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

Nobel Physicist To Test eCat

September 26, 2011

UPDATE
There is some confusion regarding Professor Josephson’s acceptance of the offer to test. He and others have been invited but confirmation (either way) of his response is not solid. AR seems to do so here (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=13#comment-81345 ) but the word ‘confirm’ is open to interpretation. Please read the following with that in mind…

Nobel physicist Brian Josephson will be given access to the eCat in order to perform a test lasting at least 12 hours, according to an entry on Daniele Passerini’s blog, 22passi. Once again, although a successful run will not satisfy some critics, it is yet another example of Rossi confounding the expectations of those predicting evasive behaviour. Professor Josephson will inspect, measure and weigh the internal volume and its components as he wishes and will perform measurements on the work done to a secondary circuit (after picking up energy via a heat exchanger). While an inefficient method (and to some, unnecessarily complex) the rated gain of 6:1 should give an adequate margin to fit the purpose. Such a quibble is of no consequence. Perhaps AR simply wants to operate the device as it is designed to be used – ie to generate steam – and this is a sound compromise that should kill any argument about phase transitions. Indeed it should. It is difficult to see what he would gain from taking such a risk if the device does not perform as he says.

Already, the usual voices are complaining that such a set up lends itself to gaming by AR while casting doubt on Professor Josephson’s credibility. It is true that a rejigged run similar to the 18 hour warm-water test performed by Professor Levi would have been preferred but there is much to commend in this latest development should it prove successful. The idea (as some commenters are saying) that the extra bulk and complexity will allow Rossi to cheat by hiding ‘something’ in its guts smacks of denial. The competence or honesty of the men involved will be attacked despite the fact that Rossi is doing exactly what many critics say scammers never do. In my eyes, Professor Josephson has far more credibility than any anonymous group of posters on the Net.

Yet again, an independent scientist is given access to everything but the core and while the test may not constitute absolute proof, any success will surely drive another nail in the credibility of the picture painted by the scam theorists.

Brian Josephson:

On October 6 we will have the opportunity to make a long (more then 12 hours) test of one of the modules of the Rossi 1 MW generator. The module will be opened to us and we will have the opportunity to verify volumes and weights of the internal components.
Heat measurements will be done condensing all the steam produced in heat exchanger and a secondary circuit where no water will be vaporised.
This is NOT an official test of the University of Bologna because the contract is not active yet.

And from Andrea Rossi:

The measurement of energy will not therefore be made on the steam, to avoid all the issues concerning  the quality of the steam, but the measurements of energy will be made on the delta T of the water of the secondary circuit heated by the steam! This way, the amount of energy produced will be calculated  in an undisputable way. The steam runs in a primary circuit, which is a closed loop, where  the steam is condensed after exchanging  heat with the water of the secondary circuit, which will  never evaporate. Therefore, the energy is calculated on the base of the delta T of the heated water and its flow rate, indipendently from the temperature of the steam, that does not enter in the energy calculation parameters.

Andrea Rossi

Dr Rossi’s promise that October will bring lots of fresh information looks set to be true.

Posted by on September 26, 2011. Filed under Bologna,Hands-On,Media & Blogs,Rossi,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

208 Responses to Nobel Physicist To Test eCat

  1. Haldor

    September 26, 2011 at 8:38 am

    Please note that Brian Josephson is doing this test NOT alone.
    At least he is teaming up with Prof. Judith Driscoll, and probably with more people from the university of Cambridge.

    So discrediting the whole team because of what is said about/said by Josephson will be an NON-argument.

    • Peter Roe

      September 26, 2011 at 9:30 am

      Perhaps the ‘skeptics’ would be satisfied if James Randi conducted the tests!

      • Roger Barker

        September 26, 2011 at 10:09 am

        Actually that would be bloody good idea.

      • Daniel de França MTd2

        September 26, 2011 at 1:54 pm

        James Randi is sick now, but I not sure to what extant.

      • Ben

        September 26, 2011 at 3:08 pm

        James “The Amazing” Randi said some months ago that he thought this was atypical for a scam, although stopped short of saying it was not one. Even if Mr. Randi gave a thumbs up for the e-Cat, I have the feeling some of his “believers” would say something to the effect “well, he was pretty sharp in his younger days and did some good things but now he is old and in ill-health so he really can’t be believed.” The bottom line is that some critics have already made up their mind about this and it is doubtful that any amount of evidence is going to convince them otherwise…not an “easy test” that could be done by a skilled blogger, not the work of a Nobel winner and not even the word of their own guru.

        • Anapopei

          September 26, 2011 at 3:52 pm

          Interesting. Do you have a reference?

          • Ben

            September 26, 2011 at 4:44 pm

          • Anapopei

            September 26, 2011 at 6:00 pm

            Thanks, but that article was from 2006 so, unexpectedly, it didn’t cover Randi’s thoughts about Rossi.

          • Ben

            September 26, 2011 at 7:09 pm

            My apologies. I made two errors on that one. Firstly I posted the wrong link. The one I posted was interesting but not the one I intended. In double-checking the link this time, the comments were from the James Randi forum, not from Mr. Randi himself.

            “I’m guessing it’s an investment scam, as these things usually are. But he’s claimed an unusually tight timetable, which usually makes it hard to make much money on this kind of thing.”

            http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=198040

            It is the first comment on the page.

          • Ben

            September 26, 2011 at 7:16 pm

            Also of interest, I believe Rossi may be in line for a million dollars from the JREF if he can “prove” his claims….whatever “prove” means. According to the link below, J. Randi did reportedly make the following statement to Jed Rothwell regarding cold fusion.

            “Let’s leave it here: the million-dollar prize of the James Randi Educational Foundation is available for the operation of a practical working version of the “cold fusion” claim.”

            If Mr. Randi’s offer is still on the table, he may have to pony up soon.

            Here is the link to the above statement. A link to the original comment by Mr. Rothwell would be appreciated if someone can find it.

            http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html

          • Anapopei

            September 26, 2011 at 8:17 pm

            Thank you for the effort. Regardless of where one stand with respect to Rossi’s claims, it seems peculiar to place cold fusion among the supernatural claims. Now let’s wait for October and see what comes out.

        • popeye

          September 26, 2011 at 8:35 pm

          Ben> “Even if Mr. Randi gave a thumbs up for the e-Cat, I have the feeling some of his “believers” would say something to the effect “well, he was pretty sharp in his younger days and did some good things but now he is old and in ill-health so he really can’t be believed.” ”

          I don’t think anything he could say would change skeptics’ opinion that evidence for nuclear effects in an ecat are absent. If he were present at a demo, with some good scientific advice, I’m guessing the blunders made so far would not be made.

          > “The bottom line is that some critics have already made up their mind about this and it is doubtful that any amount of evidence is going to convince them otherwise”

          This seems to be a common thought among believers, but it is profoundly wrong. There are many examples where skeptics were forced to admit they were wrong. Does anyone still believe heavier-than-air flight is impossible?

          The ecat would not be much more difficult to prove than flight, if it worked. Surely, a small self-contained device obviously isolated, on a transparent stage, that continued to generate heat for weeks on end, would bring skeptics around. Surely, when Exxon goes out of business, and we can buy cars that never need refuelling because they have nickel and hydrogen in them, skeptics will humbly admit they were wrong.

          • David

            October 9, 2011 at 4:42 am

            “Science advances one funeral at a time.” – Max Planck.
            Some people would rather die than admit that they were wrong.

  2. Anapopei

    September 26, 2011 at 8:51 am

    Under the present circumstances, I think that the most convincing test would be done by technical consultants on behalf of the “famous” customer (if such a customer exist). If the test is affirmative but wrong, they can expected to be vigorously sued by the customer.

  3. georgehants

    September 26, 2011 at 9:01 am

    With the 1mw opening coming in the next few weeks this test is obviously scientifically pointless, Rossi is clearly saying F— Main-Line science and Journals let one of the few truly open-minded scientists who look at Evidence and not Dogma to asses the evidence for phenomenon in this World, do a test of the E-CAT.
    As Brian Josephson would not, except the invitation unless he where 100% sure that it worked in the first place, we can take it that Rossi’s E-CAT is legit.

    • Peter Roe

      September 26, 2011 at 9:41 am

      George – I don’t think the proposed test is pointless at all, especially to us long term watchers who desperately hope it is real, but still harbour doubts because of the poor quality of previous tests. If the test is positive, while the pathological skeptics continue to carp, the rest of us will be delighted.

      The 1MW unit is complex and will contain the mysterious ‘complementary’ heater that Rossi says is yet another version of the e-cat. Even if the ‘customer’ allows test results to be published (and reading between the lines this seems in some doubt), because of the complexity of the setup there are just too many ways in which a positive result could still be disputed. A clean, conclusive test of a single module would be a major step forward, even if the scientific community and mainstream media continue to ignore this story.

      • georgehants

        September 26, 2011 at 10:10 am

        Peter,
        From a scientific proof point of view I agree, but this whole saga is about Rossi, he has from the beginning consistently said, I don’t care about science, journals, media or skeptics, the customers will decide.
        This of course is very difficult for a scientist to understand, but perfectly rational when looked at from the history of sciences attitudes in the past and present.
        One must see it from his view, he is taking the piss out of science by allowing Brian Josephson to do this test that as I said is pointless so close to the 1mw demonstration.
        He is saying be fairly open-minded like Brian, not closed-minded like many.
        All Brian Josephson’s statements are based on fact and expert opinion and not DOGMA and should be listened to with serious consideration, and treated with the respect they deserve from such a great scientist.

        • popeye

          September 26, 2011 at 8:37 pm

          hants> “All Brian Josephson’s statements are based on fact and expert opinion and not DOGMA”

          His statements on the ecat, homeopathy, and telepathy, are not based on evidence.

          > “and should be listened to with serious consideration, and treated with the respect they deserve from such a great scientist.”

          He made great contributions as a graduate student, and has been recognized for them. As an independent researcher, his contributions are less impressive.

      • Roger Barker

        September 26, 2011 at 9:51 pm

        Peter Roe> The 1MW unit is complex and will contain the mysterious ‘complementary’ heater that Rossi says is yet another version of the e-cat.

        This new “complementary” heater reeks of some dodgy work on the part of Rossi. Why does he need to introduce this now?

