactions.”

    Show me where Widom and Larsen state that please.

    Pops>”Well, if it’s dangerous to scale it up, then it’s not easy. And why would he bother for the 18 hour test. As you said, a bigger ecat would not be more informative, and he already had the smaller one ready to go”

    Me>I’m not saying he scaled it up, I’m saying he may have scaled it down. Myself and others think he allegedly scaled it down, because of the high power transients.

    Finally as an ex employee of NASA I know Dennis Bushnell has his critics but you are a long way from showing anyone that he’s an embarrasment to NASA. I would encourage you to choose your words more carefully next time as it is easy to be overconfident behind an anonymous ID.

    You continually pass of your opinions as if they are facts, please learn to use qualifiers in your statements.

    Anything else?

    • popeye Reply

      September 17, 2011 at 8:09 am

      Popeye>> …. 120 kW in the 18-hour test …

      LCD>”That sounds like 18 hours of 120 kW.” You later clarified it. So that’s fine. I forgive you.

      First, it doesn’t.

      And second, it is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

      You just read it wrong, and misinterpreted the relevance. That’s fine. I forgive you.

      Popeye>> If Rossi’s claim of around 1500C in the boiling water demos is true, then Levi’s claim of 130 kW simply can’t be true. …

      LCD> That’s a mouthful. First off your still speculating, about inconsistencies. Rossi’s claim can be true and Levi’s can still be true and I have shown you how and will continue to do so below.

      You haven’t, and you don’t.

      Popeye>> “Lewan’s interview of Levi leaves no doubt that it was the same version of the ecat.”

      Popeye>> “The question to Rossi about the temperature was: “Have you reached increased temperatures (500°C) already in a more stable mode now?” His answer was that “Inside the reactor temperatures are around 1500 °C”. [...]

      Popeye>> Levi: “It was pretty impressive in some respects. First, the repeatability. This is the third time I’ve seen the device, and again it produces energy.”

      Popeye>> The third time he’s seen the device, the first two being the December and January tests. If it were a much larger device, he could not say that.

      Popeye>> But the kicker is this part from Lewan’s report:

      Popeye> ““I have also seen inside the reactor device itself – most of the volume is isolation, and most of the weight of about 30 kg is due to lead.”

      Popeye>> “He confirmed that the reactor chamber, supposedly containing nickel powder, the secret catalysts and hydrogen gas, had a volume of around one liter. The reactor chamber was the only part he could not inspect.”

      Popeye>> The reports on the January run also estimate a weight of 30 kg. It is therefore not possible that 18-hour test was done with something that could explain 10 times higher power at the same e-cat temperature.

      LCD> Yeah still making assumptions there Popeye. You got 1500C on all demos and ecat versions are all the same from this?

      You didn’t quote the most relevant parts, so I’ve restored them, and yes, it is the only reasonable way to understand it.

      LCD> I’ll let the public decide on that but my stance is it’s just another one of your assumptions from shotty 2nd hand knowledge.

      I’m having trouble following your week-old train of thought; I hardly think “the public” is still following.

      LCD> In the video I referenced earlier Focardi says that the reaction seems to start at low temperature. In this case 60 deg C , and not knowing exactly what that is measuring we can assume the reactor is a little hotter than that.

      Irrelevant. The question was about stable operating temperature, not starting temperature. Obviously 60C is not stable operating temperature if it is producing steam.

      LCD> So why you feel the need to categorically claim all ecats run at 1500C all the time or have 1500C be the stability point all the time based on an anectodal quote at best from Rossi is beyond me.

      I have not made that claim. My point required only that at least one of them ran stably at 1500C for any amount of time, because none of them ever exceeded 12 kW or so. That means that running at 120 kW would require unbelievable temperatures. And the quote was from Rossi in his blog. I assume it’s still there if you need to look it up.

      Popeye>> “Aleklett did not give thumbs up to the calorimetry.”

      LCD> Yet here is Aleklett, and I quote,
      “To calculate how much energy it takes to heat water to boiling point and how much energy it takes to evaporate the water required only elementary thermodynamics. I think the amount of produced energy is OK.”

      OK. I concede this point. I remember Aleklett was not prepared to accept evidence of a nuclear reaction, but he does appear to have bought E & K ‘s visual inspection of dry steam. It’s disappointing to see yet another Swedish academic so easily duped.

      LCD> Finally you accuse Bushnell of being confused and making mistakes
      “He talks about ultra-weak neutrons when WL refer to ultra low momentum neutrons.”

      LCD> Really? Okay what’s the scientific difference Popeye, please?

      An ultra-low momentum neutron is self evident. An ultra-weak neutron means nothing scientifically. He’s getting the terminology mixed up with weak and strong interactions, which are well-defined. It’s like a politician poorly briefed on a topic before he goes into an interview. If he were conversant in the subject, he would never say ultra-weak neutron.

      Pop>>”He says the energy comes from beta decay, but it comes from neutron capture. The beta decay basically just returns the energy needed for the electron capture in the first place.”

      LCD> Neutron capture, or electron capture? Which is it? Or are you saying both happen?

      Yes, in the theory, both happen. The energy comes from the neutron capture.

      Pop>”He says Rossi attributed the energy to WL, when in fact Rossi explicitly says it’s not WL.”

      LCD> I could be wrong but I don’t think he said that, I think he stated that he thought it was due to WL and then afterwards Rossi stated that it wasn’t. Hardly something to scoff at since we don’t even know if Rossi knows what the heck it is. He has a theory at best.

      Bushnell claims Rossi attributes the reaction to WL, but Rossi doesn’t. It just shows Bushnell has his facts wrong. And yes, you are wrong. Bushnell did make this claim. You can look it up in the transcript:

      Bushnell: Then, as you mentioned, in January of this year [Andrea] Rossi, backed by [Sergio] Focardi, who had been working on this for many years, and in fact doing some of the best work worldwide, came out and did a demonstration first in January, they re-did it in February, re-did it in March, where for days they had one of these cells, a small cell, producing in the 10 to 15 kW range which is far more than enough to boil water for tea. And they say this is weak interaction, it’s not fusion.

      This quote also contains Bushnell’s claim about the cells running for days; probably the most significant factual error he makes.

      LCD> I forgot you also said
      “Bushnell says WL involves only weak interactions, but in fact the energy in WL still comes from strong interactions, although the process involves weak interactions.”

      LCD> Show me where Widom and Larsen state that please.

      No. You’ll have to look up any of their papers on the theory. The theory involves protons capturing electrons to form neutrons and the neutrons being captured by other nuclei. Sometimes beta decay happens, too.

      Electron capture is a weak interaction. It is endothermic. (It actually takes more energy than D-D fusion, which they are trying to avoid.) Beta decay is also a weak interaction, and releases about the same energy needed for the electron capture.

      Neutron capture is a strong interaction, and that’s where most of the energy (essentially all) comes from.

      Pops>> ”Well, if it’s dangerous to scale it up, then it’s not easy. And why would he bother for the 18 hour test. As you said, a bigger ecat would not be more informative, and he already had the smaller one ready to go”

      LCD> I’m not saying he scaled it up, I’m saying he may have scaled it down. Myself and others think he allegedly scaled it down, because of the high power transients.

      Well, he scaled it down for later tests, if that’s what you mean. But I thought you were claiming a larger ecat for the 18-hour test to explain the 120 kW excursion.

      You’re not really making sense.

      LCD> Finally as an ex employee of NASA I know Dennis Bushnell has his critics but you are a long way from showing anyone that he’s an embarrasment to NASA.

      Well, my respect for NASA took a dive when I saw how glibly and repeatedly he could get facts wrong on an important topic.

