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

Patent Examiner Invited to Oct 6 eCat Test

September 30, 2011

With thanks to georgehants and Daniele of 22passi for pointing us to the following invitation for the European Patent examiner to attend the October 6th experiment which is now confirmed as taking place in Bologna University. Far from the University distancing itself from the eCat as some have suggested, this is a strange way to express embarrasment.  Through the FAX, we also get a tease about those attending. After such a lengthy stretch of sparse information, there is a sense of a gathering event in the air.

 

FAX 

                                                                                    EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE

                                                                                                POSTBUS 5818, Patentiaan 2

                                                                                                2280-HV RIJSWIJK

                                                                                                THE NETHERLANDS

27th Sept 2011

Re:         European Patent Application No. 08873805.9–1270 Filed on August 4, 2008

In the name of Pascucci Maddalena

Dear Sirs,

 With reference to the subject-matter of the Application in re, we wish to inform you that an experiment run by the inventor Mr Rossi Andrea, on a module of a 1MW plant, will take place  on October 6, 2011 in Bologna (IT), at a lab made available by the University of Bologna.

This experiment will be attended by Professors from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, as well as by Professors in Physics from the USA, China, Japan, France, Great Britain, Greece, Russia and Italy. An official report will be published and made available on the Internet at a later date.

In this connection, the Applicant would like to invite the EPO Examiner in charge of the application to attend the above experiment as a guest.

Here below the relevant details.

Date and time: October 6, 2011 10.00 a.m. on (expected duration 24 hours)

Location: Via Dell’Elletricista 6 D, Zona Industriale Roveri, 40100 Bologna (Italy)

In case you accept the above invitation, we will provide you with additional contact information.

Looking forward to hearing from you, we remain

Yours Faithfully….

Received at the EPO on Sep 27, 2011, 12.20.57 Page 1 of 1

 

 

 

Posted by on September 30, 2011. Filed under Bologna,Media & Blogs,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

211 Responses to Patent Examiner Invited to Oct 6 eCat Test

  1. Ben

    September 30, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    The was following was posted on Krivit’s blog in the comment section, reportedly received by e-mail:

    “Well done, as usual. Look forward to your reporting of the upcoming Rossi tests.”

    Dennis Bushnell

    Something about this seems odd. Was this THE Dennis Bushnell from NASA? If so, why he is looking forward to Krivit’s report about it if Krivit is not going to be there and apparently other journalists are, including the Italian publication Focus and NYTeknik, and possibly others? Why would he be looking forward to seeing a nonobserver’s report if he had just “observed no positive results” himself?

    Something is not right.

    blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/09/28/nasa-advances-evaluation-of-piantelli’s-lenr-research/

    • Ransompw

      September 30, 2011 at 3:01 pm

      Well, the gusts of Krivit’s article advanced the notion of NASA’s interest in LENR and Bushnell’s position that it is a real energy source.

      Krivit’s comment in the article about the Rossi visit is probably true in that no tests were done on September 5 & 6 and therefor no positive results were observed. Of course to the casual reader it suggests tests were done and they were not successful. In my opinion that is typical Krivit, a half truth meant to deceive, not to enlighten. Of course to someone like Bushnell who knows the whole story it may just seem accurate. or Bushnell may not have appreciated how it was likely to be interpreted by a casual reader, I don’t know.

      My guess is that Bushnell and NASA are as interested in the October test as any of us and I have reason to believe they expect positive results.

    • LCD

      September 30, 2011 at 3:03 pm

      That is disturbing because it sounds like Dennis is agreeing with Krivit that Rossi has nothing of consequence.
      Then again it may be im taking it out of context and getting the impression Krivit wants me to get.

      Oh brother, cant trust what anybody says anymore

      • Ransompw

        September 30, 2011 at 3:14 pm

        Bushnell thinks LENR is real and he thinks Rossi’s Ecat is real from the standpoint of harnessing to some extent the LENR effect. Whether he thinks Rossi has a commercial product or his Ecat is ready fro prime time is unclear.

        I think however we will know in a week. Rossi will either go down in flames before an international audience, prove LENR but fail to demonstrate a commercial product or verify his Ecat.

        Based on the audience, the test dynamics we already know and the length of the test, I think this one is going to be definitive. It is hard to believe Rossi hasn’t already tried it and knows which of the three will occur.

        • LCD

          September 30, 2011 at 3:22 pm

          Yeah or Dennis knows something about Rossi that we all should know but don’t, and is looking forward to Krivit exposing him.

          If not then Krivit is unethically using Dennis’s email in a way to back up his claim about the Sept demo by Rossi for NASA.

          That’s how I see it anyways.

          • Ransompw

            September 30, 2011 at 4:09 pm

            LCD:

            I don’t think NASA has tested the Ecat. I think they are at this point open minded and hopeful that Thursday will bring positive results but and I add this, I think we will know then.

          • popeye

            September 30, 2011 at 4:12 pm

            > “Rossi will either go down in flames before an international audience, prove LENR but fail to demonstrate a commercial product or verify his Ecat.”

            I’m not so sure. That’s what people were saying before the January demo. It was a public test of a module that would become part of the MW plant; it would have scientists present, reports would be published etc.

            Here we are almost 9 months later, and several more demos performed for several other scientists, and still people argue about whether it’s real or not. This is the talent of an artists like Rossi and Mills and Dardik; they can keep things in purgatory for a long time, keeping just enough uncertainty alive for a few people with deep pockets and shallow sensibility interested.

            Now we have a public test of a module from the MW plant, more scientists present, reports will be published, and it will run longer. Maybe it will be definitive. Everyone hopes it will be. I suspect it will look definitive initially (or Rossi wouldn’t be doing it), but it’s also possible that with more scrutiny, doubts will return.

            For one thing, if it’s the 80 kg unit, and it produces 10 kW, it won’t exceed chemical energy density in 24 hours, let alone exceed it by a really definitive amount like 10 or 100 times. This is especially true if the mass and volume of the heat exchanger is accounted for. The calculation will have to use only part of the device.

            > “It is hard to believe Rossi hasn’t already tried it and knows which of the three will occur.”

            The same can be said of any of the previous demos. And yet, none of them proved his claims.