        • Peter Roe

          September 27, 2011 at 8:24 pm

          Yes I agree that this is an unhelpful development. If AR has a new unit that can somehow make up for losses due to running the 1MW assembly at reduced power, then this rather implies that the ‘fat cat’ modules are already obsolete. Any new ‘kludge’ factor like this makes me uncomfortable.

    • popeye

      September 26, 2011 at 8:36 pm

      hants> “As Brian Josephson would not, except the invitation unless he where 100% sure that it worked in the first place, we can take it that Rossi’s E-CAT is legit.”

      If he is 100% sure it works, sight unseen, then he clearly accepts dogma, and doesn’t look at the evidence.

  4. Brad Arnold

    September 26, 2011 at 9:20 am

    I bet Josephson just wants to get his sweaty hands on an E-Cat to remove any lingering doubts that the limb he went out on pseudo-endorsing the E-Cat was justified. I doubt that this latest test will convince any more of the “skeptics” than previous ones ( http://ecatfusion.com/e-cat/andrea-rossi-biography-the-e-cat-fusor-story ).

    By the way, God bless Dr Josephson, his youtube video is standard fare in my activism message:

    There is a new clean energy technology that is 1/10th the cost of coal. Don’t believe me? Watch this video by a Nobel prize winner in physics: http://pesn.com/2011/06/23/9501856_Nobel_laureate_touts_E-Cat_cold_fusion/

    Still don’t believe me? It convinced the Swedish Skeptics Society: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece

    LENR using nickel. Incredibly: Ni+H+K2CO3(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. Here is a detailed description of the device and formula from a US government contract: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

    Still don’t believe me? A major US corporation has bought the rights to sell the 1 megawatt Rossi E-Cat, and it will be announced late October in the US, with the unit hitting the market in 2011. How can any fossil fuel compete with such cheap energy (and clean to boot!).

    By the way, here is a current survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html

    • LCD

      September 26, 2011 at 3:29 pm

      Brad problem is I cant take your post, connect it to my house and get any power out. They are just words until it becomes real. I applaud your enthisiasm And hope but dont set yourself up for a huge letdown.

      We dont even know all the details about how this thing works if it does work.

    • popeye

      September 26, 2011 at 8:38 pm

      There is an interesting similarity in the psychosis of religious zealots and some cold fusion believers (including experimenters like Ed Storms), in that they seem to feel that the only thing between them and their envisioned utopia is more believers. They have given up on better experiments or improved data or a device that actually does something useful. Their certainty is so strong that they have no qualms about saying things that are not true for the greater cause of more believers.

      How else could Brad Arnold say that the ecat convinced the Swedish Skeptics Society? The page he links to indicates a sympathetic evaluation by one member of that society, but even he retains some skepticism: “At the same time they are skeptical of detailed and hypothetical theories suggested at this stage, and stressed instead the need for more data.”

      Arnold> “LENR using nickel. Incredibly: Ni+H+K2CO3(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. Here is a detailed description of the device and formula from a US government contract:”

      From 1993, with promise of commercial products. Still waiting.

      > “Still don’t believe me? A major US corporation has bought the rights to sell the 1 megawatt Rossi E-Cat, and it will be announced late October in the US, with the unit hitting the market in 2011. ”

      According to Rossi… No corporation named, so only promises so far. I can’t heat my house on promises (as LCD nicely said).

      > “By the way, here is a current survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization:”

      You mean, *promising* to commercialize LENR.

    • David

      October 9, 2011 at 5:48 am

      LENR using nickel. Incredibly: Ni+H+K2CO3(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. Here is a detailed description of the device and formula from a US government contract: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

      Incredible document.
      Wouldn’t this prevent Rossi from defending his patent?
      Won’t Rossi have to send royalty cheques to Randal Mills?
      On the other hand not what I would call “lots of excess heat” and no sign of copper.

  5. Peter Roe

    September 26, 2011 at 9:28 am

    So long as (a) input power is measured in a manner that cannot be disputed, (b) the test runs for a period that exceeds any possible alternative internal heat source (such as reduction of nickel oxide), and (c) all instruments used are laboratory calibrated by an independent body, there does not seem to be any way the results of the proposed test can be disputed. But they will be of course – unless they turn out to show no excess heat.

    • Peter Roe

      September 26, 2011 at 1:54 pm

      Note: (a) would need to include inductance testing of the heater input (should be zero) to eliminate the possibility of internal electromagnetic equipment that could induce voltage/current phase lags that might potentially upset a power meter (e.g., induction heater).

    • CM Edwards

      September 26, 2011 at 3:25 pm

      If the e-cat doesn’t work as advertised, the proposed test is capable of demonstrating that.

      I would like to see a short control trial at the start of the test, one with no hydrogen fuel in the core. This would allow a more complete characterization of the e-cat as an electrically heated boiler, and provide a baseline for the Ni-H reaction measurements.

      Because it’s reasonable to assume that the core interior will reach temperatures of 500 degrees or more just with the electric heaters alone, precautions such as a cool-down between trials may be necessary to avoid thermal damage to the core (or experimenters) when running multiple trials in succession. However, their claim implies that without the hydrogen it’s just an electric water heater, so safe cooling shouldn’t take too long. 12 hours would be sufficient to perform this additional test, and still get 8 to 10 hours of continuous run time after fueling.

      • maryyugo

        September 26, 2011 at 5:10 pm

        “I would like to see a short control trial at the start of the test, one with no hydrogen fuel in the core. This would allow a more complete characterization of the e-cat as an electrically heated boiler, and provide a baseline for the Ni-H reaction measurements. ”

        A really good idea. I hope they do it.

        “12 hours would be sufficient to perform this additional test, and still get 8 to 10 hours of continuous run time after fueling.”

        I don’t understand the 12 hour limit. Does the E-cat have another engagement? Is there no toilet in the proposed test lab? Why not run several days and nights? And why not run without any electrical power input?

        • Haldor

          September 26, 2011 at 5:25 pm

          Above is says:
          “perform a test lasting at LEAST 12 hours”

          So it is a minimum not a maximum.

        • CM Edwards

          September 26, 2011 at 6:50 pm

          “I don’t understand the 12 hour limit.”

          Well, if it’s anything like one of my business trips, that’s when the steam whistle blows and some guy in the quarry goes sliding down the neck of a big blue dinosaur…

          I don’t know any reason that automated monitoring equipment can’t run for days on end. However, the people only run so long. If you want continuous monitoring by an inspector who can bear witness to tampering, your options are limited by your personnel resources. Myself, I’d want six days, four guys and only two cots, but plane tickets are expensive and you can’t have everything. 12 straight hours sounds like a good compromise, especially if you can finagle more than one day.

          Of course, Dr. Josephson could always organize an e-cat vigil.

          • CM Edwards

            September 26, 2011 at 7:07 pm

            Oh, it looks like there will be multiple teams invited. (See the Rossi post quoted further along the thread below.)

            Every one of them should show up carrying a suitcase and a sleeping bag.

      • Peter Roe

        September 28, 2011 at 8:40 am

        A calibration run without hydrogen seems to be a very good idea. I hope that if Mr Rossi reads this blog that he will consider doing this.

        OMG, I’ve just agreed with MY. I need to lie down for a bit.

        • CM Edwards

          September 28, 2011 at 12:37 pm

          I find that creative visualization often helps to cushion mental shocks. Inhale blue, exhale gold, Peter.

          By this point, the tests that need to be performed (or released, if complete) on the e-cat hardware are much the same whether the Ni-H thing is real or not. Because they’re the same tests either way, becoming investested in the result before there’s any data is just setting ourselves up for unnecessary bias.

    • popeye

      September 26, 2011 at 8:40 pm

      Roe> “So long as (a) input power is measured in a manner that cannot be disputed, (b) the test runs for a period that exceeds any possible alternative internal heat source (such as reduction of nickel oxide), and (c) all instruments used are laboratory calibrated by an independent body, there does not seem to be any way the results of the proposed test can be disputed.”

      Right. If there is no way to dispute the results, they can not be disputed. But ensuring those things in a one-off demo is difficult. When the device is made available to anyone, questions of veracity can be answered.

      If it were self-powered, (a) could be eliminated, and c) could be relaxed, because factors of a million are claimed; once we pass a hundred times chemical energy give or take, the demo should be ok.

      > “But they will be of course – unless they turn out to show no excess heat.”

      Do you think if a skeptic could by an ecat car that never needs fuel, he’d still dispute its veracity?

      • LCD

        September 27, 2011 at 3:03 pm

        Are we demonstrating ecat powered cars?

  6. Tony

    September 26, 2011 at 11:52 am

    I sent an email to prof j this morning; he says that hasn’t yet agreed to go, although he has been invited.

    • Peter Roe

      September 26, 2011 at 1:48 pm

      That is rather at odds with Passerini’s post. I wonder what is going on now. Maybe James Randi is still available?

    • LCD

      September 26, 2011 at 1:53 pm

      Odd

      • H.

        September 26, 2011 at 7:43 pm

        It seems that there is a misunderstanding. The E-mail was from Levi inviting Brian Josephson to do a test. (the e-mail with the invitation was send to Daniel). I understand from the Vortex list that Brian Josephson has declined stating that he has no intention of testing the E-Cat this time.

    • LCD

      September 26, 2011 at 2:01 pm

      One obsevation made by others really needs to be repeated. You gotta believe Rossi and company are conviced it works as advertised to put on one more independent public demo. Or else logic fails.
      Or everybody is in on the scam?

      Also I dont think dr josephson has any business testing the ecat, hes a theoretician not an experimentalist.

      • John Dlouhy

        September 26, 2011 at 6:49 pm

        LCD> I dont think dr josephson has any business testing the ecat

        So lets see if I’ve got this right. A brilliant physicist, a Nobel laureate no less, who actually published his first important discovery while still an undergraduate, and who served as the assistant director of research for the prestigious Cavendish laboratory has no place, in your opinion, as one member of an international team of scientists performing a test on a device that is so easy to do that our resident pseudo’s could do it in a few hours blindfolded.

        You are one tough cookie to satisfy!