      > You continually pass of your opinions as if they are facts, please learn to use qualifiers in your statements.

      I was mistaken about Aleklett, but you have not demonstrated this claim in any other case.

      • Ben Reply

        September 17, 2011 at 1:29 pm

        “You continually pass of your opinions as if they are facts, please learn to use qualifiers in your statements.”

        “I was mistaken about Aleklett, but you have not demonstrated this claim in any other case.”

        I pointed out your habit of passing off opinion as fact a couple days ago. You can deny it, you can insist that someone point it out to you, etc., but it still remains the case. Most anybody who still wastes their time and brain cells reading thru your voluminous, lengthy posts can see that, so actually having you see it is not the point. Keeping posting your garbage sailor-boy. It is an excellent example of how weak and intellectually bankrupt much of the opposition to the eCat really is.

        • maryyugo Reply

          September 17, 2011 at 5:30 pm

          [Keeping posting your garbage sailor-boy. It is an excellent example of how weak and intellectually bankrupt much of the opposition to the eCat really is.]

          That’s a bizarre statement. I know of no “opposition” to the E-cat. Nobody is opposed to a table top device that makes almost free power. But plenty of people doubt that Rossi has such a device because the evidence he has provided that it works is so weak and equivocal and vague. Doubt is not opposition — not at all.

          • Ben

            September 17, 2011 at 6:21 pm

            weak and equivocal and vague = doubt

            invisible flying pink unicorns = unbelief

            doubt ≢ unbelief

            Thank you and have a nice day. Blog safely.

          • maryyugo

            September 17, 2011 at 7:01 pm

            Ben, I have no idea what you mean. Belief on faith is religion — it has no place in science and technology. What matters there is evidence. Yes, PIFU’s are a bit less likely than an E-cat. But at the moment, with present evidence, not all that much so.

            Doubting the E-cat works is not “unbelief”. It’s observing that the evidence for it working is still weak — after all that time, interviews, demos and pictures.

          • LCD

            September 18, 2011 at 4:19 am

            Whats bizzare Mary is that people continuosly point out to you how useless and repetitive your comments are yet you continue to post.

        • LCD Reply

          September 18, 2011 at 3:37 am

          Ben im glad to see somebody else exposing Popeye for what he is. I honestly dont have the time to refute each one of his overblown pseudofacts although im sure I could if I didnt have a life.

          He at least has more meat than maryyago but they are both cut from the same tree.

        • popeye Reply

          September 18, 2011 at 7:20 am

          Ben> I pointed out your habit of passing off opinion as fact a couple days ago. You can deny it, you can insist that someone point it out to you, etc., but it still remains the case. Most anybody who still wastes their time and brain cells reading thru your voluminous, lengthy posts can see that, so actually having you see it is not the point. Keeping posting your garbage sailor-boy. It is an excellent example of how weak and intellectually bankrupt much of the opposition to the eCat really is.

          If there is a specific argument about the ecat I have made that you would like to challenge, I’ll be happy to defend it or concede.

          But your vague and unjustified insults suggest to me that you don’t have the first clue about how to challenge my arguments. Of course, I’m not surprised; I think they’re pretty air-tight.

          Oh, and it’s sailor-*man* to you.

      • LCD Reply

        September 18, 2011 at 4:15 am

        Popeye its obvious to me now you are one of those people who is so overconfident in their opinions that they dont bother to check reality and sometimes make bonehead comments. Then when they get exposed they slither.

        I dont have the time to respond and counter respond but im certainly not admitting defeat. Ill just leave you with this.

        When I took part in an online interview with Widom several months back (maybe you can find it) most people couldnt understand how the weak force could generate those energies. In the process of explaining it none of us attending the event ever got the impression the strong force was at all involved in The energy release of his theory. Certainly the strong force is involved but that is not what Widom states is the driving cause of the energy. Maybe hes wrong right?

        Im sure with some digging I could properly refute youre undeserved criticism of Bushnell but with your attitude and tone you are just not worth it.

        I see now that other people are questioning your comments so ive done my job.
        Good day

        • popeye Reply

          September 18, 2011 at 7:23 am

          LCD> Popeye its obvious to me now you are one of those people who is so overconfident in their opinions that they dont bother to check reality and sometimes make bonehead comments. Then when they get exposed they slither.

          If there is a specific argument about the ecat I have made that you would like to challenge, I’ll be happy to defend it or concede.

          LCD> When I took part in an online interview with Widom several months back (maybe you can find it) most people couldnt understand how the weak force could generate those energies. In the process of explaining it none of us attending the event ever got the impression the strong force was at all involved in The energy release of his theory.

          You never got the impression? That’s supposed to be a counter-argument? The WL theory is spelled out in black and white, on paper, in real journals — somewhat unusual in the field, to be sure. There isn’t any doubt that the bulk of the net energy comes from the neutron capture, and that is a strong interaction.

          If, like you, Bushnell got the impression that the energy is released in weak interactions, that just shows he’s just as clueless as you about nuclear physics.

          LCD> Certainly the strong force is involved but that is not what Widom states is the driving cause of the energy. Maybe hes wrong right?

          I don’t know what he stated to you, but unless he stated that the weak force *is* the source of the energy, or the strong force isn’t, he’s not wrong.

          He does try to hide the energetics of his theory, as does Krivit, when he talks about it. Because one of the the selling points of the theory is that it avoids the Coulomb barrier. What he doesn’t like to admit is that the first step — the electron capture — has an energy barrier 10 times higher.

          But ok, here’s an account of the WL theory, presented in a kind of simplified way, by a fellow NASA guy.

          http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/media-3rd-party/2009-NASA-LENR-8-12-09.pdf

          Check the slide labelled WLT Energetics. It’s an accounting of the energies for the Li-Be-He cycle proposed by WL. Bullets 2 to 5 are all strong interactions and release 27 MeV. Bullets 1, 6, 7, 8 are weak interactions and release a net of 1 MeV.

          LCD> Im sure with some digging I could properly refute youre undeserved criticism of Bushnell

          Now there’s an argument worthy of ecat proponents…

          LCD> I see now that other people are questioning your comments so ive done my job.

          If you mean Ben, no, he never actually addresses specifics. He likes to argue about arguing.

  8. georgehants Reply

    September 17, 2011 at 10:29 am

    Lovely day,another 20,000 died yesterday through lack of cheap clean water, if Mr. Rossi turns out to be a fraud I have no time for the, I told you so’s, there will be genuine and true disappointment for the truly needy people of this World who will be let down.
    Everybody’s mind should be on a positive encouragement for Mr. Rossi, as to repeat to the irrational skeptics, no rational optimist will have been taken in, we are all perfectly aware of the dangers, but better to be open-minded and not as has happened so many times in the past cause any delay to a possible lifesaving discovery.

    • popeye Reply

      September 18, 2011 at 7:24 am

      georgehants> but better to be open-minded and not as has happened so many times in the past cause any delay to a possible lifesaving discovery.

      Has it occurred to you that wasting time on the ecat could be delaying lifesaving discoveries that might actually work?

      • Haldor Reply

        September 19, 2011 at 9:28 am

        Quote Popeye:
        “Has it occurred to you that wasting time on the ecat could be delaying lifesaving discoveries that might actually work?”

        Who is wasting time here?
        How can the E-Cat delay anything that might actually work, what is the lifesaving discovery that you are refering to?

        In all Rossi is the only one working hard here and he still is on schedule. But you and some others are starting to blaim Rossi for all the troubles in the world.
        This is a very ROTTEN comment you made.