          • Ransompw

            September 30, 2011 at 4:16 pm

            Popeye:

            Get over it, this is put up or shut up time. The I/O will be measured accurately of that you can be sure. All the scientists invited are going to be aware of the past criticism. We are going to know soon.

          • popeye

            September 30, 2011 at 4:37 pm

            > “The I/O will be measured accurately of that you can be sure.”

            If so, that’s part of the problem from where I sit. I think if Rossi’s claims were real, he would be demonstrating a self-powered device. Any need for input power, beyond starting it up, and that includes cycled input, makes it suspicious.

            He uses thermal input, claims thermal gain, so it should be self-sustaining, for as long as the nuclear fuel holds out; 6 months, he says.

            And anyway, we’ve established the O/I is not enough. It’s all about the energy density.

            > All the scientists invited are going to be aware of the past criticism.

            You’d like to think so, but E&K seemed oblivious to past criticism when they attended a demo.

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 4:58 pm

            Popeye the heater powered device does not bug me because I don’t understand the theory behind it, stability points, phenomena involved, critical parameters, etc. I understand your point but it’s Low Energy Nuclear Reactions almost an oxymoron why would you expect it to be simple?

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 5:00 pm

            Maybe the “complimentary” thing will be a single self sustained sincle core device? And nothing else will matter?

            One can hope

          • popeye

            September 30, 2011 at 5:06 pm

            > “why would you expect it to be simple?”

            What’s in the black box can be as complicated as you want, but the inputs and outputs are simple. The input is heat; the output is more heat. So use some of the output for the input. Simple.

            Once you’ve converted the input electricity to heat, the black box can’t tell if it’s coming from an external source or from the output. Surely there are ways to regulate the heat that’s fed back from the output to give whatever regulation or stability you get from using heat converted from electricity — which doesn’t appear to be regulated anyway, going by the calculation which mostly assume constant input power.

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 5:43 pm

            Pops”Surely there are ways to regulate the heat that’s fed back from the output to give whatever regulation or stability you get from using heat converted from electricity — which doesn’t appear to be regulated anyway, going by the calculation which mostly assume constant input power.”

            Granted but that is a whole lot more complicated at this stage.

            Your last statement doesn’t make sense to me, constant input power is by definition regulated?? Did I lose your meaning?

          • popeye

            September 30, 2011 at 6:48 pm

            > “Granted but that is a whole lot more complicated at this stage.”

            But in this case, the complication, which is all established engineering, is worth the effort, because it makes the demonstration so much *simpler* and so much more *convincing*, and so much more potentially useful.

            > “Your last statement doesn’t make sense to me, constant input power is by definition regulated?? ”

            By regulation, I meant adjusted to maintain stability in the ecat.

            If all it needs is constant input, that is easy to provide with a large thermal mass, and a regulated flow of coolant. We have the technology for that.

          • CM Edwards

            September 30, 2011 at 7:32 pm

            Popeye, you wrote: “The input is heat; the output is more heat. So use some of the output for the input. Simple.”

            The claimed core temperature is up to 1500 degrees celsius. Feeding in steam at 150 degrees isn’t going to do anything as far as adding heat. At more than 1000 degrees colder than the core temperature, the steam would act as a coolant.

            The way to raise the heat up is to allow more of it to accumulate in the e-cat. A change of coolant from water to steam would definitely do that, though at the cost of a reduced mass flow rate. I’d recommend air or hydrogen over steam.

            However, that would probably not make the demonstration model any simpler.

          • popeye

            September 30, 2011 at 8:04 pm

            >> “Popeye, you wrote: “The input is heat; the output is more heat. So use some of the output for the input. Simple.””

            CM> “The claimed core temperature is up to 1500 degrees celsius. Feeding in steam at 150 degrees isn’t going to do anything as far as adding heat.”

            I didn’t say feed steam back into the core. The ecat core produces heat; it can be fed back before it produces steam, by not removing it as quickly to make steam. You could do this with a lower flow rate, higher pressure, or you could feed the steam back into the overall device, where it could be used to heat incoming cold liquid, which would therefore absorb less heat from the ecat core.

            > “The way to raise the heat up is to allow more of it to accumulate in the e-cat.”

            Right and feeding steam back to the incoming cold water would do this.

            > “A change of coolant from water to steam would definitely do that, though at the cost of a reduced mass flow rate.”

            Or just a higher ratio of steam to water. Or just higher temperature water at higher pressure.

            > “However, that would probably not make the demonstration model any simpler.”

            This would only slightly complicate the device, but would be a huge simplification in the demonstration itself. To go from some finite gain to infinite gain is an enormous step, and it removes the need to look for tampering on the input power side, or to measure it at all.

            To me, failure to do this, when it would be so much more persuasive, and not that difficult to engineer, suggests that it’s not possible, and that means the claims don’t stand up.

          • CM Edwards

            September 30, 2011 at 9:38 pm

            I think it would be persuasive to simply take the hydrogen fueled core out of its cooling water bath, wrap it in a nice big roll of extra fiberglass, and run it full throttle until it melts.

            Granted, that design might need to evolve a little before it was commercially viable….

          • Roger Barker

            September 30, 2011 at 11:45 pm

            Pops is correct. This is yet more smoke and mirrors from Rossi. We may yet see a verified 1kw input and and a 10kw output but we’re talking about an 80 kg unit here! God knows what Rossi could have shoved into this 80kg pack to produce this much power. The only way to prove this current test of Rossi’s is to run it for several days and not just 24 hours.

          • CM Edwards

            October 1, 2011 at 6:32 pm

            It may be an unwarranted bias on my part, but I have to discount this as evidence.

            I mean, come on. Some wild eyed Italian ex-con claims to have cobbled together a cold fusion reactor from brass pipe and nickel powder. There are so many reasons to doubt this that “poorly planned design” isn’t even on the first page.

        • maryyugo

          September 30, 2011 at 4:22 pm

          “The I/O will be measured accurately of that you can be sure. ”

          Scientists can be fooled by what amounts to sleight of hand “magic”. They should have a scientist familiar with trickery present at these complicated tests. A heat exchanger is not needed. A larger E-cat is not needed. I am suspicious of the possible reasons Rossi has decided to use them instead of simply repeating the excellently designed but poorly executed experiment Dr. Levi said he did (the 18 hour all liquid flow test on the “old” unimproved, smaller and simpler E-cat).