        • LCD

          September 27, 2011 at 3:07 pm

          John don’t get me wrong, I respect Josephson for his contributions, everybody has their place. I would much rather have Josephson work on a theory as to why it works. Theoreticians and Experimentalists are always at odds with eachother in the physics community. Mostly because being a damn good theoretician does not require you to know how a multi-meter works.
          😐

    • Ben

      September 26, 2011 at 3:49 pm

      Tony’s rumor is just a rumor piled on top of another rumor. Until Dr. Josephson either confirms or denies this information thru other sources his involvement should be treated as just that. Although, at this point, I personally would consider 22Passi to have more credibility than an anonymous blogger. Just saying…..

      • Tony

        September 26, 2011 at 6:33 pm

        That isn’t a rumour. Contact him yourself if you like. He’s quite amiable: bdj10@cam and then add .ac.uk. The email address isn’t a secret and is available on the cambridge university website.

        • Ben

          September 26, 2011 at 10:00 pm

          Thank you for the e-mail address Tony, I believe I will give it a try.

    • jcragris

      September 26, 2011 at 8:50 pm

      from Passerini blog:
      22passi Daniel said …
      @ Tizzi
      Oh my God … Since the first line I had jumped … I misunderstood then: (
      I misread Josephson had indicated their willingness to participate in a test, but apparently had not received the invitation, but had neither accepted nor refused.
      Rossi and I fear that by reading what I wrote, he realized the same thing … the result, while the Josephson had not yet decided whether to participate, and only informed of the existence of such a test, I said, urbi et orbi that it had agreed to participate … oh my God, This time I messed up.: ((
      Again, I apologize to Horace Heffner, but especially Brian Josephson, who attributed an intention that I had not known in any way.
      September 26, 2011 8:38 p.m.

      • Ben

        September 26, 2011 at 10:17 pm

        That would be +1 for Tony and -1 for Passi22 in the credibility column. Duly noted.

  7. Peter Roe

    September 26, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    LCD
    It’s obvious – everybody else is in on the scam. That’s where all Rossi’s money went – not on a large tin box full of surplus plumbing items, but on bribing everyone he has come into contact with. Simples.

    • LCD

      September 26, 2011 at 3:30 pm

      Lol

  8. Thicket

    September 26, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    The straw man created by believers about the imaginary wide-spread scam is amusing. It only takes one man – Rossi. A number of scientists believed Uri Geller could bend spoons with his mind.

    I guess some folks like generating a straw man and then smashing it to smithereens.

    That Rossi is a fraud is clear given his five convictions and two jail terms from the Petroldragon scam. The only question is whether he is a fraud again.

    • Peter Roe

      September 26, 2011 at 3:50 pm

      Sorry – I’m not quite following you on this one. What ‘straw man’ are you referring to? And who are these ‘believers’ – is this some kind of religious thing now? Isn’t it just possible that some people can be hopeful, while at the same time being aware of the problems? I’m sure that no-one could fail to be aware, given the endless re-iteration by yourself and a certain other ‘contributor’ here and elsewhere.

      • Peter Roe

        September 26, 2011 at 3:57 pm

        … Always assuming that you and the other similarly ‘amused’ ultra-skeptic are in fact separate people.

      • charles sistovaris

        September 26, 2011 at 4:08 pm

        You got to agree with one thing though : if I was a a casting director I would immediately hire Rossi as the evil mad scientist, the crook, or the undertaker. That hairdo certainly doesn’t serve his credibility !!!

        • Peter Roe

          September 26, 2011 at 4:13 pm

          Sadly, true. Someone should buy him a black cloak.

        • John Dlouhy

          September 26, 2011 at 5:19 pm

          I’m just glad that Schweitzer, Mendeleev, Einstein, Newton, Curie, Faraday, and Franklin, among many others, weren’t judged by their hair!….Galileo, Da Vinci, Hawking, Descartes, Lavoisier, Bell, Feynman, Euler, notice a pattern? Maybe Rossi is in good company…

          • John Dlouhy

            September 26, 2011 at 5:29 pm

            …Volta, Darwin, Ampere, Josephson!…

        • Ben

          September 26, 2011 at 5:24 pm

          Whenever someone says “they must be _____” (insert pejorative of your choice) because of how they look, I am reminded of this:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jca_p_3FcWA

      • Thicket

        September 26, 2011 at 6:37 pm

        Peter

        I’ll go along with you and assume the questions are serious even though the answers are obvious.

        The straw man is the contention that for the E-cat to be a scam requires the involvement of many people. This is absurd since most scams are perpetrated by individuals. See Bre-x and Bernie Madoff for two examples.

        The believers are those that create this absurd straw man and then demolish it. It seems that this confirms to the believers that the E-cat couldn’t possibly be a scam.

        • Haldor

          September 26, 2011 at 7:18 pm

          Thicket, did you ever fall victim to a Pyramid scheme?

          • Thicket

            September 26, 2011 at 7:47 pm

            Haldor

            No.

        • Peter Roe

          September 26, 2011 at 8:19 pm

          Ah, I’m kinda with you now. But if you are referring to the little earlier exchange about ‘everyone being in on the scam’, I think that falls into the (at least attempted) ‘humour’ category. Try it some time – it can be fun!

  9. Sojourner Soo

    September 26, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    I wonder if there are any betting pools on the E-Cat? Is there someway I could start one online? Or is that illegal? I could get rich off the house rake. 🙂

    • CM Edwards

      September 26, 2011 at 4:26 pm

      With Josephson, the mysterious customer, and all these other sub-plots, you could have fifteen different pools running at once.

      It’s a bookie’s dream.

  10. maryyugo

    September 26, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    I think too much attention is being given to an announcement on Passerini’s blog. It will be easier to evaluate the plan, if there is one, when an official test protocol, witness and participant list, and schedule are announced by Rossi. If they ever are.

  11. maryyugo

    September 26, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    Rossi’s newest blog entry:

    “Dear Italo:
    I confirm
    The energy measurements will be made only on the water heated by the reactor’s primary circuit in the heat exchanger that will heat the water using the steam made by the reactor. The steam will be in a closed loop, and will be condensed by the heat exchanger; one thermometer will be put along the water circuit at the input of the heat exchanger and one thermometer will be put at the exit of the heat exchanger, so that the delta T to calculate the energy will be taken only from the liquid water flow of the secondary circuit. This of course will penalize us, because some energy will be lost in the heat exchange, but the energy we produce is so high that we can accept it. The E-Cat will work also in self sustained mode. We have invited selected scientists from Sweden, USA, France, G.B., Germany, Italy, Greece, Japan, Cina, Russia.
    Every component of the circuit will be inspected and weighted before the test, and also external measures will be taken of the reactors.
    The test will last at least 12 hours. At the end all the components will be again disassembled, weighted, etc.
    Measurements will be taken from a specialist expert to accertain that no radiations modify substantially the background radiations of the room.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.”

    It’s going to be a crowded room but I wonder why limit the test to 12 hours? It’s a fusion reactor intended to run reliably for 6 months before requiring service. Why not 2 days? How about 12 days? With no input power at all? THAT would be convincing if properly observed.

    • Az

      September 26, 2011 at 5:13 pm

      “The test will last at least 12 hours”, which means more then 12 hrs….

    • Ransompw

      September 26, 2011 at 5:13 pm

      He certainly seems serious and confident. He did say at least 12 hours. Do you want them all to camp out for a few days? His customer is the one that needs to be worried about it lasting 6 months. Everyone else will be more interested in determining if some Nuclear process is occuring and that doesn’t need 12 days. I suspect next to proper I/O, the possiblity of some other energy source will be of primary importance.

    • Haldor

      September 26, 2011 at 5:36 pm

      MaryYugo why you keep on repeating it is limited to 12 hours, in your own quote is says “at least 12” not “limited to 12”.

      I do not understand you here!

      • John Dlouhy

        September 26, 2011 at 6:11 pm

        Feeling just a bit threatened, maryyugo is perhaps grasping at straws now. (maybe remnants from the straw man in Thicket’s post)

        • maryyugo

          September 26, 2011 at 8:25 pm

          “Threatened”, John? By what? How exactly would I be threatened if the E-cat were to be a success? I’d be surprised but completely delighted. It’d be even more fun than fraud!

          • John Dlouhy

            September 26, 2011 at 11:02 pm

            I did say a “bit” threatened, but maybe I should have said an “eensie weensie bit”. At any rate, I’m only suggesting nobody likes to lose and since you’ve clearly backed a certain “pony” in this race, an unequivocal demonstration would be an emotional defeat, however minor. Of course if it turned out to be real everybody wins including you, so your’s is kind of a hedged position, which is fine.

            I wholeheartedly agree with you, a success would be more fun than fraud. And by the way thanks for posting Rossi’s message, it is his best claim yet. We’ll see what happens…

      • popeye

        September 26, 2011 at 8:44 pm

        > “MaryYugo why you keep on repeating it is limited to 12 hours, in your own quote is says “at least 12″ not “limited to 12″.”

        If the device’s weight in chemical fuel exceeds 12 hours at the measured power, then the *minimum* time should be *more* than 12 hours. And with the added heat exchanger, the weight in chemical fuel is going to be many times 12-hours at the power levels claimed so far.

        • Ransompw

          September 26, 2011 at 9:14 pm

          Hidden energy source, had to know that was coming. Why don’t we wait and see before concluding the test proves nothing.

          • popeye

            September 26, 2011 at 9:45 pm

            > “Hidden energy source, had to know that was coming.”

            The ecat is not interesting because it can produce 10 kW (or whatever) in thermal power. It is interesting because of the claimed *energy density*.

            Therefore, an impressive demonstration has to demonstrate high *energy density*, and if its *energy density* is not higher than that of chemical fuel, then it is not a demonstration of anything interesting at all.

          • Ransompw

            September 26, 2011 at 10:26 pm

            Come on, I know that, read my original reply to Maryyugo. Don’t you think next to making sure they settle the O/I issue they want to rule out other then a Nuclear process. That will be the primary goal of any independent tester. So what I am suggesting is that you wait for a report before concluding the energy density fails to rule out a chemical energy source.

          • popeye

            September 26, 2011 at 10:42 pm

            Why is it that skeptics are always told to wait, while the believers are allowed to speculate at will?