        • popeye Reply

          September 19, 2011 at 2:25 pm

          Yea, but, he started it…

  9. georgehants Reply

    September 17, 2011 at 10:37 am

    May I just say that although occasionally useful an Edit function is mostly unnecessary, as for me the meaning of what somebody says is what counts and their spelling or syntax is only important to people who have over tidy minds.
    Language is to communicate, not a childish test of memory of a very imperfect code.

    • Todd Burkett Reply

      September 17, 2011 at 7:41 pm

      Well said!

      • maryyugo Reply

        September 18, 2011 at 4:15 pm

        Ewe nevver maik misteaks?

  10. parallel Reply

    September 17, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    geargehants wrote: “…no rational optimist will have been taken in, we are all perfectly aware of the dangers, but better to be open-minded and not as has happened so many times in the past cause any delay to a possible lifesaving discovery.”

    Unfortunately this needs to be repeated often. Consider that DOE has effectively shut down all government research on LENR, while happy to see $19 billion spent on ITER, and rigged the US Patent office so that it is impossible to get protection for anything related to “cold fusion.”

    No one here knows just what Rossi has inside the E-Cat but idle speculation is given too much weight. Earlier Rossi talked about experiments with catalysts to make monatomic H. Another speculation might be that the heat is required to activate/control that catalyst – that is possibly just a wire. No easy way to use the reactor heat for that.
    Rossi mentioning 1500C does not mean the whole reactor is at that temperature. Possibly he refers to very localized spots where the reaction is actually taking place.

    Apart from English being his second language, it sometimes looks like Rossi is deliberately providing red herrings to keep the process secret. As he can’t get a patent on it I don’t blame him.

    I speculate the test at Uppsala is for one 27kW module (made up of several of the 4 kW E-Cats) with a closed loop heat output suitable for domestic use. This would meet two objectives. Proof of concept and confirmation for the domestic unit.

    • Ben Reply

      September 17, 2011 at 5:32 pm

      Are you the same “parallel” that posts over on the polywell fusion form? I browse over there from time and time and, although still contentious, the discussion seems more technically oriented and civil.

    • maryyugo Reply

      September 17, 2011 at 6:10 pm

      Here’s what Horace Heffner said on the Vortex list about Rossi’s “tests” — I couldn’t say it better:

      http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51446.html

      “Hundreds of man days have been wasted. If the job were done right the first time a lot of labor and money could have been saved, not only for Rossi and his associates, but for Rossi himself. Not only that, very high quality and credible black box calorimetry might have been obtained absolutely free from companies like EarthTech International:

      http://www.earthtech.org/

      What a waste! There is no common sense in what has happened. There is no good business sense in what happened. What has happened makes no scientific sense either. Rossi could have had millions or billions of development dollars at his disposal with a single high quality public demonstration. If he really is on to something commercially viable then the whole world is suffering because of the delays. This kind of thinking that a few days or even months of calibration is not hugely worthwhile is nonsense. It is perhaps penny wise, but trillion dollar foolish, unless of course, someone knows there is nothing to the claim”

      ETI tests may not be free but I bet it would have been cheaper to prove the E-cat once and for all with ETI testing if it’s real than to have all the useless visits and interviews Rossi has performed since last January. Rossi isn’t just enigmatic. If the E-cat is real, he’s weird. Incredibly and annoyingly so.

      As for the patent office being “rigged”, if you think so, take them to court. That’s what courts are for and they’re very impartial, extremely public, and reasonably accessible in the US. I don’t think patents are rigged. The real problem (IMO) is that you have to disclose and prove your method to an extent. And yet they patent all manner of things that can’t possibly work… so they can’t be as that biased and tight as you suggest.

      The main thing holding back Rossi’s credibility is Rossi. He could change that in less than a week with an independent replication of the simple test that Levi already did but with proper calibration and documentation. Rossi claims minimum ratio of output to input of 6X. That should be easy to show in a liquid flow system.

      • LCD Reply

        September 18, 2011 at 4:38 am

        Hindsight is always 20/20. But I agree with some of that, especially when george reminds us of how many people die from lack of water.

        Lets hope things get resolved soon..

      • charles sistovaris Reply

        September 20, 2011 at 9:27 am

        I totally agree with that as well. But you cannot just wipe the human factor out of the equation : that means mistakes, egos, conflicting interest, lack of perspective etc. etc.
        Trivial example : why do we so badly need in edit function in the comments ? Because we only see the mistakes once they’re out there, hanging in front of everybody like low fruits for journalists and “pseudo skeptic” whatever that means.
        Rewriting history is to much of an easy exercise.
        Also saying the whole world is suffering because of the delays makes no sense. Are we going to blame the americans because they didn’t save europe early enough from totalitarianism ? If Rossi’s ecat is real a few weeks in the scale of the revolution it will trigger is nothing, zero !
        Let’s just hope for it!

    • LCD Reply

      September 18, 2011 at 4:51 am

      Well at least SPAWAR is still researching it.

    • popeye Reply

      September 18, 2011 at 7:27 am

      parallel> Consider that DOE has effectively shut down all government research on LENR, while happy to see $19 billion spent on ITER,

      I thought there were still government organizations doing research on LENR: NASA, SPAWAR. Didn’t the DIA release a positive report recently?

      Anyway, the DOE (to the extent they can) have shut down all government research on perpetual motion too, even while spending billions on plasma fusion.

      It’s because in their judgement, ITER is worth the gamble, and PM and LENR aren’t.

      Why else would they reject LENR? Surely the government stands to benefit immensely from LENR if it’s real, and they stand to lose immensely if another country gets it first.

      > and rigged the US Patent office so that it is impossible to get protection for anything related to “cold fusion.”

      How do they do that, and why would they?

      > Rossi mentioning 1500C does not mean the whole reactor is at that temperature. Possibly he refers to very localized spots where the reaction is actually taking place.

      If you mean hot spots produced by individual nuclear reactions, how could he know that, and what possible mechanism could deposit the energy from one reaction in a small enough volume to reach that temperature?

      If you mean ensembles of reactions, then the question of melting still comes up, especially if a device that produces 10 times the power, requiring 10 times the temperature difference.

      > Apart from English being his second language, it sometimes looks like Rossi is deliberately providing red herrings to keep the process secret. As he can’t get a patent on it I don’t blame him.

      Well, if you’re agreeing that there is no evidence for nuclear reactions (for whatever fishy reasons), why exactly would anyone think there are nuclear reactions?

      • CM Edwards Reply

        September 20, 2011 at 9:25 pm

        Rossi’s US patent suggests that the core material is a Ni-W powder or sintered matrix, which would have only modest thermal conductivity. It would only be a modest insulator at best, but would still conduct 10 to 20 times less heat than solid metal at the same temperature.

        If the heating is localized in a small section of the core, then it’s probably not at a uniform temperature.

        It’s not difficult to imagine a configuration with heat applied on only one end of the core, or insulated in the interior. A very steep temperature gradient could be maintained that way.

        1500 degrees maximum temperature seems unrealistic. But 500 might be done.

        • popeye Reply

          September 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm

          > 1500 degrees maximum temperature seems unrealistic. But 500 might be done.

          Even 500 in the boiling water demos is hard to reconcile with 10 times the power output in the 18-hour test. Ten times the power transfer requires ten times the temperature difference between the water and the heating element surface that the water contacts. It’s impossible to know how the gradients look inside the ecat, but it’s hard to imagine that 130 kW wouldn’t require a core at a several thousand degrees, if it’s 500 at 10 or 15 kW.