          Once again, it seems as if Rossi is running the test. If so, it won’t be an independent experiment, will it?

          Well… it’s going to be interesting to see what actually happens.

          • Ransompw

            September 30, 2011 at 4:30 pm

            You will be suspicious no matter what, that is a given in this reality.

          • popeye

            September 30, 2011 at 4:39 pm

            > “You will be suspicious no matter what, that is a given in this reality.”

            Not me. If I can buy a H-Ni car that never needs refuelling, I will stop being suspicious. (Sooner than that too, but this contradicts your absolute statement.)

          • Ransompw

            September 30, 2011 at 4:44 pm

            Fine, you and Mary will be suspicious until someone clobbers you over the head with positive results.

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 4:54 pm

            Oh brother, I hate to agree with Mary but a definitive test should only require one core. Simplicity in any experiment is paramount.

            This does bug me too.

          • popeye

            September 30, 2011 at 4:58 pm

            > “Fine, you and Mary will be suspicious until someone clobbers you over the head with positive results.”

            Something like that. Extraordinary evidence shouldn’t be that difficult when your energy density is a million times that of chemical fuel.

          • maryyugo

            September 30, 2011 at 5:02 pm

            “You will be suspicious no matter what, that is a given in this reality.”

            Simply not true. All Rossi has to do to convince me is to provide an E-cat as a black box with input and output pipes for coolant and wires for electricity. Someone else (someone reliable) should provide the input power and measuring equipment, the coolant, and the output measurement. The output measurement should not involve steam at any stage. There is no need for a heat exchanger– Levi PROVED that with his 18 hour test using liquid coolant.

            Alternatively, as Popeye points out, Rossi could run without input electric power at all after an initial powered start up.

            Either way, it has to run long enough to rule out chemical energy including nickel/hydrogen reactions, Raney nickel, and any contribution from high density “one time use” battery technology. If the thing is really nuclear, it should be no problem to run it for a week. A week of properly measured power generation with a liquid coolant circuit and measurements independent of Rossi using equipment not furnished by Rossi– THAT would be convincing.

            So now I told you what would convince me. It’s not difficult or expensive. Levi claims he already did most of it. Rossi needs to hire him to do a repeat performance with better calibration and record keeping and some independent assistants from the reputable scientific community. That’s all that’s needed and then, I’ll be delighted to become a fan.

          • John Dlouhy

            September 30, 2011 at 5:32 pm

            Ahh maryyugo, the Houdini defense, one of my favorite! Rossi is a magician now. Maybe he should invite David Blaine or David Copperfield to the demonstration? This is just one notch above the Rasputin defense, my personal favorite, in which Rossi is able to mesmerize us with those piercing dark eyes and compel us to believe anything he wants us to. Positive results are irrelevant as he can control our minds. Ooooooh spoooooky!

            Since we are not there to administer the tests ourselves, the details of those tests are somewhat irrelevant. So what WILL convince you?

            This is what will do it for me.
            1) Scientists we can trust reported by journalists we can trust, OR
            2) declaration by the spokesperson of a major corporation OR
            3) presentation by the government of a G8 nation, OR
            4) product in my basement heating my house.
            Period.
            Or as Rossi would say PERIOD!!!!

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 5:37 pm

            Not to say Ransom is not right both MY and Pops will find fault with anything

          • maryyugo

            October 1, 2011 at 2:14 am

            “Ahh maryyugo, the Houdini defense, one of my favorite! Rossi is a magician now. Maybe he should invite David Blaine or David Copperfield to the demonstration?”

            I wish I had a good scam and you had money. It’d be easy to sell you. Steorn is the model for how Rossi has behaved thus far but let’s not forget Uri Geller, the lousy magician and pretend psychic who bamboozled such illustrious scientists as Puthoff and Targ not to mention the well reputed periodical “Nature” which published P&T’s conclusions that Geller had psychic powers. Of course when Geller was revealed to be the fraud that he is, the paper was recalled or whatever they do with bad scientific work.

            People who think Rossi can’t possibly be hiding a variety of tricks in an 80 kilogram machine would be easy marks for almost any sort of chicanery. They are simply gullible.

          • John Dlouhy

            October 1, 2011 at 5:54 pm

            maryyugo, you and I finally agree on something, I wish I had money too!

          • Stephen Young

            October 2, 2011 at 5:19 am

            Rampsow wrote:”Fine, you and Mary will be suspicious until someone clobbers you over the head with positive results”
            And ravenous believers in easy solutions could be convinced of a fraud by clobbering them over the head with..?
            I can’t wait for the end of October so that I do not have any more professional reasons to watch this site. George, send a flying saucer to beam me up.

          • LCD

            October 3, 2011 at 4:57 pm

            Welcome to the site Stephen Young, any relation to Steve Young one of my favorite QBs?

            Ransom and John are not “believers” although if you just read Mary and Pops posts then everybody on this site except them are believers. I would say most people are skeptical on this site but there are levels of that too.

            Reason why Ransom wrote that is well “google maryyugo and popeye” to get the history of everything they’ve said and you’ll see why people are forced to take the “Rossi” side in arguments with them. When they talk with everybody else they are pretty neutral.

    • Anatoliy V. Sermyagin

      September 30, 2011 at 9:38 pm

      Perhaps I’m wrong but this time I couldn’t find in Krivit’s blog a notorious comment:
      “Well done, as usual. Look forward to your reporting of the upcoming Rossi tests.”
      Dennis Bushnell”

    • Tony

      September 30, 2011 at 10:53 pm

      Interesting to read that with sarcasm in mind:

      “Well done, as usual.” (that is: a terrible job, as is usual)

      “Look forward to your reporting of the upcoming Rossi tests” (that is: I’m not really looking forward to it at all 🙂

  2. Iggy Dalrymple

    September 30, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    Where is the Oct 6 test? Bologna or Uppsala?

    • Renzo

      September 30, 2011 at 2:45 pm

      Bologna at Rossi’s workshop

      • Ransompw

        September 30, 2011 at 2:51 pm

        Are we sure it’s at Rossi’s workshop? Is the address in the letter above the same place, I really don’t know Bologne and can’t remmeber the address of the prior events.