            The discussion was about a credible demo, and skeptics should be able to participate. In fact, it’s much more interesting when everyone doesn’t just agree.

            I haven’t concluded the energy density fails to rule out chemical sources. I’m suggesting that, based on the size and weight of previous ecats, and the addition of a heat exchanger, that 12 hours won’t be even close to ruling out chemical sources.

            Whether it’s a nuclear source or a chemical source, it’s a hidden source. It will only attract attention if he *demonstrates* that it has more energy than a chemical source of similar size and weight.

            And since he’s claiming a nuclear source, it should be not just a little more energy, but a shitload more energy. A million times more, but we’ll settle for ten or a hundred for now.

          • John Dlouhy

            September 26, 2011 at 11:49 pm

            Popeye, can you elaborate on how the addition of an exchanger would affect the energy density determination?

          • popeye

            September 27, 2011 at 1:51 am

            Nothing complicated. It just makes the whole device bigger and heavier. And if it’s like previous demos with everything wrapped up in insulation and foil, the same energy divided by more mass makes for a lower energy density.

          • Peter Roe

            September 27, 2011 at 8:46 am

            The test will be conducted on a module taken from the 1MW assembly. These modules are designed to output steam to a collector pipe, so the heat exchanger will be external to the device being tested. It will therefore have zero effect on energy density calculations.

          • popeye

            September 27, 2011 at 7:42 pm

            > “so the heat exchanger will be external to the device being tested.”

            Being external is not enough. If it is wrapped in insulation and foil, it’s part of the equation.

            I suppose if it can be examined in detail, that should suffice, but really, since we’re talking about factors of a million, I don’t see why we can’t at least see a factor of a hundred or ten, making all of this discussion unnecessary.

            (I know, the problem is the time required, so a smaller device, or a higher-power device would help. But if David Blaine can demonstrate feats of endurance for 63 hours, why not Rossi?)

          • Peter Roe

            September 28, 2011 at 2:55 pm

            If Rossi has invented a device that will fit inside a small heat exchanger and outputs heat equivalent to a few hundred kilowatt hours of power – where do I invest?

            This is all getting a bit daft.

        • LCD

          September 27, 2011 at 3:23 pm

          If the device is taken apart/weighed before and after then you don’t have to include the whole weight in the chemical potential.

          That’s just common sense.

          • popeye

            September 27, 2011 at 8:06 pm

            LCD> “If the device is taken apart/weighed before and after then you don’t have to include the whole weight in the chemical potential.”

            I don’t think weighing it proves anything. There are chemical or electrochemical reactions that produce energy without losing (measurable) mass; things like thermites, or batteries, or even the H-Ni reaction does not change the mass.

            Taking it apart for examination would help of course, but again, if this fuel is to replace fossil fuels, why not make it simple, and just exceed the hell out of its total weight in chemical fuel, and then examinations and endless debates won’t be needed.

            It’s not like Rossi is claiming 25 ppm higher energy density than chemical fuels; he’s claiming a million times higher. That’s a lot. It’s enough that there should be no room for doubt.

          • LCD

            September 29, 2011 at 3:14 am

            3 paragraphs and I’m still not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing?

  12. Ben

    September 26, 2011 at 5:32 pm

    The Limitations and Failings of Dogmatic Criticism

    “I am attacked by two very opposite sects – the scientists and the know-nothings. Both laugh at me – calling me “the frogs’ dancing-master.” Yet I know that I have discovered one of the greatest forces in nature.
    Luigi Galvani, Italian physicist (1737-1798)

    http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/Examskeptics/index.html

    • John Dlouhy

      September 26, 2011 at 6:04 pm

      Just an excellent quote Ben, and so very appropriate. In fact, until I reached the end, I thought it was Rossi talking. What with the “frogs’ dancing-master” comment, it sounds like something he’d say!

      • Ben

        September 26, 2011 at 7:28 pm

        Yes John D., I thought it fit the current situation fairly well. It does bring up the issue of the use of language in this whole affair. Since English is Rossi’s second language I believe some things are lost in translation. The phrase “frogs’ dancing-master was used over 400 years ago but it could have come from Rossi’s mouth yesterday. Common phrases and cliches in Italian may translate poorly in English and seem somewhat comical out of context. Some critics get a lot of mileage out of inexact language and think it is indication of fraud or deceit, never realizing that some things just do not translate well. I think we saw some of that in the Krivit videos.

        • John Dlouhy

          September 27, 2011 at 12:10 am

          Right. If you’ve learned a second language then you never underestimate a person’s intelligence on that basis. You could learn every word in a language and still not know half of it because of the idioms. Of course, when the critics stoop to this, it shows both their ignorance and their bias, and they can’t be taken seriously.

        • popeye

          September 27, 2011 at 5:33 am

          > “The phrase “frogs’ dancing-master was used over 400 years ago but it could have come from Rossi’s mouth yesterday. ”

          You are aware that that was not a metaphor in Galvani’s case? He was studying electricity by looking at the effect electric shocks had on the leg muscles of live frogs.

          • John Dlouhy

            September 27, 2011 at 3:26 pm

            Almost right. He observed that a DEAD frog’s leg moved when subjected to a static shock. Had the frog been alive it would not have been significant as everyone jumps from an electric shock in response to the sensation it gives.

          • Ben

            September 27, 2011 at 4:12 pm

            Dead frogs don’t dance. It was a metaphor.

            Interestingly, there is a statue of Luigi Galvani at the University of Bologna.

          • popeye

            September 27, 2011 at 5:17 pm

            > “He observed that a DEAD frog’s leg moved …”

            My mistake.

          • popeye

            September 27, 2011 at 5:18 pm

            > “Dead frogs don’t dance.”

            Galvani’s dead frogs did.

    • popeye

      September 26, 2011 at 8:47 pm

      > “Both laugh at me…”

      Yet another example where skeptics were proved wrong. It happens, thankfully. What it does not mean is:

      Any conceivable phenomenon, no matter how whacky, must be true if people are skeptical of it.

  13. Burt

    September 26, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    maryyugo made 3 posts out of 49. Gosh we’re close now:-)

  14. Ivan Mohorovicic

    September 26, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    Following a related thread on Vortex-l mailing list it looks like Daniele Passerini got confused and misunderstood the original messages. Brian Josephson apparently only received an invitation, and he hasn’t agreed yet to participate to the test. Other scientists might have been invited too. Apparently Rossi thought too that Josephson accepted the invitation.

    So, in the end it’s not that the original news is completely wrong anyway. There is going to be a test with several invited scientists on October 6. I think it will be done in Bologna.

    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg51813.html

  15. Gibed

    September 26, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    It seems to me that the first line of Passerini’s post has been overlooked. Here is the English translation of the post:

    ———————–
    I have received this information from Prof. Levi:

    On October 6 we will have the opportunity to make a long (more then 12 hours) test of one of the modules of the Rossi 1 MW generator. The module will be opened to us and we will have the opportunity to verify volumes and weights of the internal components.
    Heat measurements will be done condensing all the steam produced in heat exchanger and a secondary circuit where no water will be vaporized.
    This is NOT an official test of the University of Bologna because the contract is not active yet.

    Brian Josephson
    ——————-
    So, Josephson received a letter from Levi and quoted it, rather than making a statement of his own.
    Levi writes that the test is NOT an official test of U. of Bologna. Why? To me, the answer is that provided by Mohorovic, above: the test will be in Bologna. If the test were scheduled to occur in a different place, then it could not be linked to U. of Bologna and Levi’s statement would be pointless.
    We do learn something else: the contract is not yet active, i.e. Rossi has not yet ordered any money transfer to the University.

    Cheers,
    Gibed

    • Ivan Mohorovicic

      September 27, 2011 at 1:08 am

      > It seems to me that the first line of Passerini’s post has been overlooked. Here is the English translation of the post

      Yes, that’s correct. He overlooked that line and this caused him to misunderstand Josephson’s message from the CMNS mailing list. He’s corrected his blog post be adding it at a later time after receiving confirmation that Josephson only received an invitation and had yet to decide whether to participate to the tests or not.

      That line changes completely the meaning of the original message. This will most likely be a (unofficial) test performed by prof. Levi and other scientists in Bologna as you write.

  16. Dale G. Basgall

    September 27, 2011 at 2:36 am

    Hope of something working in this field Rossi has gotten all of us commenting on and re evaluating past information would really be nice to see in reality. I wanted to chime in many times cause there is alot of action on this site and I don’t feel I am a skeptic. Based on what I have seen and read and compared to what Rossi has claimed in the past from his words has prompted me to attach this video a scientist sent to me.

    He simply states that things that are observed need to be explained. He feels this story in the video can be compared to the story of Rossi.

    http://www.castanet.net/news/Offbeat/62971/Donut-seeds

  17. georgehants

    September 27, 2011 at 8:12 am

    Defkalion appears to be on air with active post on forum rules.
    Have sent reply asking if they are alive, awaiting any response.

    • LCD

      September 27, 2011 at 3:36 pm

      interesting thanks for staying on that George

    • maryyugo

      September 27, 2011 at 4:34 pm

      “Have sent reply asking if they are alive”

      Brilliant question. What’s the chance of a reply “no. we’re dead.”?

    • LCD

      September 27, 2011 at 4:39 pm

      Admin could you add an ignore function

  18. LCD

    September 27, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    From Rossi’s Blog, just funny

    Dear Michel:
    My focus is on the plants, not on the media.
    Media will follow plants, not vice versa, as well as cars follow the trailer, not vice versa.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Susan

      September 28, 2011 at 7:30 am

      I can hardly imagine a busy highway full of trailers pulling cars 🙂

      • LCD

        September 29, 2011 at 3:08 am

        right? lol

  19. Sojourner Soo

    September 27, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Josephson confirmed in the comments section that he will not be performing the test on 6 October 2011: http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/09/nobel-laureate-brian-josephson-to-test-an-e-cat-on-october-6th/#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed

    • LCD

      September 27, 2011 at 3:58 pm

      You sure that’s him? I posted a question for him.

      • Sojourner Soo

        September 27, 2011 at 7:20 pm

        No, of course I can’t be sure it’s really him.

  20. LCD

    September 27, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    Running list of possibilities of “The big U.S. Customer that can’t be fooled”
    Just pulled from comments and speculation, chime in.