          • TomAndersen

            September 21, 2011 at 12:14 am

            You can pull any amount of power out of any temperature difference. It depends on surface area and flow rate, etc. 500 degrees is plenty for boiling water.

          • popeye

            September 21, 2011 at 2:02 am

            It depends on the flow rate only to the extent that the flow rate will determine the final temperature, or the fraction of water converted to steam.

            But the rate of heat transfer depends only on the temperature difference between the media, the instantaneous contact surface area, and the heat transfer coefficient. The units of the heat transfer coefficient are power per unit area per unit temperature difference (W/(m^2K)) — no fluid flow rate comes in to it.

            If the water doesn’t change phase, the difference in temperature at different flow rates is probably pretty small compared to the temperature difference between the water and the heating surface.

            That’s the first approximation, because there is at least some water in both the boiling water demos and the 18-hour test.

            If the claim that all the water is converted to steam in the boiling water demos were true, then the heat transfer in that case would be less efficient, and therefore require a higher temperature. But the efficiency would only be reduced by a factor of 2 at most, because if it enters as pure water, and exits as pure steam, and has to be heated before boiling, the surface area of water will still average to more than half of the pure liquid case, and the steam can absorb some heat too (though less per unit area, to be sure).

            A factor of 5 is enough to rule out both 1500C (1400C difference) in the boiling water demos, and 130 kW in the 18-hour test, assuming it’s the same ecat in the two cases, which is evident from Levi’s interview with nyteknik. It is also enough to rule out 500C (400C difference) and 130 kW in the 18-hour test.

          • CM Edwards

            September 21, 2011 at 3:43 pm

            We’re told that the proposed Ni-H reaction is negligible at temperatures below 60 degrees celsius. So, given Lewan’s measurements of how much liquid water was drained from the reactor after his test, we can get a good estimate of the energy transferred from the electric heater to the liquid water. This requires no knowledge of the Ni-H reaction power output, because that reaction is not occuring at those temperatures.

            That electric heater is getting about 40% to 50% of its power into the water. Since a decent heater can do 70% to 90%, that does suggest that the electric heater is not simply stuck in the water tank. It’s probably doing exactly what we’ve been told its for: heating the core of the device.

          • popeye

            September 21, 2011 at 4:10 pm

            During the warm up phase, much of the input heat goes into heating up the 80 kg of thermal mass, so that when the power is turned off, the water can still get hot from the stored heat.

          • CM Edwards

            September 21, 2011 at 5:52 pm

            Indeed. The model I used expressly assumes that the Ni-H reaction adds 0.00 W of heat during the initial warmup, and that there is no difference between the real and fake scenarios at temperature less than 60 degrees celsius. Therefore, there is nothing in this result to prove that the “core” isn’t just a big inert thermal mass.

  11. Renzo Reply

    September 17, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    I want to let you know that Passerini has written among the comments in his blog some very big news, still “unofficial” but very big: 1) Passerini confirms that the USA customer is a very big entity of a kind that you don’t have any chance to scam 2) The customer’s engineers have already tested the E-Cat in Bologna with *POSITIVE* results, the test has been done before the last demo with Lewan. Rossi will be paid at the actual delivery of the plant in the USA. Howewer it is not clear if Passerini himself knows the identity of the customer or if he is only reporting what others told him. Sure there’s a lot going on behind the scenes.

    • admin Reply

      September 17, 2011 at 5:25 pm

      Thank you, Renzo…

      Paul

      • Renzo Reply

        September 17, 2011 at 7:08 pm

        I see a translation has been reported on the vortex list: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51425.html

        • LCD Reply

          September 18, 2011 at 5:13 am

          Its a pretty big claim. Easy to get overexcited. Best to wait for an official announcement from the customer before running and telling the whole world.

          Anynody have any leads on who it might be. Amd I question the “cannot be scamed” comment as anybody can be scammed. Maybe he should have just said that their credibility is of the highest level.

          Bit thats nitpicking I suppose.

        • Renzo Reply

          September 18, 2011 at 10:11 am

          I’ll wait the end of october before opening a champagne bottle but this last inside news make me really hope for the best. Once I get to know who is this big customer and once this big customer officialy confirms the positive tests then it will be time to celebrate.

          • LCD

            September 19, 2011 at 2:33 am

            Hard to argue with that

          • charles sistovaris

            September 19, 2011 at 2:12 pm

            “The Customer” sounds like a Kafka novel from the 80s.
            “The Customer”… it gives me the chills!

  12. maryyugo Reply

    September 17, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    I notice some comments occasionally are automatically marked “awaiting moderation”. It doesn’t seem to happen consistently so I don’t think I’m being singled out and others have mentioned it as well. Just now, I was writing a moderately long post and when I added a link, a message popped up that the post was being held for moderation. Just curious, Admin, if you know, what is that about?

  13. admin Reply

    September 17, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    There is an automatic moderation for two links or more.

    Paul

    • maryyugo Reply

      September 17, 2011 at 6:59 pm

      Thanks. I’ll keep it in mind.

  14. georgehants Reply

    September 17, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    maryyago,
    I have put a couple of comments on–
    http://pesn.com/2011/09/16/9501915_The_Ultimate_Ni-H_Cold_Fusion_E-Cat_Test/
    for you and your friends, please let me have your wise reply’s on that page.
    O dear I forgot you are banned from that site, O well reply here if you wish.

    • admin Reply

      September 17, 2011 at 8:54 pm

      George, Please refrain from baiting. If it gets no response, it reduces the tone for nothing and if it does, it escalates and derails the thread. I would say the same, no matter which side of the fence that came from. Thank you,

      Paul

      • georgehants Reply

        September 17, 2011 at 9:08 pm

        Paul, then I would ask that you keep to what you say, I have in the past felt like giving up as you know because if I put a comment on it is always replied from maryyago or others with abusive or dismissive rubbish.
        I never butt in to other strings but protect my own view on mine.
        When I gave your page a rest for a few days maryyago baited me back saying George can’t stand the heat.
        I am a rational optomist that believes in everybody having a fair say, but continual brainless abuse is why maryyago and others are banned from other sites.
        Please advise if you will warn me in future if I defend optimism against irrational skepticism because I will leave now.

        • georgehants Reply

          September 17, 2011 at 9:35 pm

          Paul I would appreciate the courtesy of an answer.

          • georgehants

            September 17, 2011 at 10:16 pm

            Paul’s reply by E-mail to me, I see no reason not to publish.

            It is often difficult to separate robust discussion from baiting. I try to err on the liberal side to encourage debate. I divorce my opinion of a person’s apparent character or quality of argument from my decision to let their voice stand.
            In this case, because you made
            no point except to link to somewhere else that you say the individual
            was banned from, the call was easy.
            I understand your frustration, my hand often hovers of the delete
            button. However, the call is mine and while I may not always be
            correct, I intend to make that call as I see it.

            My reply by E-mail
            Paul,
            Thank you for your rely I did not see it on the E-mail and have asked on page for a reply, please delete.
            I understand your problem as all websites have the same one, but your answer does not compute, I put in my page reply that I have been baited and goaded many times on your page by maryyago with no warning to him.
            Either warn maryyago to not reply to my comments with content less tripe simply to bait me or I am very content to watch the Rossi saga from the sidelines.
            If you think that encouraging irrational skepticism that has destroyed lives and careers in science so many times is a good thing, then it is your site, but I disagree and you are just one more cog in encouraging closed
            mindedness.
            maryyago will have achieved his goal.

            I will now leave this webpage, thank you to all the people rooting for Rossi, let us hope we are not disappointed.