        • Renzo

          September 30, 2011 at 2:53 pm

          Yes it is

      • Ben

        September 30, 2011 at 2:52 pm

        According to the invitation to the EPO, the test is taking place at “lab made available to us at the University of Bologna.” I would assume that means at the University of Bologna…..but assuming anything in this whole affair will just get one more confused.

        • LCD

          September 30, 2011 at 3:23 pm

          It’s at a U of Bologna lab according to the article, what’s the mystery?

        • Ben

          September 30, 2011 at 3:46 pm

          Actually the letter states that the test is to take place at a “lab made available to us BY (not at) the University of Bologna.” Who knows what that really means.

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 5:02 pm

            UofBo property I’m pretty sure

          • Susan

            October 1, 2011 at 7:49 am

            The story of the lab of university of Bologna is another of his flamboyant LIES.
            Somebody sent an inquiry at Uni of Bologna (see #161 here http://www.aspoitalia.it/blog/nte/2011/09/08/e-cat-il-plot-si-infittisce-i-greci-se-ne-vanno-i-senesi-si-risvegliano/)
            They, as soon was made aware of this fax-message, started to investigate and for sure will to take some actions.
            The address is exactly the one of his theatre-film studio-lab-showroom in Bologna. UniBo has nothing to do with his shows, a part of the presence of Levi in his spare time.
            I’m sure soon or later Mr. Rossi will correct this statement saying that was a misunderstunding of his patent lawyer who sent the fax.
            Wanna bet ?

          • Tony

            October 1, 2011 at 8:20 am

            That’s a pretty vicious accusation, posted in an unnecessarily unpleasant way.

          • Susan

            October 2, 2011 at 5:14 pm

            UniBo was made aware (by an unpolite an bad guy) of the statement “at a lab made available by the University of Bologna”
            UniBo asked Rossi to correct the above statement to EPO.
            Let’s see how long does it take to see this correction done.

          • Susan

            October 3, 2011 at 7:14 am

            The fax disappeared from EPO’s website. Does it mean anything ?

  3. Renzo

    September 30, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    The address above is that of Rossi, the same place of the previous test, see also the report by Krivit. So it is not clear if who wrote the invitation made an error, perhaps all the guest will meet at Rossi’s workshop and then go to a lab provided by the university or perhaps the university has only provided instruments or it is a strange oversight in the invitation. Anyway the address of via dell’Elettricista is that of Rossi’s workshop and it has nothing to do with the university.

  4. LCD

    September 30, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    Open Letter to Dr. Bushnell

    Dr. Bushnell you are going on the record as agreeing with Mr. Krivit that tests were performed in September by Rossi for NASA and the tests were not positive.

    If this is not your intention then please state otherwise.

    Thanks
    LCD

    • LCD

      September 30, 2011 at 3:18 pm

      I posted the same thing on Krivits blog but I’m sure he won’t post it.

    • AB

      September 30, 2011 at 3:23 pm

      I think this is just Krivit spinning things. The Bushnell quote is from Krivit and we don’t know anything about the context or what Bushnell is referring to exactly.

      • LCD

        September 30, 2011 at 3:26 pm

        Yeah but it needs to be challenged I think. I think WE SHOULD ALL flood Krivit’s website with the same basic question and post the same basic question everywhere else we can until Bushnell or Krivit answers.

        • John Dlouhy

          September 30, 2011 at 4:31 pm

          LOL Yikes! You’re really getting caught up in this LC! I applaud your enthusiasm. However, I think maybe WE SHOULD ALL wait patiently for 6 more days and let it work itself out. After all, Krivit doesn’t really matter that much does he? Certainly not to me.

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 4:36 pm

            You might be right.

    • Ben

      September 30, 2011 at 3:40 pm

      LCD, did you send that to Bushnell at NASA? If your family member who works for the big media company does want to do a story on this, I would suggest that she, as a member of the press, contact Bushnell to try to verify, at the very least, NASA’s involvement to this point. Bushnell and NASA are being thrust into the middle of this whether they like it or not and they probably need to clarify some things before this whole thing blows up in their face (no pun or black humor intended).

      • LCD

        September 30, 2011 at 4:00 pm

        I am talking to her about it. They are trying to get an interview with him, they wont do a piece without an interview with somebody from nasa is what she said.

        • Ransompw

          September 30, 2011 at 4:04 pm

          Don’t you think some members of NASA will be at the Ocober test? I would expect Rossi to have invited some. Personally, I think NASA is hopeful about these tests and I don’t think anything in September changed their mind.

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 4:18 pm

            I don’t know if anybody from NASA will be there. Maybe, but Rossi did say that NASA was invited but they said they would rather test at their facility, so I don’t know. It’s in Bologna and that would require taxpayer money to fund somebody to go over there. Maybe one or two goes on vacation to Bologna to watch. Not sure.

          • Ransompw

            September 30, 2011 at 4:24 pm

            LCD, I’m suggesting I do

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 5:04 pm

            come again?

          • Ransompw

            September 30, 2011 at 5:40 pm

            I am not getting much information from my sources at NASA, pretty quiet actually, but not entirely. I do think they are hopeful about the October Tests and I think NASA people will be involved in the testing in October, not possitive about the 6th.

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 5:56 pm

            Oh okay I see, well Rossi did say that later NASA would test them. Hopefully somebody will be there. Like you said it’s either going to be the biggest thing since I don’t know, fire, or a flop of hollywood story proportions.

          • Burt

            September 30, 2011 at 8:47 pm

            Come on LCD, NASA does have the budget for a trip to Italy. Even I do…

        • Ben

          September 30, 2011 at 5:04 pm

          LCD….I don’t have Bushnell’s e-mail address but I will see if I can track it down. It should be available on the ‘Net somewhere. I will have to do it later in the day because I have some family business to attend to very shortly.

          I know someone on this board claimed to be talking to Michael Nelson at NASA a couple of weeks ago. Whether that was true or not, I don’t know.

          If Krivit can talk to Bushnell, I don’t see why your relative with a bigger entity than NET cannot either. EV World was also able to get an interview with him.