    GE
    NASA
    Google

    • maryyugo

      September 27, 2011 at 4:07 pm

      Mad Comics?

      • LCD

        September 27, 2011 at 4:18 pm

        Is that where you work?

        • maryyugo

          September 27, 2011 at 4:33 pm

          They employ me and pay me regally to debunk free energy claims, don’t ya know?

          • Ben

            September 27, 2011 at 5:28 pm

            That’s odd Yugo, I thought for sure you worked for Better Trolls and Gardens.

          • Peter Roe

            September 27, 2011 at 8:39 pm

            If we have a whip round and send you the proceeds, will you go away?

            ……. please.

    • Haldor

      September 28, 2011 at 1:15 pm

      Somewhere in Silicon Valley, my best guess for now.
      2nd = GM

      • LCD

        September 28, 2011 at 10:56 pm

        GM really, with the powerplants comment?

  21. georgehants

    September 28, 2011 at 7:28 am

    1200 hits on Defkalion site and no word from them yet, they must all be dead.

    • maryyugo

      September 28, 2011 at 7:40 am

      They’re very busy. It takes a lot of work to make thousands of Hyperions.

      • Peter Roe

        September 28, 2011 at 8:13 am

        Pretty please.

    • Anapopei

      September 28, 2011 at 10:36 am

      It’s pre-mature to debate if Defkalion is dead or not. There is today very little that suggests that the business ever was born. Evidence points towards an embryo. At best.

  22. Allan Kiik

    September 28, 2011 at 9:00 am

    “Perhaps AR simply wants to operate the device as it is designed to be used – ie to generate steam – and this is a sound compromise that should kill any argument about phase transitions.”

    According to earlier information provided by Rossi, e-Cat is obviously temperature controlled device and high flowrate (necessary for simple flow calorimetry) will probably cool it down too much for good efficiency operation (as he has to apply too much power for heating the charge).

    • popeye

      September 28, 2011 at 2:53 pm

      So, I guess everyone, including Rossi advocates, is now just ignoring the 18-hour test in which Rossi and Levi claimed flow rates of 1 L/s with no phase change, input power of 80 W, and average output around 15 kW (with a temperature change of 4 C), with a transient excursion to 130 kW (with a temperature change around 40 C)?

      • Peter Roe

        September 28, 2011 at 4:17 pm

        No, but it seems likely that Rossi may be aiming for a design which doesn’t blow up with monotonous regularity. Potential buyers don’t like that kind of thing.

        As has been said quite a few times, Rossi is presumably reasonably convinced that the principle works, and so does not feel any need to repeat old tests, even with the kinks ironed out. Nor is he under any particular obligation to go back over old ground in order to keep onlooker skeptics happy. Things have moved on. I think he may have his hands full just meeting the commitments he has already made.

        • popeye

          September 28, 2011 at 5:16 pm

          Roe> “No, but it seems likely that Rossi may be aiming for a design which doesn’t blow up with monotonous regularity.”

          How exactly does that seem likely? The only evidence of any explosions is Rossi’s claim, and he has not said anything about monotonous regularity.

          It doesn’t seem likely to me that a unit running at higher pressure, higher temperature, and with higher input power is safer. The opposite seems likelier.

          > “As has been said quite a few times, Rossi is presumably reasonably convinced that the principle works, and so does not feel any need to repeat old tests,”

          Demos are about convincing others though. If this progression happened without an audience, we wouldn’t be talking about it, and our opinions wouldn’t matter.

          But he is doing public demos. Demos that even many LENR advocates were not reasonably convinced of. Then he did another public demo for an on-line journal that didn’t address any of the objections to the first demos. If this is just for his own satisfaction, what was Lewan there for? If they’re meant to convince the public, then some members of the public may feel obliged to explain why they don’t.

  23. charles sistovaris

    September 28, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/09/28/nasa-advances-evaluation-of-piantelli%E2%80%99s-lenr-research/

    “On Sept. 5 and 6, a team comprising representatives from an investment group and NASA visited Andrea Rossi’s showroom in Bologna. The team went there with an explicit agreement about test parameters and opportunities to observe and evaluate Rossi’s claims. They did not observe any positive results.”

    Well I guess that clears NASA from the potential Customers.
    Wish I could hear more from them..

    • Thicket

      September 28, 2011 at 5:25 pm

      Nice find, Charles. Rossi apparently can’t convince competent examiners. Perhaps he can convince less competent ones.

      I’m a bit surprised the visit took place. Maybe the potential investors paid for the NASA folks to be present.

    • Tony

      September 28, 2011 at 5:34 pm

      We wouldn’t expect to find ANY positive news on New Energy Times!

      • maryyugo

        September 28, 2011 at 5:55 pm

        Where should we expect positive news? Rossi’s blog?

        • Tony

          September 28, 2011 at 6:02 pm

          Mr Krivit rubbishes everything that isn’t WL theory. Had Rossi stated that the E-Cat worked because of WL, Krivit would be fawning around in Rossi’s entourage.

          • popeye

            September 28, 2011 at 6:18 pm

            Krivit previously did claim that the Rossi ecat was consistent with the WL theory:

            “Together, the Widom-Larsen theory and the Rossi experiment (assuming it continues to gain credibility) deliver a one-two punch.”

            (http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/LewanInvestigates.shtml)

            He has many blog posts in support of Rossi before he actually saw it in operation, and before its flaws were explained to him. He also cites favourable support from NASA’s Bushnell.

            I wonder if NASA’s (or Krivit’s) vulnerability on the ecat will damage their credibility on the question of Piantelli. It does for me, but probably not for LENR advocates.

          • Daniel de França MTd2

            September 28, 2011 at 6:46 pm

            The problem is that right before the test, Rossi told Krivit that the ecat has nothing to do with neutros (WL theory). Krivit accepts any claim of evidence or experiment of cold fusion as long as the person does not deny WL theory.

          • popeye

            September 28, 2011 at 7:53 pm

            But Rossi has been clear from the beginning that this was not WL, and that did not initially deter Krivit. Rossi also said his process had nothing to do with Piantelli, but that did not deter Krivit from both using Rossi as vindication for his support for Piantelli and WL.

          • Daniel de França MTd2

            September 29, 2011 at 1:38 am

            Where did Rossi say it was not related to WL?

          • popeye

            September 29, 2011 at 7:46 am

            In his blog.

            On February 23rd, in response to Joseph Fine “the US Patent Office awarded a patent to Lewis Larsen and Allan Widom…”, he responded: “…Our process is totally different, and I think I have understood why we produce mainly low energy gamma rays..”

            On May 30, in response to Herald Patterson, he wrote: ” …5-Beta decay has nothing to do with my process, Widom Larsen theory has nothing to do with my process
”

            There are probably other instances.

          • Daniel de França MTd2

            September 29, 2011 at 2:36 pm

            That does not mean that it doesn’t have anything to do with WL because he didn’t deny explicitly the absence of neutrons in the process. I myself asked Rossi before Krivit went there for the interview. But It was only at then that Rossi that neutrons were not involved in the process.

            But before his visit, it seemed to me that Krivit was going to bomb Rossi anyway given that Rossi is a friend of a person who, according to Krivit, is a secret agent from the US trying to stop the progress of LENR by trying to censor WL theory.

          • popeye

            September 29, 2011 at 5:11 pm

            On April 21 Rossi wrote: ‘It is wrong, no neutron are produced. I will release the theory ( which is at this point ready) in due time.
”

            But of course Rossi saying it has nothing to do with WL doesn’t mean anything. My point was simply that Krivit used Rossi as vindication for WL in spite of Rossi’s denial that it was WL.

            > “Rossi is a friend of a person who, according to Krivit, is a secret agent from the US trying to stop the progress of LENR by trying to censor WL theory”

            Where does this information come from?

          • Daniel de França MTd2

            September 30, 2011 at 6:02 pm

            Note that he wrote he would release the theory in due time. So, it means that, together with the bunch of random theories on Rossi’s blog concerning his device, that Rossi was not sure. It seems that for Krivit a personal answer would be more tangible than blog posts.

            But even before his interview, in fact, from January, I suspected that Krivit was paranoid in relation to Rossi. This report makes me consider that Krivit was always attempting to bomb Rossi, from the beginning.

            http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/20/rossi-and-focardi-lenr-device-the-melich-and-macy-reports/

            “For many years, Melich has gone out of his way to give people in the LENR field, including me, the impression that he is a covert intelligence agent, specifically tasked by the U.S. government to promote and keep an eye on “cold fusion.” Many people in the field have believed this and consequently have responded to him deferentially and with unusual openness. One problem with his methods is that true covert operators never try to give people the impression that they are covert operators.”

          • popeye

            September 30, 2011 at 6:29 pm

            > “Note that he wrote he would release the theory in due time. So, it means that…, that Rossi was not sure.”

            No it doesn’t. Rossi expressed no uncertainty at all. The delay was for proprietary reasons.

            > “It seems that for Krivit a personal answer would be more tangible than blog posts.”

            Krivit used Rossi’s results as evidence for WL in spite of Rossi’s clear statement that they had nothing to do with WL.

            I doubt hearing it directly would make any difference, but what changed was that Krivit saw Rossi’s nickel and dime operation, saw the meagre puff of steam, and consulted with a lot of experts.

            > “But even before his interview, in fact, from January, I suspected that Krivit was paranoid in relation to Rossi.”

            Krivit was cautious because of Rossi’s past; who wouldn’t be. But then he became cautiously supportive in several posts. And finally, after a lot of scrutiny, confidently negative. Whatever you think of Krivit, this progression is entirely consistent with an honest look at the evidence from a LENR advocate.

          • Daniel de França MTd2

            September 30, 2011 at 6:47 pm

            Just the fact that Rossi was posting a lot of disparate theories on his website shows that he is not sure of anything. Because of this, Krivit was not giving credit to any theoretical explanation on the blog except for the sparse experimental evidence.

            In January, Krivit did not had any clue about Rossi’s past other than being paranoid about governments trying to suppress cold fusion, as he was were. For him, cold fusion, LENR = WL. The denial with certainty would mean Rossi was a con hired by the government or whatever his delusional fantasies drifted to.