        • admin Reply

          September 17, 2011 at 9:58 pm

          I did reply, George but have no idea what happened to it! That said; please do not assume that I will keep to the same timetable as you. I always try to be courteous but that does not mean doing nothing else in my life apart from sitting at the computer. I welcome your presence but a demand is unlikely to hasten anything.
          The gist of my answer was this:
          It can be a tough call separating robust discussion from baiting. I try to err on the liberal side and divorce my opinion of someone’s apparent character or quality of argument when trying to gauge that balance. In your comment, because your main point seemed to be to direct another person to a place they could not actually post, the call was easy. Don’t make a big deal of it. I will not always be right, but I will make the call as I see it at the time.
          Paul

          • georgehants

            September 17, 2011 at 10:20 pm

            Paul I do not know if you are replying to me by E-mail or on page but my answer is above.
            Thank you for your valuable time,

          • maryyugo

            September 17, 2011 at 10:31 pm

            Yes, that’s what George was trying to do! But actually, no worries… the ban is incompetent and actually anyone can change their name or post as a guest on peswiki.com. Unless they figure out another way or they moderate all posts ahead of time, there is no way to prevent someone from making a response to a peswiki.com post. The only thing they can exclude is a particular pseudonym.

            And just for the record, I was banned for being an unbeliever. Not for any sort of abuse. George is about as abusive as it gets and he can still post there.

            OK– enough about other forums. Sorry for the off topic material. Won’t happen again.

    • raul heining Reply

      September 18, 2011 at 11:44 am

      Do you post in that scam site? The guys there (Sterling Allan and Hank Mills) claim to write about alternative energy but mostly publish scams (steorn is back there) and go into politics, supporting people who do not believe in global warming and claiming to not invest in alternative ways of producing energy but keep using oil without limits.
      Regards
      raul

  15. Ben Reply

    September 17, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    Per the Italian publication Focus. September 22 may hold significance yet.

    E-Cat and cold fusion: the mysteries of NASA

    http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-e-fusione-fredda-i-misteri-della-nasa-201109131040_C12.aspx

    • georgehants Reply

      September 17, 2011 at 8:56 pm

      Ben, just shows how wonderfully open and honest the NASA people are, but certain people treat them like gods.
      Main-line science lies through its teeth, and needs completely sorting out, by honest people, (if there are any).

  16. Ben Reply

    September 17, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    An interesting article from Wired Magazine. I don’t believe it is recent but it is quite in depth and provides a good back story for current events.

    What if Cold Fusion is Real?

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion_pr.html

    • Renzo Reply

      September 17, 2011 at 10:07 pm

      Interesting, it seems the conclusion is about to become reality thanks to Rossi: “There’s one obvious way to do an end run around this barrier: Manufacture a marketable product. If a maverick such as Les Case or a start-up such as CETI could put a cold fusion water heater in every home in America, then the phenomenon would be undeniable”

      • Ben Reply

        September 17, 2011 at 11:10 pm

        Even at over 10,000 words, that fact is what jumped of the screen at me from the article Renzo. The article is is older than I thought, from 1998, but even then it was recognized that ultimately commercialization was the most viable way for the technology to come out of the shadows. Whether it be Rossi or someone else, this is the most practical approach given the obstacles.

        The other part of the article that struck was me, and not in a good way, was the following:

        “If they don’t pan out, and the current situation persists, we may be left with the grim scenario described half a century ago by the famous physicist Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

        Rossi’s frequent assertion that he is not trying to convince his opponents (or skeptics or cynics) seems very prudent.

        • LCD Reply

          September 18, 2011 at 3:44 am

          I believe ive seen that article. Did you see the 60 minutes cold fusion piece several years back. Youll enjoy that one.

        • LCD Reply

          September 18, 2011 at 4:48 am

          The part about the opposition eventually dying, thats just sad. It shows the staying power of pigheadedness; drawing a line in the sand and saying “that is impossible” yet fully being aware that we dont know everything.

          If the ecat is real then weve just experienced that in the worst possible way.

          Regardless its always good to remember to not be too quick to draw lines in the sand lest you want to also fight your pride in seeking truth.

        • popeye Reply

          September 18, 2011 at 7:30 am

          > The article is is older than I thought, from 1998,

          Right, and there is not a lick of progress in more than a decade since.

          > “If they don’t pan out, and the current situation persists, we may be left with the grim scenario described half a century ago by the famous physicist Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

          Except that the believers working on it are mostly from the old guard. The new generation is almost completely unfamiliar with it. So, it’s more likely that the believers will die out, as happened with n-rays and the planet vulcan.

          Still, it’s an odd quote from the man who ushered in modern physics, which was in fact accepted rather quickly, and certainly within his lifetime, and those of all the contributors.

          • Ben

            September 18, 2011 at 3:44 pm

            “Right, and there is not a lick of progress in more than a decade since.”

            Again, you state your opinion as fact. It may be on the brink of commercialization….or haven’t you heard?

            “The new generation is almost completely unfamiliar with it.”

            Is that a fact?

            “Still, it’s an odd quote from the man who ushered in modern physics, which was in fact accepted rather quickly, and certainly within his lifetime, and those of all the contributors.”

            Well, hopefully, one of the founders of your religion was in fact wrong. I certainly hope so. I would hate to see all of you die before you could witness it with your own eyes. I think that would be almost as unjust as if he were right.

          • popeye

            September 18, 2011 at 4:07 pm

            popeye> “Right, and there is not a lick of progress in more than a decade since.”

            Ben> Again, you state your opinion as fact.

            It’s not opinion, it’s a perception, and it’s stated as a perception.

            You know, like when you stated without evidence that the acceptance of cold fusion is growing.

            The reason you couldn’t tell how old the article is, is because nothing ever changes in the field.

            > It may be on the brink of commercialization….or haven’t you heard?

            How is that a change. Cold fusion is always on the brink of commercialization. In the 90s, Mallove and co-author predicted cold fusion cars by 2000. I’m still pouring gas into mine.

            When it’s actually commercialized, then you can talk about progress.

            >> “The new generation is almost completely unfamiliar with it.”

            > Is that a fact?

            It’s my perception, and if you have some evidence to contradict it, don’t hold back. But you’ve already agreed with the perception when you said the acceptance of cold fusion is small.

  17. Dale G. Basgall Reply

    September 17, 2011 at 11:24 pm

    Even a nice air cooled space heater made of an array of trasistor sized fusion reactors that operate off your USB from your laptop. Self powering the laptop and providing heat for whatever and the PC managing the miniature fusion reacors.

  18. Ben Reply

    September 18, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    I stumbled upon the article below. I think it speaks to the limitations of mainstream science.

    Gamers solve molecular puzzle that baffled scientists

    http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/16/7802623-gamers-solve-molecular-puzzle-that-baffled-scientists

    If there are any game programmers out there, here may be your chance to solve the mysteries of LENR. I think there are enough theories and understanding about it to provide the basis for a game. If that information was widely disseminated to the public by means of a game, I think the mystery that surrounds it would be solved fairly quickly.

    “Would you like to play a game?” (from the 1983 Movie War Games)

    • maryyugo Reply

      September 18, 2011 at 6:51 pm

      “I think there are enough theories and understanding about it to provide the basis for a game. ”

      There are tons of theories but there is little real understanding. The field needs a convincing demonstration of either robust and reproducible production of neutrons, generation of lots of helium, making isotopes that can be easily detected or, of course, the production of large amounts of energy like those claimed but unproven by Rossi. Until that’s done, the public won’t care.

    • popeye Reply

      September 18, 2011 at 7:16 pm

      Ben> I stumbled upon the article below. I think it speaks to the limitations of mainstream science.