          I guess until someone comes up with contact information for Bushnell, the best thing may be is to direct her to Bushnell’s audio interview with EV World done in April. A link to is under the heading ECATNEWS Brief Part I at the top of this page. It may not be exactly what her organization is looking for but it will at least provide evidence, in Bushnell’s own words, that NASA is interested in this and is quite enthusiastic about its potential. Bushnell’s audio interview is well-known to those of this who have been following this but to those unaware of it, just his acknowledgement that there is something substantial to cold fusion/LENR will be an eye-opener. Someone may decide it is worth pursuing on his 6-month-old interview, regardless of the current drama.

          A funny thing about this whole saga is that if you tell people it is an interesting science story they might be ambivalent….but if you tell them there is drama involved, there may be a stampede.

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 5:17 pm

            Good idea i sent her the link.

            They are hesitant to do anything with Rossi because of his past convictions and because of the fantastic claim and because of Pons and Fl. Lately I’ve been telling her that Piantelli is also involved and so they are looking at it again.

      • LCD

        September 30, 2011 at 4:02 pm

        Do you have Bushnell.s email?

        • Frost*

          September 30, 2011 at 4:33 pm

          I believe this is Dennis Bushnell’s email address.

          dennis.m.bushnell@nasa.gov

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 6:30 pm

            Worth a try

  5. John Dlouhy

    September 30, 2011 at 3:47 pm

    Does anyone have an idea about interpreting this statement from the fax:

    “the Applicant would like to invite the EPO Examiner in charge of the experiment to attend the above experiment as a guest”

    How is the EPO Examiner in charge of the experiment?

    • AB

      September 30, 2011 at 3:54 pm

      It’s just a small mistake by the admin. The original says “the EPO Examiner in charge of the application”

      • John Dlouhy

        September 30, 2011 at 4:17 pm

        D’oh I even read the original an failed to notice, thanks AB.

        • admin

          September 30, 2011 at 5:53 pm

          Thanks, Guys. Sorted

          Paul

          • John Dlouhy

            September 30, 2011 at 6:27 pm

            Paul, in an earlier post I used the cancel button and it failed to work so I have a double posting now. It showed moderated for a few minutes and now appears posted from my view. Did I make a mistake using this feature? (wasn’t sure where else to ask this)

          • admin

            September 30, 2011 at 11:44 pm

            You were using it fine, John. Just a mobile signal failure mid-delete at this end. It’s gone now.

            Paul

  6. popeye

    September 30, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    Rossi said he was done with public demos, done with demonstrating the individual units, done with proving anything to scientists, done with chatter. Proof would come from the success of the commercial device.

    Here he is doing a public demo, of a single unit, with many invited scientists, and he is chattering louder than ever (in all caps, no less).

    • Ransompw

      September 30, 2011 at 4:28 pm

      It’s October, it is time to prove his commercial device if he can. He was always going to have to do that, it was a given, either with the 1Mw reactor or the smaller unit.

      • maryyugo

        September 30, 2011 at 5:52 pm

        “It’s October, it is time to prove his commercial device if he can. ”

        There is no “commercial device” without it passing inspection by government authorities. And it’s supposedly “nuclear” so it’s going to be much more difficult to get it approved for sale.

        • TomAndersen

          September 30, 2011 at 6:03 pm

          Not in Venezuela, China, small islands nations, etc, etc. If it works, there will be lots of people running them, with or without approval from one government.

          • maryyugo

            October 1, 2011 at 2:06 am

            That will be lots of fun the first time one starts a lethal fire or explodes in someone’s factory or basement.

    • John Dlouhy

      September 30, 2011 at 5:01 pm

      Popeye, you’re really straining to find fault when you say something like that.

      In January, Rossi was giving projections 9 months in advance of the completion and testing of a new technology that was still being researched and modified. From an engineering point of view this is a difficult thing to do with certainty.

      Not only has he kept to his schedule, which is an encouraging sign, he is a little bit ahead coming at the beginning of Oct. rather than the end. That is hardly negative.

      He is not testing the individual reactor again, he is testing a module of his 1 megawatt plant, his commercial plant. This keeps to his word of testing the final product while at the same time accommodating, to some degree, the critics who suggest testing the large plant is unnecessary. He intends to test the entire plant later as well. He will also use water flow calorimetry to eliminate concerns about steam quality to satisfy the skeptics.

      A room full of scientists from all the G8 nations, observing a test that has been adjusted according to previous concerns by critics and continued for a period of 24 hours is an excellent promise. It has not happened yet, but it if it comes to pass and is reported in an acceptable manner, we could have reason to adjust our expectations. Unless of course what you believe is already a forgone conclusion?

      • maryyugo

        September 30, 2011 at 5:09 pm

        “A room full of scientists from all the G8 nations, observing a test that has been adjusted according to previous concerns by critics and contiued for a period of 24 hours is an excellent promise…”

        I don’t recall critics calling for a larger device with a complex heat exchanger cooling system. That’s a whole new mess of stuff that needs evaluation and calibration and is open to making new errors. What’s needed — what has ALWAYS been needed — is a longer running, better calibrated and documented REPETITION of Dr. Levi’s excellent experimental design using liquid coolant in a smaller older E-cat. And it would be nice if it went longer than 18 hours but if it makes enough energy in that time to totally rule out (by a factor of 10 or more) any conceivable alternative source of energy, then that would be fine.

        I don’t understand why the new complications are needed. I don’t understand why Rossi has to be involved in running the tests except maybe to stand by to be ensure safety while someone else does everything except filling the E-cat originally with whatever makes it run.

        So, with respect to past critics, the proposed experiment isn’t really a response — it’s a whole new ball of complicated wax. The new design could work out or it could just complicate evaluation. Why would Rossi want to do that when he could just replicate what Levi said he did months ago?

        • John Dlouhy

          September 30, 2011 at 5:57 pm

          If it helps, think of the exchanger as part of the measurement equipment for the calorimetry instead of as part of the reactor. This iteration of the reactor produces high temperature steam, so get over it already. Contending that he must rebuild this more advanced version of his technology to suit YOUR requirements is inappropriate.

          Rossi’s presence is not a legitimate concern and you know it. Saying he shouldn’t be there is just a subtle form of defamation by implication.

          The more complicated version of the reactor is at least consistent with what he claims about working towards a commercial product, even if other aspects of this story don’t add up.