          • popeye

            September 30, 2011 at 7:04 pm

            > “Just the fact that Rossi was posting a lot of disparate theories on his website shows that he is not sure of anything. ”

            They weren’t his theories. He calls it the Journal of Nuclear Physics, so a bunch of theories gives it credibility. He never showed any uncertainty in his ideas of the theory. And I don’t see the difference in saying aloud that WL is not involved and writing it. As a journalist, I hardly think Krivit does either.

            > “Because of this, Krivit was not giving credit to any theoretical explanation on the blog except for the sparse experimental evidence.”

            That’s the point. In spite of Rossi’s claim that WL was not involved, Krivit claimed it was. He didn’t take Rossi’s theory seriously, even though he was cautiously optimistic about the results. So, hearing it from Rossi didn’t change anything. Seeing shoddy experiments did.

            > “In January, Krivit did not had any clue about Rossi’s past”

            He wrote a post about Rossi’s past, and expressed caution about taking him seriously because of it. Check his blog.

            Then when some professors gave it a thumbs up, he became optimistic. After further scrutiny, he became skeptical. Rossi’s ideas of the theory had nothing to do with it, as far as I can see.

        • Ransompw

          September 28, 2011 at 7:14 pm

          This is a typical Krivit half truth writing which may really be misleading and from which we learn nothing. Do we even know if tests took place. For example he says “They did not observe any positive results”. Of course he doesn’t really say if tests were even performed. If they weren’t then of course there were no positive results.

          In fact the sentence before is interesting also. Krivit writes, “The team went there with an explicit agreement about test parameters”. So if they got there and for example one of the parameters was no phase change and the test was done with phase change (even if the steam quality was measured and the results were positive), Krivit could then write his next line about did not observe positive results since he is qualifying positive results to be within their explicit test parameters.

          I personally don’t think you can trust anything Krivit says about Rossi. He is the master of the half truth meant to deceive not to enlighten. What you can be sure of is, if Piantelli’s device works you can be sure Rossi’s does also.

          • Renzo

            September 28, 2011 at 7:34 pm

            Indeed the wording is odd

          • popeye

            September 28, 2011 at 7:55 pm

            ransompw> “What you can be sure of is, if Piantelli’s device works you can be sure Rossi’s does also.”

            That’s the kind of reasoning that keeps con men in business.

          • Ransompw

            September 28, 2011 at 8:48 pm

            No it isn’t. If it works it is not a con. The process is too close to be anything but similar. Rossi, Nickel, Hydrogen, Heat. Piantelli, Nickel, Hydrogen, Heat. If one works, REALLY works, then the other certainly does also. The degree is probably the only difference.

          • popeye

            September 28, 2011 at 9:00 pm

            > “If one works, REALLY works, then the other certainly does also.”

            That’s not logic, that’s wishful thinking. Piantelli claims critical surface conditions prepared in ultra-high vacuum. Maybe Rossi’s figured it out, maybe he’s improved it, but Piantelli’s success, if he has it, certainly doesn’t prove it.

            Here’s why the thinking keeps con men in business:

            Con man sees credible evidence for Piantelli, Nickel, hydrogen, heat, and thinks:

            Hmm, I’ll get nickel, hydrogen, and claim a lot more heat, demonstrated with ambiguous phase-change calorimetry. There are enough illogical people out there who will think if Piantelli’s right, then I must be right too, because after all, I’m using the same ingredients. I’ll laugh all the way to the bank…

          • Ransompw

            September 28, 2011 at 9:16 pm

            That just ignores so many facts in this case it is silly. Just for one, Rossi is using Focardi who has given interviews attesting to the Ecat. And by the way Focardi worked on this process with Piantelli.

            I didn’t say in every case you could be certain, but given the facts of this case, If one has a REAL Nuclear Process the other most certainly does also.

          • LCD

            September 28, 2011 at 9:18 pm

            To what possible end Popeye. Your grasping and flailing wildly here.

            It is reasonable to believe the two are related. It is reasonable to believe that if one works the other probably doe so too. It is also reasonable to believe if Rossi’s doesn’t work that neither does Piantellis.

            The fact that NASA is sort of in a roundabout way “advancing” Piantelli lends credence to Rossi. So a reasonable person would postulate.

            None of it HAS to be true though, but that would be stating the obvious.

          • Sojourner Soo

            September 28, 2011 at 9:26 pm

            <>

            They probably brought a mass spectrometer, causing Rossi to get angry and terminate all tests. I recall watching a video where Rossi turfed out a physicist for pulling this stunt, despite having agreed not to bring in a mass spectrometer. Tsk, tsk.

          • popeye

            September 28, 2011 at 9:30 pm

            ransompw> “I didn’t say in every case you could be certain, but given the facts of this case,”

            OK. Maybe I took your if-then too literally.

            But still, your thinking is just the sort of thing someone faking H-Ni results would depend on. Even if Piantelli is not proven, he has enough credibility in a fairly large community, and the potential has enough public appeal, to get a few speculators with deep pockets interested enough to take a speculative risk on.

            It seems to me that if Piantelli’s claims were proven, Rossi’s failure to prove his claims of much more pronounced effects, suggests his ecat’s not working.

          • popeye

            September 28, 2011 at 9:46 pm

            LCD> “To what possible end Popeye.”

            A con? To get rich speculators to invest, I guess. I don’t have any experience in the business.

            > “It is reasonable to believe the two are related.”

            They both use H-Ni, so yes. Plasma fusion and cold fusion both use deuterium, so they are also related.

            > “It is reasonable to believe that if one works the other probably doe so too.”

            This is certainly more reasonable than “you can be sure” that if one works, the other does too.

            But hot fusion works (at least in bombs), and that does not mean that cold fusion works.

            > “It is also reasonable to believe if Rossi’s doesn’t work that neither does Piantellis.”

            It is almost certain that neither works, so, yes.

            > “The fact that NASA is sort of in a roundabout way “advancing” Piantelli lends credence to Rossi.”

            NASA has been advancing WL (and other aspects of cold fusion) for years, with nothing to show for it. Rossi has brought some attention to this interest, but until NASA actually reports some progress, it’s not very impressive, and does not lend credence to Rossi, in my opinion. In fact, the longer they keep making noises about it *without* any progress, the less impressive it is.

            > “None of it HAS to be true though, but that would be stating the obvious.”

            So, you are agreeing that it is obvious that even if one is true, you can’t be *sure* the other is.

          • LCD

            September 28, 2011 at 10:52 pm

            Grasping and Flailing Popeye.

            Again to what possible end? Give me a plausible con.

            We already had Krivit saying investors came and were not satisfied. He’s not accepting donations, again where is the plausible con?

            Your an expert in everything else why not con artistry.

            If you can’t intelligently respond to the question then don’t post voluminous nonsense

    • LCD

      September 28, 2011 at 6:00 pm

      It’s an interesting blog. I mean the headline is

      NASA Advances Evaluation of Piantelli’s LENR Research

      Krivit obviously buries the Rossi pot shot deep in the article. So I guess my problem then becomes this, Piantelli LENR is sound and works but Rossi/Focardi/Levi not so much because it’s COMPLETELY different??

      If Piantellis device works then Rossi’s probably works too.

      Well I’m glad this will all get resolved soon.

      • popeye

        September 28, 2011 at 6:25 pm

        > “Well I’m glad this will all get resolved soon.”

        You’re optimistic. On January 13, various forum commenters were saying of the ecat, “I’m glad this will get resolved tomorrow”

        Of course it didn’t, and it probably won’t next month either.

        • LCD

          September 28, 2011 at 8:36 pm

          It will for me. I’m not the addictive type POPS

    • Renzo

      September 28, 2011 at 6:34 pm

      This is very interesting and I’d like to know more. Passerini wrote in his blog some days ago that engineers from Rossi’s US partner had been in Bologna and tested the E-Cat with positive results. It is not clear if this is the same test or a different one. To me it sounds strange that Piantelli’s device works and the Rossi’s one doesn’t

      • Thicket

        September 28, 2011 at 6:59 pm

        My recollection is that Focardi said that his work with Piantelli produced inconsistent results and only a little energy, Rossi, on the other hand, claims huge amounts of energy. He also claims that the E-cat is ready for large-scale commercialization. Rossi and Piantelli both use nickel in hydrogen but beyond that there are large differences.

      • Ben

        September 28, 2011 at 7:00 pm

        Krivit’s article does seem to corroborate, although not exactly, some of the information that has come from Passerini, namely:

        1. NASA was involved with evaluation of the device AND is interested in the technology, so they also may be a customer at some point.
        2. Along with NASA, a group of investors did evaluate the e-Cat in early September.

        Also of interest, the long-rumored testes of NASA regarding Ni-H LENR were exploring Piantelli’s work specifically. Piantelli’s associate Roy V. stated in his blog that he was worried a negative test of the eCat would reflect poorly on Piantelli and perhaps lump him and Rossi together. Apparently that is not the case if evaluation of Piantelli;s device is to occur shortly. The site http://www.e-cat.com does redirect to the investment group KCPB Initiatives and apparently the site was bought or transferred from Exxon on September 22, 2 weeks after the reported tests. I’m not exactly sure what that means but it is interesting.

        The most obvious inconsistency in information is Passerini’s assertion that the test with NASA and investors went well and Krivit’s assertion that it did not. I wonder if the same investment group that evaluated the e-Cat is now looking at Piantelli’s, or if it is different investment group? Krivit and Passerini were on opposite sides of the spectrum regarding the e-Cat before the tests so one wonders who is giving the most accurate information. Krivit has been a fan of Piantelli for years so I am not surprised that he would take Piantelli’s side; nor or am I surprised that Passerini would side with Rossi given their mutual association with Levi.

        And then there is Defkalion…….

        I am on the side of cold/LENR cold fusion and I just hope someone has something ready for market. Fasten your seat belts because there are more twists and turns ahead.

        • Ransompw

          September 28, 2011 at 7:31 pm

          I wouldn’t trust what Krivit wrote, you can tell it is weasel words. See my above post. The Sept 5 & 6 tests of the Ecat could have gone very well (assuming they really did take place) and Krivit’s blog could still be technically true. See half truth, that is a Krivit specialty.

          • LCD

            September 28, 2011 at 7:42 pm

            If Krivit stoops that low that would be a new low for even him.