      It also speaks to its strengths. It talks about an article written by a mainstream scientist, published in a mainstream science journal about a computer game developed by mainstream scientists in a mainstream university to tap the cleverness and abundance of computer gamers. The game is like a computer simulation that looks for low energy configurations of protein molecules, but takes advantage of human cleverness that has not found its way into ai yet.

      I don’t see an obvious extension of this to LENR, but if there is one, it would involve the lenr researchers designing a game in which gamers find a way to explain a lot of conflicting results. It’s a long shot.

  19. Ben Reply

    September 18, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    Another interesting article from Wired on cold fusion. I really hadn’t realized that Wired had written even this much about this topic. Learn something new everyday. This one is from 2009.

    Navy Scientists Zip Lips on Cold Fusion Tests

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/03/navy-scientists/

  20. Ben Reply

    September 18, 2011 at 11:17 pm

  21. LCD Reply

    September 19, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    Acs question
    ” Do you think future generations of e-cat will be able to run always in self sustained mode or do you think they will always need input energy from time to time?”
    Ars response”will need drive time to time”

    Is pretty intetesting, suggests a more complex alleged electrical/chemical/ nuclear energy transfer mechanism than I first thought where the thermal feedback is somehow not as direct as one would think.

    Its also interesting that Piantelli uses no dehydrogenizer allegedly while according to focardi that is what the catalyst does for Rossi.

  22. Ben Reply

    September 19, 2011 at 9:36 pm

    I have a question for someone familiar with current nuclear power (fission). How long does it take to both start and stop a typical reactor? How is the reaction stabilized once started? What is the power output of a typical nuclear reactor?

    • popeye Reply

      September 19, 2011 at 10:49 pm

      1. Seconds, by removing or inserting control rods
      2. Control rods (absorb neutrons)
      3. GW ballpark

      Warm regards,
      Popeye

      • Ben Reply

        September 19, 2011 at 11:52 pm

        Where did you learn all that, in the Navy or the Wikipedia?

        • popeye Reply

          September 20, 2011 at 1:40 am

          I just ate a can of spinach, and it came to me.

          • Ben

            September 20, 2011 at 2:44 am

            No, what came to you was probably just gas. Gotta watch those leafy greens Might want to try some homeopathy for that. It’ll fix ya right up.

          • maryyugo

            September 20, 2011 at 6:11 pm

            Not sure why this topic matters here but “On a SCRAM for a reactor that held a constant power for a long period of time (greater than 100 hrs), about 7% of the steady-state power will initially remain after shutdown due to the decay of these fission products. For a reactor that has not had a constant power history, the exact percentage will be determined by the concentrations and half-lives of the individual fission products in the core at the time of the SCRAM. The power produced by decay heat decreases as the fission products decay.”

            And 7% of the power of a gigawatt reactor can be quite a “nuisance”.

            Just from Wikipedia

          • popeye

            September 20, 2011 at 7:03 pm

            > And 7% of the power of a gigawatt reactor can be quite a “nuisance”.

            As demonstrated at Fukushima.

    • LCD Reply

      September 20, 2011 at 5:22 am

      Although the reaction itself can start in fractions of a second the control rods have fine position control so in general it takes more than a few minutes to turn the reaction fully on and fully off.

      • Ben Reply

        September 20, 2011 at 5:21 pm

        According to my research, reactors are not shut down in “seconds” unless there is a SCRAM (emergency shut down) due to a power outrage or like event. If the reaction is shut down in this manner, rarely is the reactor immediately restarted. There are usually inspections and/or certifications required to make sure no damage was incurred in the process before the reactor can be restarted. Even in a SCRAM shut-down, the reactor sometimes down not fully shut down for a couple of minutes.

  23. Ben Reply

    September 20, 2011 at 4:23 am

    A very interesting article that explores analogies regarding quantum mechanics in a classic video game.

    Quantum Mechanics and Tomb Raider

    http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/quantum-mechanics-and-tomb-raider/

  24. Brad Arnold Reply

    September 20, 2011 at 9:18 am

    According to Andrea Rossi’s patient WO2009/125444 A1 one gram of nickel produce the same energy like 517 tons of oil. That means a gram of nickel yields over 5 billion calories, or is over 30,000 times as energy dense as oil or coal.

    • Anapopei Reply

      September 20, 2011 at 2:22 pm

      “tons” is a spelling error, it should be “kilograms”.

      • John Dlouhy Reply

        September 20, 2011 at 4:02 pm

        “patient” instead of “patent” is an example of a spelling error, “tons” instead of “kilograms” is an outright mistake, by 3 orders of magnitude. In addition to several other mistakes (eg. calling the XRF spectrums electron mircroscope diagrams) and a questionably simplistic drawing, there are grammatical errors too numerous to recount. I don’t mean to imply that someone can’t be brilliant and have difficulty with a second language. Rather, what I find difficult to reconcile is that Rossi claims he has very good patent attorneys working for him, and yet they obviously let him submit this document, ostensibly so very important, without it even being proofread by any of the lawyers, or the secretary, or anyone who speaks English as a first language for that matter.

      • Anapopei Reply

        September 20, 2011 at 4:32 pm

        In fact even a mediocre patent attorney knows and informs the client that you can’t patent an invention if you don’t disclose it. So Rossi didn’t file this application to get a patent but for some other reason.

        • Ben Reply

          September 20, 2011 at 5:15 pm

          Perhaps he just filed the patent to establish priority. I’m not sure how the system works but I think even if your patent is rejected, the fact that a filing was attempted establishes the priority of your claim.

          • Anapopei

            September 20, 2011 at 9:15 pm

            I would say that the concept priority doesn’t have any useful meaning outside the patent system. We should also have in mind that an invention described in a rejected or abandoned patent application falls into the public domain.

            Rossi probably filed for patent just to have something more hands-on to present and make deals with. Patent applications also have a value as marketing material, which is appearent in this case given the attention that the applications have attracted.

            Considering that cold fusion patents are rarely granted in the US and in Europe, it was probably a wise thing not to make serious attempt to get patent. I know that Rossi at some point has said in a comment at JoNS that he has new, not yet public, patent application for the catalyst.

          • John Dlouhy

            September 21, 2011 at 3:55 am

            For business transactions, I would think that an application this poorly done would be of dubious value. As for priority filing, it was only just established in the recently passed America Invents Act, which Rossi’s application predates by many months.

            If I learned anything from maryyugo, its not to view the world through “Rossi” colored glasses. I won’t let myself get mired in Rossi apologetics. This patent looks bad and is. The increasing contradictions Rossi has made lately are straining his credibility and the recent videos were underwhelming. Maybe someday we’ll see a reason for this and maybe not. Meanwhile 5 more weeks is not that long to wait, and the speculation has been fun…

          • Anapopei

            September 21, 2011 at 3:40 pm

            Agree. The patent application is and looks bad. Mircosoft, just to take one example, also files patent applications that they can’t reasonably expect to be granted but causes commotion for a while. That’s how thing are done these days. Mircosoft’s are more properly drafted than Ross’s though. I’ll give them that.

  25. Renzo Reply

    September 20, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    Lewan has been interviewed by an italian radio, he speaks italian very well. Nothing new but he said Rossi told him the container has been shipped to the USA

    • LCD Reply

      September 20, 2011 at 1:35 pm

      Did he give a tracking number?

      • Renzo Reply

        September 20, 2011 at 1:50 pm

        I don’t think so but you could try to ask Lewan at Nyteknyk

        • LCD Reply

          September 20, 2011 at 2:14 pm

          lol, that’s good

    • Ben Reply

      September 20, 2011 at 2:50 pm

      I understand that NASA has a couple of unused 747s sitting around with nothing to do since the end of the space shuttle program. Just saying.