          • TomAndersen

            September 30, 2011 at 6:08 pm

            Agreed. If it works as claimed, then likely running enough water through it to get to a non steam regime would cool the core. Another way of putting it: You design the inner core to run at whatever temperature it needs. Then the thicker and more metal you surround it with lowers the output temperature, increases the flow rate (so power is the same), and makes the core harder to control, as you have more thermal delay between power produced and power output. Hot water is handy, where steam is something that people will pay for.

          • John Dlouhy

            September 30, 2011 at 6:19 pm

            Right, people who don’t build real devices can overlook the importance of control and the difficulties imposed by real world problems like sensor drift and thermal hysteresis. As well, who knows what additional stability problems this novel technology might have. Rossi speaks about stability a great deal which leads me to think it is an issue.

          • popeye

            September 30, 2011 at 6:35 pm

            > “likely running enough water through it to get to a non steam regime would cool the core.”

            But he has a unit that worked perfectly with 1 L/s running through it, and a 4 degree temperature change. Show us that one.

            He’s free to change his designs obviously, but the Oct 6 demo seems to be to convince the public and scientists. If they have a simpler design that works beautifully with flowing water, why not use it. After he’s convinced the world, it will no longer doubt his more complex designs.

          • maryyugo

            October 1, 2011 at 2:08 am

            “Contending that he must rebuild this more advanced version of his technology to suit YOUR requirements is inappropriate.”

            I’m not contending such nonsense. All I’m asking is that he use his OLD technology to duplicate the experiment claimed by Dr. Levi and that he do it with proper calibration and record keeping so it’s meaningful. Levi was able to run an E-cat on water cooling without making steam so it can’t be all that difficult.

            I’d also like Rossi to do the demo with the old Ecat and not with an 80KG E-cat which can hide all sorts of things.

      • popeye

        September 30, 2011 at 5:40 pm

        > “Popeye, you’re really straining to find fault when you say something like that.”

        Just pointing out blatant contradictions. I’m not saying the proposed demo is not positive; just amused by his doublespeak. What you say below shows what’s positive about the Oct 6 show, but it says nothing of the contradictions I mentioned.

        > “Not only has he kept to his schedule, which is an encouraging sign, he is a little bit ahead coming at the beginning of Oct. rather than the end.

        I’m surprised there are no serious delays so far as well, but he is not ahead, by any means. Initially he talked about a 1 MW plant in Sept/Oct, and soon after, it was Oct, and lately, near the end of October. That’s ok. No contradictions there. He’s still planning to demonstrate the MW plant at the end of October. What he’s doing now is not a demonstration of a 1 MW plant. It’s better to my mind, but it’s just another demonstration of a ~10 kW unit. What he said he was done with.

        > “He is not testing the individual reactor again, he is testing a module of his 1 megawatt plant, his commercial plant. ”

        A module is an individual reactor. From January, he has been saying the MW reactor would be many individual reactors in parallel and series…

        I’ve never seen the point, by the way. If one unit produces 10 kW, it’s no big news that 100 of them produce 1 MW. But that’s what he claimed.

        > “This keeps to his word of testing the final product”

        It’s a better test, I agree, but it is not a demonstration of a MW plant. And it’s not the commercial product in the hands of the customer as he said. That’s presumably still to come, but that’s not what this is. This is a demo of a single reactor to scientists, exactly what he said he was done with.

        > “He will also use water flow calorimetry… A room full of scientists from all the G8 nations,”

        Both good signs, but it sounds like Kullander is going to be there; that’s a bad sign.

        > “observing a test that has been adjusted according to previous concerns by critics”

        Well, adjusted to use only liquid is good. Adjusted to make it bigger and more complicated is bad. If he’s doing a demo for scientists and the public, keeping it as simple as possible is best, especially since he says he’s already done it that way. Just show us Levi’s 18-hour test, for a week. Oh, and unplug it.

        > “and continued for a period of 24 hours”

        Better. A week would be even better for an 80 kg device.

        So yes, there are good signs, but it’s still amusing that he’s doing exactly what he said he would not do.

        > “Unless of course what you believe is already a forgone conclusion?”

        Oh no, not me… But some people are already 99.99% sure it works. They seem to have jumped to a conclusion.

        • John Dlouhy

          September 30, 2011 at 6:12 pm

          Fair enough. I personally don’t have a problem with Kullander after seeing the video today. He seemed quite professional, reserved, and even balanced in his description of what he had observed and what should be done next. At any rate, he won’t be by himself.

          You wrote, “I’ve never seen the point, by the way. If one unit produces 10 kW, it’s no big news that 100 of them produce 1 MW. But that’s what he claimed.”

          When Rossi says he’s running out of money and has to sell his house to finish the 1 megawatt plant when a smaller plant would do, I would say that is highly suspicious and put that in the category of “makes no sense at all”, a definite warning flag. BUT. As far as ganging several units together to make a larger reactor, that is a legitimate industrial practice referred to as a scaling demonstration. To assume that a large number of reactors, with slightly differing characteristics, all functioning together will be possible without testing it is simply not done. Who knows what problems their coordination, interaction, and control might pose? To be sure, all new technologies go through this step when passing from the lab to commercial realization. This is another positive for Rossi’s story.

          • popeye

            September 30, 2011 at 6:39 pm

            > “To assume that a large number of reactors, with slightly differing characteristics, all functioning together will be possible without testing it is simply not done. Who knows what problems their coordination, interaction, and control might pose? ”

            All trivial quibbles next to the question of whether or not the thing works. I’m not in the least interested in engineering problems, or in re-inventing the wheel. Just in the question of nuclear reactions producing heat.

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 7:44 pm

            He’ll just keep going John.

          • John Dlouhy

            September 30, 2011 at 10:02 pm

            LOL…. I know…I know…why won’t I learn….

  7. Sojourner Soo

    September 30, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    Begging all of your pardons, but I’m curious to know why you all get your knickers in a knot over what Krivit writes? The guy is completely irrelevant, yet you all accord him some mysterious powers of insight. I’m more fascinated by how you all respond to his baiting and manipulation than I am by anything he writes on his equally irrelevant blog. To repeat, Krivit is nothing, a nobody, an attention-seeking narcissist. Ignore him. That goes for you, too, Andrea Rossi. Geez!