            I tried to post a comment asking for elaboration on “positive results” but I can’t enter any comments into the text field.

          • Ransompw

            September 28, 2011 at 7:53 pm

            I think Krivit dug a hole for himself and if Rossi is successful his career is shot. Sad for him is nothing he says or does will effect the reality of all this.

          • Ben

            September 28, 2011 at 7:58 pm

            You are correct Ransom. Like some of our resident cynics here, Krivit does like to parse and manipulate language. Josephson said similar things about him in 2008 in the article I posted the other day.

            Krivit has been supportive of Piantelli for a number of years. He was also supportive of Rossi until earlier this year. It seems that his tune on Rossi has changed since Piantelli made it clear that he was re-starting his research.

            I would not be surprised to see quite a number of people take sides on this, if they already haven’t. If Rossi has based the e-Cat soley or even mostly on Piantelli’s work, he should come clean and say so. Some people think he has but both Rossi and Piantelli have said at one time or another that their devices were different. However, Piantelli’s lawyer said they were pretty much the same in the documentary “The Magic of Mr. Rossi.” Rossi’s break with Defkalion came around a time when talk of a possible patent war between the two seemed to be taking shape. I think part of the dispute between Rossi and Defkalion was over his inability to obtain an EU patent and protect Defkalion’s investors. Remember the “self-destruct” mechanism he mentioned some months ago. I think that was to reassure Defkalion’s investors that their investment would be safe….but they didn’t buy it, nor should they have because the whole idea of a self-destruct thingy was ridiculous.

          • maryyugo

            September 28, 2011 at 9:05 pm

            “but they didn’t buy it, nor should they have because the whole idea of a self-destruct thingy was ridiculous.”

            Yes it is which makes Defkalion liars. And Rossi is equally silly when he said on his blog that he makes the core “impossible to open”. That’s completely ridiculous as is running at 1500 degrees C or whatever the upper limit was said to be. Most claims for the E-cat are ridiculous and neither Piantelli nor Rossi has ever shown a properly and independently tested device. Such is the sorry state of this nickel-hydrogen-nuclear interaction stuff at the moment. Sad. And it has nothing to do with Krivit. What Krivit or Kermit the Frog or anyone else gives for an opinion is meaningless absent proper testing and credible performance data.

          • Ransompw

            September 28, 2011 at 9:23 pm

            Maryyugo you are certainly a broken record. The point is we are coming to put up or shut up time so let’s see how the next 30 days plays out for Rossi. You never know, you may change your mind by the end of October. Of course that is what makes this so interesting, so might many of us.

        • Ransompw

          September 28, 2011 at 7:38 pm

          Another example, just food for thought, the correct parameters were not set up right on the 5th & 6th and were rescheduled a few days later. Again Krivit’s writing is technically correct but deceiving. I believe If there were tests and they really didn’t show positive results he would have written it differently. Half Truths.

          • Ben

            September 28, 2011 at 8:55 pm

            In the article I posted the other day about Krivit, written bY Dr. Brian Josephson in 2008, he stated the following things about Krivit:

            “However, Krivit’s articles, on close examination, turn out to involve a mere ‘exercise in blackening’ supported by little substance and no little degree of misrepresentation and error.”

            “Part of Krivit’s modus operandi consists of leading the reader to assume something to be the case without actually saying it, the actuality being rather different from what the reader has been led to assume.”

            http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/articles/NET1.html

            In this light, who knows what “They did not observe any positive results” means. He did not say the test was a failure or that the results were negative or that NASA or the investors thought Rossi’s claims had no merit. That statement could mean all those things or none of them.

  24. maryyugo

    September 28, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    Anyone know Defkalion’s efforts to get regulatory approval from the Greek authorities is going? IIRC, they offered to give progress reports in August. Anyone know if anyone has EVER seen a “hyperion” device? Or one actually “working”?

    • Roger Barker

      September 28, 2011 at 10:21 pm

      The whole Defkalion saga is what puts me firmly in the hoax/delusion camp. Defkalion were adamant they had possession of eCats, which were being rigorously tested by not only their scientists but the Greek government as well. Once the “arrangement” between Rossi and Defkalion fell through Rossi stated Defkalion never had access to any eCats.

      It became pretty obvious that either Defkalion or Rossi is lying.

      • LCD

        September 28, 2011 at 10:46 pm

        That left a sour taste in my mouth too. There is no denying that is an issue that requires explanation at some point.

  25. Daniel de França MTd2

    September 28, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    Wasn’t the report due in September? Or was it a demonstration of the Hyperion that would happen in September?

  26. georgehants

    September 28, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    Joe the plumber came to fix my tap washer today, while we where having a cup of tea I told him about Rossi’s E-CAT, he worked out on a piece of paper in about 3 minuets that it undoubtedly works as advertised, so nobody need worry any more about a failure in October.

    • LCD

      September 28, 2011 at 7:50 pm

      nice

  27. Dale G. Basgall

    September 28, 2011 at 8:36 pm

    Con-fusion set’s in!

  28. Sojourner Soo

    September 28, 2011 at 9:33 pm

    Krivit:
    “On Sept. 5 and 6, a team comprising representatives from an investment group and NASA visited Andrea Rossi’s showroom in Bologna. The team went there with an explicit agreement about test parameters and opportunities to observe and evaluate Rossi’s claims. They did not observe any positive results.”
    Passerini:
    “I’ll add that the tests performed on early September with that customer, of which there has been much talk here, have actually been made in Bologna. I’ll add that, according to what I’ve been said, the test was successful: the American customer is satisfied and does not doubt that the E-Cat represents a new energy source and not a hoax, and I stress that it’s NOT a customer that can be scammed in any way.”
    https://www.facebook.com/EnergyCatalyzer

    • Renzo

      September 28, 2011 at 10:14 pm

      I’ve just asked Passerini on his blog about this

    • Roger Barker

      September 28, 2011 at 10:17 pm

      This is interesting. I wish we could get some more information on what exactly happened in early September. We have Krivit saying the results were not good but Passerini is saying they were.

      I’ve trawled Rossi’s JONP but couldn’t find any comments from him. Anyone have better luck?

      • LCD

        September 28, 2011 at 10:39 pm

        no, I tried, and asked but you know the deal

      • LCD

        September 28, 2011 at 10:40 pm

        you should ask Steve to clarify his statement.

        • Roger Barker

          September 28, 2011 at 11:40 pm

          Many have enquired this off Krivit in his blog but he keeps answering with “I will be permitted by agreements I made with sources to tell more of the story in several months from now.”

          Krivit’s beginning to sound like Rossi! 😉

          • LCD

            September 29, 2011 at 12:06 am

            Ha, no way. Thats hilarious. Well its becoming clear to me now that krivit and piantelli are”pals”. Maybe Rossi was right to a point about the snake.

          • H. Visscher

            September 29, 2011 at 1:48 am

            “….several months from now”

            Hahaha, nobody will read it or is interested in that anymore, as the first homes and the first hot water baths will have been heated by E-Cats by then! (it least I hope..)

          • LCD

            September 29, 2011 at 2:46 am

            I actually wrote back and told him just that. (almost)

            It’s an easy non-verifiable excuse not to answer the hard questions. Indeed Krivit’s Ying is Rossi’s Yang.

    • LCD

      September 28, 2011 at 10:38 pm

      Well I can’t find the original post but anyways, another source of controversy to consider with the many.

      nice find.

  29. Dale G. Basgall

    September 28, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    It appears we the public have been missled somewhat then, we have been hoaxed, that simple. The hoax is the fact that Rossi wanted everyone to believe he had his product working. “His Product” e-cat and it appears he is still developing the method to use his secret catalyzer.

    Rossi did file for a US patent showing he is attempting something that makes logical sense. On his claim one (1) he mentions a hexothermal reaction, can anyone explain that one? Also he claims the hydrogen is heated much greater than 302f and pressure much greater 29psi.

    Did any one of us see a heater on the hydrogen bottle? A pressure gauge?

    It’s a variable in claim (2) hydrogen temperature 302f to 932f. Which one is it?

    Nickle Powder is an isotope in claim 3, I think he stated in a Krivit video (ni64) I don’t remember though. Also that the heated hydrogen is injected into said copper tube under a pulsating pressure. Did anyone see an oscillator and solenoid while he was filling up the unit e-cat?

    Claim 7 another hexothermal reaction? In claim 8 reads a catalyze materials?

    I haven’t seen that machine working yet but we have seen an example that had little support to establishing those claims written in the US patent (US2011/0005506A1).

    • LCD

      September 29, 2011 at 12:09 am

      That may be an older patent which he has since updated according to Rossi.

  30. popeye

    September 28, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    > “Again to what possible end? Give me a plausible con.”

    For me, the lack of evidence for an effect, and willing believers makes a con plausible. There are enough examples around where I could not have possibly envisioned

    > “We already had Krivit saying investors came and were not satisfied. He’s not accepting donations, again where is the plausible con?”

    That would make it an attempted con. I’m not saying he will succeed. But willing believers, and a trillion dollar industry, and BLP and Steorn as examples, has got to tempt people who know the ropes.

    > “Your an expert in everything else why not con artistry.”

    It doesn’t interest me.

    • maryyugo

      September 29, 2011 at 1:04 am

      Nobody seems to get it. ROSSI says he’s not accepting money. That he says it doesn’t make it so. In fact he already did accept money — according to an Ampenergo official at a news conference and never denied by Rossi — considerable amounts of money. And who knows and how would you know if private investors were secretly paying Rossi? There’s no more evidence that Rossi is working unpaid than there is that he really has a revolutionary energy source. We just can’t know the answer to either issue. And yes, it could be a con. Or not. Only Rossi can provide evidence that it’s not and he has never done it yet.

      • LCD

        September 29, 2011 at 2:49 am

        So you are basically saying nothing is certain, got it. Thanks Mary for that eye opening post.
        8|

      • John Dlouhy

        September 29, 2011 at 3:01 am

        I think I get it maryyugo. What do we actually know about Rossi?

        We assume he is the one answering questions on his blog but how could we know that for certain without video?

        If you removed Lewan and Passerini, both relatively unknown journalists, where else would info be originating except from Rossi’s website?