      Of course FedEx does make sense for all items that are “a little less precious” then your golf clubs….like the prototype for a cold fusion device.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jv8AuySbq4&feature=player_embedded

  26. LCD Reply

    September 20, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    Whomever has not see this set of three videos, they are quite informative and well done.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhKhGe6ztuc&feature=related

    • maryyugo Reply

      September 20, 2011 at 6:06 pm

      Yes, one way or another these will be fun to review in two or three months.

  27. Ben Reply

    September 20, 2011 at 7:13 pm

    • maryyugo Reply

      September 20, 2011 at 11:44 pm

      I don’t understand why he relies on temperature measurements to estimate excess heat. It should be done with calorimetry. And if I read it right, he hasn’t been able to prove that his reaction really makes helium. So this is very premature to report on.

      Edit to add from the Vortex list:

      “NEWFIELDS, [N.H.] – Leslie C. Case, 79, died Thursday, July 15, 2010,
      at his home in Newfields. He was born Sept. 11, 1930, in Tulsa, Okla.,
      the son of Leslie and Julia (Catron) Case. Mr. Case received his
      doctorate of science degree from the Massachusetts Institute of
      Technology. Private services were provided by the Kent & Pelczar
      Funeral Home, Newmarket.”

      So unfortunately, there won’t be anything more from Dr. Case. Hope someone else figures out what he did and tries to repeat it.

      • Ben Reply

        September 21, 2011 at 12:20 am

        “Hope someone else figures out what he did and tries to repeat it.”

        Yes, I hope someone learns how to use a catalyst in a cold fusion reactor. What are the chances you reckon?

        • maryyugo Reply

          September 21, 2011 at 12:32 am

          There’s no theory whatever to support that it’s possible. Case did not produce good data, if the cited report is an example. He’d probably be the first to admit it. There’s nobody who’s actually done it as proven by properly replicated and well done experiments. All you’re relying on is “Rossi says” and Rossi, at the very least, is extremely goofy. So I don’t think the chances are very good, actually.

  28. Ben Reply

    September 20, 2011 at 8:24 pm

    Excellent article on Cold Fusion Now

    World Wide Lab.

    http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/world-wide-lab/

    • popeye Reply

      September 20, 2011 at 9:36 pm

      You call that pretentious gibberish excellent?

      It starts with a statement that only a fringe group of believers would agree with (“a few determined researchers have sustained a global effort of investigation and confirmed the generation of excess-heat energy in thousands of experiments with many types of systems”), and goes steeply downhill from there.

      Improved communication, normally credited with accelerating the pace of science and discovery, is somehow the culprit in keeping cold fusion from its just deserts. Funny how progress in other fields has not been bothered by it.

      Here’s an example of the bombastic bogosity and grandiloquence that infect this turgid prose (heh, much like this sentence, written with considerable help from a thesaurus):

      “A mind boggling Internet network now shrunken down into a palm-sized appendage that fits in your hand, what Bob Neveritt defined as the Chip Body, has subsumed the Android Meme, providing open interactivity by humans and robots that has at once obfuscated definition and fact, and elucidated the software aggregates to “macroscopic gesticulation”.”

      When you see writing like that, you know he doesn’t have a point.

      • Ben Reply

        September 20, 2011 at 10:55 pm

        You alright pops? You seem a little tense.

  29. LCD Reply

    September 21, 2011 at 2:27 am

    I think we’re effectively in another ecat “lull”, natives are getting restless.

  30. Dutchie Reply

    September 21, 2011 at 3:41 am

    Interesting comment in JONF about the upcoming test. I hope this test is acceptable to the nay-Sayers:

    Andrea Rossi
    September 20th, 2011 at 7:52 PM
    Dear Enrico Billi:
    The Swedish test will be very important, bacause we will make the primary circuit of steam produced by the reactor exchange heat with a secondary water circuit, while the steam will be condensed and the condensed water will be recycled to the reactor. The measure of energy will be made on the base of the delta T between the water that exits from the heat exchanger and the water that enters in the same heat exchanger, so that the energy is calculated indipendently from the steam circuit. Of course the heat exchanger heats the water in countercurrent with the steam. The delta T will be datalogged and the water flow will be measured by means of a flowmeter. We are already making this test on the modules of the 1 MW plant, and the results are the same as before. This system is ready for household application, because this is, basically, a water boiler.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    (No lidele, lavolale, lavolale!)

    • John Dlouhy Reply

      September 21, 2011 at 4:15 am

      Whether this test is acceptable still depends on how well the input power is measured, on the duration of the test being long enough, and most importantly, on who oversees it and how their results are reported. There are in fact a chain of requirements to establish validity and proper calorimetry is just one link in that chain.

      • maryyugo Reply

        September 21, 2011 at 8:05 am

        Agreed. This should be OK but it’s unnecessarily complicated. However if the conditions set out by John are met, it should be fine. Calibration and “control” runs (hydrogen vs no hydrogen) are things the experiments must insist upon and absolutely, as John says, run long enough.

    • Ben Reply

      September 21, 2011 at 5:52 am

      Here is the true test for non-believers, from the 60 minutes segment “Cold Fusion is Hot Again.”

      “I require that you be able to make one of these things, replicate it, put it here, it heats up the cup of tea, I drink the tea, then you make me another cup of tea and I’ll drink that too.”

      “For you to be a believe, it has to work 100% of the time?”

      “Ah, pretty much.”

      Richard Garwin
      Physicist

      • maryyugo Reply

        September 21, 2011 at 8:06 am

        I don’t think anything has to work 100% of the time. But it has to work a reasonable portion of the time when tested entirely independent of Rossi and with a clear method that can’t be spoofed.

        • Ransompw Reply

          September 21, 2011 at 2:03 pm

          It depends on what you are trying to prove. A commercial product needs to be very reliable and work almost 100% of the time. A proof for “Cold fusion” LENR needs to work only once in an unequivical way, (ie. no doubt some nuclear process is occuring) for science to take it seriously and investigate it carefully. That doesn’t mean it has been proved after one unequivical test but it certainly does mean it can not be ignored and discarded. Even a questionable test given the significance of the finding should be taken very seriously, science has failed in the case of cold fusion for reasons only history will document. Rossi’s Ecat won’t need to be a commercial product to be successful if it meets the unequivical one time proof to open eyes. Anything more is just an added benefit.

          • popeye

            September 21, 2011 at 4:25 pm

            ransompw> A proof for “Cold fusion” LENR needs to work only once in an unequivical way, (ie. no doubt some nuclear process is occuring) for science to take it seriously and investigate it carefully. That doesn’t mean it has been proved after one unequivical test but it certainly does mean it can not be ignored and discarded.

            If by “unequivocal” you mean the same thing as everyone else does, then yes, it would constitute proof, although I agree, completely unequivocal may not be possible. Even a demonstration of heavier-than-air flight could be faked with cables or something, or maybe mass hypnosis. But, like flight, I think one could get pretty close to unequivocal with cold fusion, if it were real.

            ransompw> Even a questionable test given the significance of the finding should be taken very seriously, science has failed in the case of cold fusion for reasons only history will document.

            Shouldn’t this be a conditional statement? As it is, only a small fringe group that already accepts cold fusion phenomena would agree. You could as well say that science has failed in the case of perpetual motion or in the case of mental telepathy.

            ransompw> Rossi’s Ecat won’t need to be a commercial product to be successful if it meets the unequivical one time proof to open eyes. Anything more is just an added benefit.