    • Ben

      September 30, 2011 at 5:32 pm

      Krivit may be a snake but to call him irrelevant would be a mistake. He has been continually covering this story longer than most people, so he gets props for his seniority if nothing else. He has gone to great lengths to portray himself as a respectable journalist and to the uninitiated he still comes across that way. I read a lot of his stuff and was impressed myself until his obvious bias regarding Rossi caused me to question his motives. I have come to find out that there have been underlying questions about his integrity going back some years, as illustrated by the animosity between him and Dr. Josephson and his allegations of fraud against long-time LENR researcher Michael McKubre.

      There are quite a number of people familiar with LENR who still consider an authority on the subject and view Rossi with the same disdain as he does. While I disprove of his methods and have questions about his motives, he may ultimately prove to be right about whatever he is questioning about Rossi, as Rossi really has proven nothing to this point. He has made it interesting but the proof is still lacking. Accordingly to what “Krivit says,” an investor group sought him out to get more information about the field and, quite honestly, who else were they going to go to, PESWiki?

      Actually Jed Rothwell would have probably been a better source but his approach to the subject is high on substance but low on style and this really is not appealing to some people. Krivit attempts to provide both to some degree and in some ways he is succeeding, so give the devil his due.

      • LCD

        September 30, 2011 at 6:18 pm

        A lot of parallels with the way he treated McKubre and the way he is treating Rossi actually, good point.

        I agree with you Ben.

  8. LCD

    September 30, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    Soo somehow Krivit gets to me. Anyways he posted my response to Bushnell so that was a bit unexpected.

    • maryyugo

      September 30, 2011 at 5:15 pm

      Far as I know, Krivit always prints responses unless they violate his clear and reasonable, published guidelines.

      I sort of agree with Soo that his opinion is not the issue, if that’s what she’s saying. Thing is, though, that Krivit did some very careful analysis of what he was shown and found it inadequate and perhaps deliberately deceptive. That’s worth noting.

      If Rossi would just do one definitive experiment properly conducted by OTHER PEOPLE using equipment not supplied by Rossi and using proper methods and record keeping and calibration, he wouldn’t have a problem showing that a robust, nuclear device with an output/input ratio of 6X or more actually works! Why doesn’t he just DO IT? Well… maybe he will on October 6 but the way this is shaping up, don’t hold your breath unless blue is your color.

      As long as Rossi insists on using people like Lewan and K&E to conduct experiments, we’re not going to know anything. Those guys don’t seem to learn much from what they’ve botched in the past. And running short experiments like the latest one is simply ridiculous.

      • LCD

        September 30, 2011 at 5:22 pm

        Krivit definately doesn’t post everything.

        You know I think I understand what I’m feeling. I’m upset…no dissapointed with the media and it’s bugging me more and more every day.

        What else don’t they report on.

        • maryyugo

          September 30, 2011 at 5:50 pm

          With respect to Rossi, there is nothing to report! Yet.

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 6:20 pm

            Ahh MY, your nothing if not predictable.

      • Sojourner Soo

        September 30, 2011 at 8:10 pm

        Krivit’s opinion is meaningless, as far as I’m concerned. He’s never even gotten near an E-Cat, so he should not even be discussing the technology. It’s all a personality conflict, it seems to me. I’m not interested in personality conflicts.

        He isn’t a scientist, I don’t care how well read. He’s not an engineer, and he probably couldn’t repair a toaster if he tried, let alone build a nuclear fusion reactor. Yet, everybody is all up in arms over his blog. His obvious divide and conquer tactics, his smears against Rossi from the get go, and his now outright lies about NASA are proof the man should be ignored. If anybody has an agenda, it is Krivit. He’s probably been faking his interest in, and ostensible support for, cold fusion and LENR from the very start, just so he could keep tabs on it for whomever he really works for. And, he’s probably never received so much attention in his entire life! I’m sure he feels like the big man in town. Pfft!

        The thing is, if the E-Cat really works, and we will all know soon enough, then nothing and nobody will stop it, certainly not Krivit or anybody else. So, be at peace with the world; the universe is unfolding as it should. Human and social evolution marches forward, Krivit or no Krivit. And thank God for the Rossi’s of this world, the little guy (often Italian) that plugs ahead, tinkering at his workbench morning, noon, and night, puttering about with this, that and the other idea, because he is driven by the need to solve problems, rather than create them. Bravo to all of them. And screw the Krivits of this world.

      • Brian Josephson

        October 3, 2011 at 8:15 pm

        “Far as I know, Krivit always prints responses unless they violate his clear and reasonable, published guidelines.”

        Not so. I tried to post a comment on an NET page noting that what it said there re our use of the Bushnell clip in our video was misleading (Bushnell got it wrong also but I had the radio broadcast concerned on my computer so I know what he did say), and his response was to remove the comment facility on that page! He again would not retract his erroneous assertion that I was being paid by Russ George and that was why I had invited him to give a talk at the Cavendish.

  9. georgehants

    September 30, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    maryyago,
    May I ask do you think scientific skeptasism has delayed Cold Fusion research in general.
    If so what advantages do you see in that delay.

    • popeye

      September 30, 2011 at 7:14 pm

      I’m not maryyago, but “delay” is not the word I’d use. It implies something positive will eventually come of cold fusion research, and there is no convincing evidence that it will.

      Scientific skepticism has limited the research on cold fusion, and the advantage is that it has allowed more research on other topics that have a better probability to produce beneficial, or at least interesting, results.

      • Ransompw

        September 30, 2011 at 7:22 pm

        And of course, if “cold fusion” verifies, scientific skepticism will have limited research into what will probably be the most important discovery of this age, directing resources to things of much less significance. Funny how that works.

        • popeye

          September 30, 2011 at 7:47 pm

          ransompw> “And of course, if “cold fusion” verifies, scientific skepticism will have limited research into what will probably be the most important discovery of this age, directing resources to things of much less significance. Funny how that works.”

          Right. If only we could see the future, we’d know where to direct our efforts and funds. But we don’t. So funding agencies consult experts to make their judgement on how best to direct their funds. Do you think they should rather consult lawyers, or fortune tellers, or internet forums. What we have may not be perfect, but I don’t know of a way to improve it.

          • Ransompw

            September 30, 2011 at 8:28 pm

            Well I object to my profession being lumped with fortune tellers.

            I just think every age has its own level of openmindedness. Personally, I think we have become too certain of what we think we know and intolerent of alternative ideas. This often occurs in closed societies (which defines the world at this time) and limits creative thinking.