        In videos we saw a very inexpensive looking contraption, mostly hidden from view, on an old wooden table, in a nondescript storeroom with a view of some steam escaping for a few seconds. That’s all.

        There are no published reports outside of Rossi’s own site.

        3 formerly unknown scientists have witnessed demonstrations, only one of them openly says its real, and non of them with the backing of their universities.

        Rossi has overtly contradicted the representatives of both companies which claim to be doing business with him. The websites of both appear amateurish. Defkalion’s contains contradictory information and was activated without even being proofread by a native English speaker.

        He says he understands the theory of how it works and will divulge it after the patents are granted… BUT…there’s no chance of that as the patent application is inadequate, contains numerous errors both grammatical and functional, and was obviously not written by lawyers. It won’t be granted and wouldn’t protect his trade secret catalyst even if it was.

        To protect the secret the device has been made difficult to open, will self destruct if it is opened, and yet still passes all safety requirements.

        The 1 megawatt plant is built in a small ISO shipping container, dented and so cut up as to actually render it useless for containerized shipping.

        According to Rossi himself he has had a checkered past, spent time in jail, and has failed to deliver on promises as in the thermocouple contract for example. Again, that is according to Rossi himself.

        He claims to have made his first discovery that a high output was possible in 1998. Yet in 2011, 13 years later, he is still developing the device and making changes as late as last month, while maintaining that the E-Cats will hit the markets for sale in 4 weeks.

        We are told the reactor modules were built in Florida, but were assembled into the 1 megawatt plant in Italy, and now must be shipped back to the US again.

        With all these points in mind, I think being skeptical is only reasonable. Hoping that something will explain all of the above is a little like hoping for a miracle. I can definitely understand maryyugo’s and popeye’s point of view even if I don’t always understand their zeal, but then again I’m lazy!

        8 more days until the next disappointment, OR 8 more days until confirmation of the greatest discovery in human history……hmmmm?

        • Roger Barker

          September 29, 2011 at 4:15 am

          A well written summary and it does not bode well for those of us who want to believe it is true. The mind definitely says this is a scam/hoax/delusion but the heart is still hoping it turns out to be real. 🙁 I’ll gladly walk around with egg on my face if it means cheap, clean and limitless energy for all. 🙂

          • Peter Roe

            September 29, 2011 at 9:01 am

            John, you’ve bought together all the factors that constitute serious cause for concern, but Roger Barker’s comment above exactly reflects my own feelings on the matter (although I have previously posted on why I think that changes at the ‘consumer’ level will be limited, even if/when ‘proof’ is forthcoming).

        • popeye

          September 29, 2011 at 7:20 am

          It’s a nice summary, which is certainly consistent with a skeptical position, and it may help to persuade some people. But it doesn’t explicitly state the most important reason to be skeptical.

          For me (and many others), most of your points wouldn’t matter a whit if Rossi had shown credible evidence of a nuclear reaction producing measurable heat in an ecat. (The part about a puff of steam expresses this I guess.)

          And to me, the absence of most of those points wouldn’t matter a whit as long as he hasn’t shown evidence of nuclear reactions.

          For me, the sociology, the plausibility of a con, and the logistics of shipping, and the claims of self-destruct, and the laughable patent, etc, are peripheral to the central point that Rossi has simply not shown credible evidence of a working ecat. Period. Because the overriding consideration is that without evidence, the claims are highly unlikely, based on what we know about nuclear physics.

        • John Dlouhy

          September 29, 2011 at 3:36 pm

          Thanks for your comments. I just want to be crystal clear and state explicitly that I was not intending to persuade anyone to any particular point of view. I’ve followed the story since January and thought it would be interesting to put together in one spot what we actually know. As a scientist collects individual data points one by one they may not show much, but put them altogether on a graph and view them all at once and they may produce a curve that shows a great deal.

  31. LCD

    September 29, 2011 at 12:00 am

    All that just to show everybody you have no idea.
    Its tiresome

  32. LCD

    September 29, 2011 at 3:02 am

    Am I right here. The fat cat is in the U.S.A. with the customer being tested and a multicore ecat will be tested in Bologna on Oct 6th right?

  33. georgehants

    September 29, 2011 at 6:47 am

    If Rossi is not legit he is organising a very tight schedule for his exposure.
    Very unusual from somebody with nothing to sell.

    Andrea Rossi
    September 28th, 2011 at 3:58 PM

    Dear Rick Gresham:
    In October we will have two extremely important tests on the modules of the 1 MW plant, and at end October we will test the 1 MW plant. In November we will hit the market with our E-Cats. This is the future I am focused on, I have not time for all other considerations.
    Warm Regards,
    Andrea

    • Peter Roe

      September 29, 2011 at 9:12 am

      As you imply George, this seems to be a very strange way to run a ‘scam’. Surely the classic route is to announce that you are on the verge of commercialisation but just need a few million to get production up and running (sign right here!).

      Despite all the problems with this story (as comprehensively summarised by John Dlouhy above) these self imposed milestones just don’t seem to make any sense in the context of a scam, but *do* make sense in the case of someone intent on cornering a market. But as as a certain skeptic would say, this is all ‘Rossi says’ at the moment – I hope it becomes ‘Rossi does’ very soon.

  34. Anatoliy V. Sermyagin

    September 29, 2011 at 9:36 am

    Defkalion GT, Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:19 am :
    “Defkalion GT group decited to re-open the forum due to expected announcements within the next weeks. Till then, we appreciate your interest and participation as well as all expressed questions, which are resonable, and they will be answered in due time.

    Thank you for your attention.”

  35. georgehants

    September 29, 2011 at 9:52 am

    Indeed, allowing for all the interest and entertainment given by the E-CAT and at my last count 2,345,678,928 words on kettles and plumbing, we are back to exactly where Rossi said in the very beginning, wait until October.

  36. Haldor

    September 29, 2011 at 10:03 am

    Things are steaming up:

    Andrea Rossi
    September 29th, 2011 at 3:53 AM
    WARNING:
    THE SNAKE HAS WRITTEN IN HIS BLOG THAT NASA MADE A NOT POSITIVE TEST WITH US. THIS IS TOTALLY FALSE. I AM BOUND FROM A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND I CANNOT GIVE DETAILED INFORMATION, BUT I CAN SAY THAT:
    1- WE ARE IN CONTACT WITH NASA, WHO WANTS TO TEST OUR ECATS TO TEST THE POSSIBILITY TO MAKE THEM USEFUL FOR THEIR PURPOSES
    2- NASA’S DENNIS.M.BUSHNELL HAS SAID PUBILCLY THAT NASA WILL BUY AN E-CAT AS SOON AS IT WILL BE POSSIBLE TO TEST IT
    3- OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH NASA IS TOTALLY POSITIVE

    IN A SEPARATE STATEMENT, A SNAKE’S ACCOLITE WROTE THAT THE TEST WE ARE GOING TO DO ON THE 6TH OF OCTOBER WILL BE ALWAYS MADE WITH STEAM. UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN YOU SPEAK WITH THIS PEOPLE YOU DEAL WITH PERSONS THAT HAVE REAL DIFFICULTIES TO UNDERSTAND A TITLE OF A NEWSPAPER IF THEY ARE AT THE SAME TIME CHEWING A GUM, BUT, JUST TO AVOID CONFUSION I REPEAT THAT:
    THE MEASUREMENTS WILL BE MADE ON LIQUID WATER. WE WILL HAVE THE STEAM PRODUCED FROM THE REACTOR THAT WILL WORK IN A CLOSED LOOP, WHICH IS THE PRIMARY CIRCUIT, AND THE STEAM ITSELF EXCHANGES HEAT WITH THE LIQUID WATER IN A SECONDARY CLOSED CIRCUIT, SO THAT THE WATER IS HEATED BY THE STEAM THROUGH THE WALLS OF A HEAT EXCHANGER. WE WILL MEASURE THE ENERGY TAKING THE DELTA T OF THE WATER, THE WATER, THE WATER, NOT OF THE STEAM NOT OF THE STEAM, NOT OF THE STEAM, THEREFORE THE ISSUE OF THE QUALITY OF THE STEAM HAS ABSOLUTELY NOT IMPORTANCE, BECAURE WE DO NOT MEASURE THE ENERGY FROM THE STEAM !!!!!!! WE COULD PUT IN THE PRIMARY CIRCUIT STEAM, DIATHERMIC OIL, GLYCOLE, COCA COLA: IT IS ABSOLUTELY IRRILEVANT WHICH IS THE FLUID IN THE PRIMARY CIRCUIT AS FOR CONCERNS THE MEASUREMENT OF THE ENERGY BECAUSE WE MEASURE THE ENERGY ONLY MULTIPLYING THE CUBIC METERS OF WATER FLOWING THROUGH THE SECONDARY CIRCUIT BY THE DELTA t OBTAINED SUBTRACTING FROM THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WATER (LIQUID) OF THE SECONDARY CIRCUIT AT THE EXIT FROM THE HEAT EXCHANGER THE TEMPERATURE OF THE SAME LIQUID WATER AT THE INPUT OF THE SAME HEAT EXCHANGER.
    ANDREA ROSSI

  37. Peter Roe

    September 29, 2011 at 11:39 am

    So Defkalion want to put themselves back in the game! Brilliant – this is the best free entertainment going. I only hope that potential legal battles do not get in the way of developments.

    AR is sounding understandably tetchy, not only about ‘the snake’ and his deceitful pronouncement, but about ‘skeptics’ misrepresenting the facts about the coming test procedure. I can’t see what either hope to achieve – the facts will out either way, very soon.

    • Peter Roe

      September 29, 2011 at 1:30 pm

      I imagine he’ll be totally incandescent when he finds out that DGT is sticking its head above the parapet.

  38. georgehants

    September 29, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    Maybe they have some cash now.

  39. auto rijbewijs

    September 29, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    It’s a nice blog you have over here! It’s very usefull information for me and I just want to thank you for that! If you post more threads as this one, I’ll follow your blog active!

  40. Agence Web La Rochelle

    October 3, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    The following time I read a blog, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as much as this one. I imply, I do know it was my choice to learn, but I really thought youd have one thing attention-grabbing to say. All I hear is a bunch of whining about one thing that you could repair if you werent too busy in search of attention.