            I agree, if Rossi proves cold fusion is real, that would be a major success.

            (By the way, just a quibble, but don’t lawyers have spell-checkers? “Unequivocal” must be a pretty common word in your business. Or is there an alternative spelling I’m not aware of? It’s not just a typo, since it appears 3 times. )

          • Ransompw

            September 21, 2011 at 4:40 pm

            I don’t use spell checkers. Obviously I should, but often just don’t bother. Your spelling is correct and mine was wrong, sorry.

            With “Cold Fusion”, based on my reading of the events of 1989 and my recollection (I am that old), I think there was a rush to judgment. Just because it is difficult or even impossible to reproduce doesn’t mean it wasn’t real, it may just be hard or the environment may just need to be exceptionally precise. Obviously, if Cold Fusion turns out to be real, the events will be carefully reviewed by history and may form the basis of what not to do in the future. Even if it doesn’t verify I still think in this case there was a rush to judgment and that should not occur in science. Skepticism is one thing, that should always exist but science needs to keep an open mind and really should not attempt to prove the negative (ie. something is impossible).

          • popeye

            September 21, 2011 at 5:02 pm

            > With “Cold Fusion”, based on my reading of the events of 1989 and my recollection (I am that old), I think there was a rush to judgment.

            I’m that old too, and I disagree. At the time, I was carried away and was quite caught up in the excitement of it all, and like almost everyone else at the time, really hoped they were on to something. People around the world suspended their disbelief, and put their research on hold, while they did experiments to try to verify the claims. Revolutions like this are pretty rare, and when they appear, there is ordinarily a lot of low-hanging fruit, and people wanted to be part of it. Look at the number of physicists with household names from the heady period when modern physics was born.

            Few discoveries are given the kind of attention that cold fusion got. This was not a rush to judgement, but rather it got more chance than it deserved, largely because the two scientists had good reputations, and scientists tend to be cautious about ruling discoveries out, given the many historical cases where scientists have been wrong. It all came crashing down soon after, when the experiments were carefully done by competent people. Nothing Rossi has done so far changes this picture.

          • Ransompw

            September 21, 2011 at 5:32 pm

            I think it is the “soon after” that proves my point. I agree there was great interest in the subject and lots of people tried to reproduce the findings to no avail. The problem was the conclusion drawn from these early attempts. Instead of well I can’t reproduce the results why not, which I think is the correct conclusion requiring then more attention, it was I can’t reproduce the results so of course it is bogus or fraud or bad science. That’s the rush to judgment I’m talking about, the conclusion drawn by the failure to reproduce. I think that is was the wrong conclusion. The conclusion drawn was these failures to reproduce proved the negative, ie Cold Fusion is impossible.

          • popeye

            September 21, 2011 at 6:12 pm

            > I agree there was great interest in the subject and lots of people tried to reproduce the findings to no avail. The problem was the conclusion drawn from these early attempts.[...] it was I can’t reproduce the results so of course it is bogus or fraud or bad science. That’s the rush to judgment I’m talking about,

            It was not simply failure to reproduce. It was (1) failure to reproduce, (2) closer examination of the claims, which did not stand up as credible evidence (including some blatant errors), and (3) the fact that the claimed results were revolutionary in their implications for established scientific generalizations already accumulated and verified.

            If the claims had been consistent with expectations, but difficult to achieve, people would not have given up. But they were a priori considered highly unlikely, and flaky evidence, and difficulty in reproducing just reinforced that judgement.

            Scientists don’t like to be left out of a revolution, and they couldn’t have really thought that the truth wouldn’t come out soon enough if CF were real. To denounce something, only to see it vindicated is a great fear among scientists. They would not have dismissed it if they thought it had a significant chance of being right.

            > The conclusion drawn was these failures to reproduce proved the negative, ie Cold Fusion is impossible.

            No. Just unlikely. Very unlikely. And as argued above, not just because of failure to reproduce.

  31. popeye Reply

    September 21, 2011 at 10:19 am

    I, for one, don’t think a demonstration of cold fusion needs to be particularly reproducible, or have careful controls in place, or even be tested by independent investigators.

    These sorts of standards are obviously important in science, and have developed over time to ensure credibility for phenomena that are often difficult to observe, especially where the observations are indirect, and involve subsequent data reduction.

    They might conceivably be important for very weak demonstrations of proof-of-principle of cold fusion, and in that case they are completely absent.

    But the claims of cold fusion, and especially Rossi’s claims, are not like that. They are claiming a new energy source that can replace fossil fuels. When primitive man discovered fire, he didn’t have to publish in Nature to get respect. He just had to invite a few friends over to relax in his firewood-heated hot tub, after a long day of clubbing mastodons.

    Power at the level of kW is completely obvious, and energy density a million times higher than chemical, if real, would be difficult to hide, and could not, under any reasonable circumstances, result in scientific disagreement. The situation with Rossi is really preposterous.

    Rossi’s claim is like a claim of heavier-than-air flight, in that a single good demonstration, like the Wrights’ 1908 demonstration in Paris, is so completely convincing, that questions of reproducibility, controls, and independent verification are entirely irrelevant.

    It’s true of course, that the Wrights were flying for years before 1908, and were not taken seriously by everyone, but they were deliberately secretive, and even then there are much earlier credible reports.

    But Rossi is claiming commercial-ready devices. His claims are already beyond what the Wrights demonstrated in 1908, except there is no demonstration.

    So what would constitute a 1908 demonstration of cold fusion?

    (1) In my opinion, it would have to be self-powered. To my mind, there is no excuse for requiring significant external power in a device that is supposed to be able to produce power at a sufficiently consistent and safe level to be marketable. And, self-power would make it so much easier to exclude deception of one kind or another.

    (2) It should actually heat something up, rather than send all the produced heat down the drain. So, use the ecat to heat a big tub of water, a thousand liters or so. If it did this in a matter of hours, we would know there are kW of power being produced.

    (3) It should repeat (2) enough times to rule out chemical energy sources. Depending on the size of the device, this might take a few days or weeks.

  32. raul heining Reply

    September 21, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    “This should be OK but it’s unnecessarily complicated.”
    Why is so complicated? I don’ t see the complication. The MW plant looks more difficult to controle.
    Regards
    raul

  33. Ben Reply

    September 21, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    There was some discussion the other day about http://www.e-cat.com pointing to an Exxon site. It now redirects to a green technologies company that Al Gore is involved with. Here is the first line from the first paragraph on the site.

    Greentech

    Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers are actively investing in Greentech innovation and entrepreneurs.

    Hmmm……….

    • Ben Reply

      September 21, 2011 at 1:53 pm

      Also of interest, the site http://ecat.com/ redirects to a countdown clock that is currently on 9 days and counting down to web site launch.

      I don’t know if either site, e-cat.com or ecat.com, has anything to do with Rossi but this is, at the very least, an odd coincidence.

    • Renzo Reply

      September 21, 2011 at 2:48 pm

      Well, now I think that e-cat.com is a little redirect prank pulled by someone

    • Ben Reply

      September 21, 2011 at 4:24 pm

      Here is another oddity about the http://www.e-cat.com site. Here is a snippet of the registration data. Under “last updated” it gives the date as 22-Aug-11….which is tomorrow.

      Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
      Domain Name: E-CAT.COM
      Created on: 12-Feb-04
      Expires on: 12-Feb-21
      Last Updated on: 22-Aug-11

      http://who.godaddy.com/whois.aspx?domain=e-cat.com&prog_id=GoDaddy

  34. Dutchie Reply

    September 21, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    Tomorrow is SEPTEMBER 22….

Leave a Reply

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

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