            You might view skepticism as a badge of honor, I see it more as a limit to imagination. Once the world starts growing again and faces the challenges of the unknown or poorly known things should improve.

          • LCD

            September 30, 2011 at 8:42 pm

            “You might view skepticism as a badge of honor, I see it more as a limit to imagination. ”

            Well said Ransom well said.

            I believe that people with limited imaginations are more skeptical.

          • popeye

            September 30, 2011 at 9:19 pm

            > “I just think every age has its own level of openmindedness. Personally, I think we have become too certain of what we think we know and intolerent of alternative ideas. ”

            And is this any more than a gut feeling? Do you any evidence that innovation is somehow slower now than in past ages? Can you identify some current working technologies that were delayed by excessive scepticism, and somehow evaluate that there are more of them now than in other ages past?

            Because from what I see, in the 2 decades since cold fusion, progress has pretty much kept pace in other fields. Moore’s law has continued unabated, the human genome has been sequenced, high temperature superconductivity was discovered, dark energy proposed, string theory developed (proposed not much earlier), bose-einstein condensation observed, quantum dots, quantum computing, graphene, fullerenes, and on and on. None of these, from what I have seen were delayed by excessive skepticism.

            Funding research is a kind of balance, of course, and the other side of the coin, is being too speculative, too open. So you get crackpot theories like vaccines-cause-autism being too quickly accepted, and leading to flu epidemics before the “researcher” is exposed, and the relevant paper withdrawn. Or homeopathy given any respect at all. I can think of far more examples of theories being too easily accepted than the converse. But maybe you can help.

            > “You might view skepticism as a badge of honor, I see it more as a limit to imagination.”

            Well, Feynmann was an active skeptic when it came to free energy claims, and he was one of the most imaginative physicists of our time. Pity he died too soon to weigh in on cold fusion.

          • popeye

            September 30, 2011 at 9:25 pm

            LCD> “I believe that people with limited imaginations are more skeptical.”

            Can you supply some examples to support that. As I said, Feynmann is a counter-example, and among physicists, nearly all physicists who have made significant contributions since cold fusion, and who have made explicit statements about cold fusion are skeptical of it: : Leon Lederman, Sheldon Glashow, Glenn Seaborg, Steven Weinberg, Murray Gell-Mann …, and that’s just from the list of Nobel laureates.

          • popeye

            October 1, 2011 at 4:14 am

            LCD> “I believe that people with limited imaginations are more skeptical.”

            It occurred to me that people with the sort of unbounded imagination required to write science fiction or fantasy might be limited by skepticism. So people like Arthur C Clarke, and Steven Spielberg, and Gene Roddenberry, and Jules Verne may not be (or have been) skeptical; Clarke was a cold fusion advocate, e.g.

            But for people who use their imagination to make real scientific progress, I think skepticism is a critically important filter. And there are lots of examples of great scientists expressing skepticism, often wrongly.

            Max Planck conceived the idea of quantized radiation in 1901, but remained skeptical of it for years after, saying as late as 1913 (about Einstein): “Notwithstanding his genius, he may sometimes have missed the target in his speculations, as, for example, in his hypothesis of light quanta”.

            Einstein was skeptical of quantum mechanics as a complete theory until his death.

            Schrodinger was skeptical of the Copenhagen interpretation famously expressed in the Schrodinger’s cat parable.

            Lord Kelvin was famously skeptical of heavier than air flight; strange considering birds are heavier than air.

            Rutherford was skeptical of exploiting nuclear energy : “Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.” (That was before the chain reaction in fission was conceived.)

            They all made imaginative contributions, and yet they seem to have been skeptical in nature. The famous errors of course survive the years, but presumably their skepticism was often well-placed as well, and kept them focused on ideas that had potential.

          • LCD

            October 1, 2011 at 1:55 pm

            Pop I believe I said “more skeptical” but thanks for giving us reason to believe LENR is possible in the face of great skepticism.

          • popeye

            October 1, 2011 at 2:24 pm

            Ah, but the difference is that in those examples, those were largely lone voices. Quantized radiation was quickly accepted, quantum mechanics was already the consensus view, heavier-than-air flight was regarded by most scientists as inevitable. And so on.

            But no one ever denied that skeptical viewpoints have been spectacularly wrong in history. The problem is that when that is used as an argument that a skeptical view *must* be wrong, it leads to contradictions. For example, scientists are skeptical that the world is flat; does that mean there’s a reasonable chance that it *is* flat? But some scientists used to be skeptical that it is round, so it should be round, and yet it can’t be both.

            Spectacularly wrong predictions of course become famous, but the truth is that most consensus predictions by experts are right, which is why the concept of experts exists. And the only thing we can do in a particular case is to look at the evidence and make the best judgement. The most likely approximation to the truth is the consensus of informed experts. And, at present, the expert consensus is that the solar system is heliocentric, and that cold fusion doesn’t work, with almost equal certainty.

          • LCD

            October 3, 2011 at 2:51 pm

            lol you talk out of both sides of your mouth.

        • maryyugo

          October 1, 2011 at 2:27 am

          “Well I object to my profession being lumped with fortune tellers.”

          I suspect fortune tellers would not be happy with the lumping in either.

      • georgehants

        September 30, 2011 at 7:26 pm

        popeye
        “and the advantage is that it has allowed more research on other topics that have a better probability to produce beneficial, or at least interesting, results”.

        That is a statement that is unprovable at present, and should not research on all possible advantageous avenues be encouraged.

        “It implies something positive will eventually come of cold fusion research, and there is no convincing evidence that it will.”

        If it does then the delay that you agree has occurred (by saying it implies something other than delay does not change your agreed, caused delay) will have cost the lives of how ever many people that could have had cheap clean water at an earlier time.

        • popeye

          September 30, 2011 at 7:42 pm

          > “should not research on all possible advantageous avenues be encouraged.”

          It’s a nice sentiment, but research costs money, and the money has to be allocated by some mechanism. The only thing we have available is peer review. Funding organizations have to make judgements as to what is most likely to be productive research, and to make those judgements, they consult scientists. What other way is there to do it?

          > “If it does then the delay that you agree has occurred … will have cost the lives of how ever many people that could have had cheap clean water at an earlier time.”

          Yes, obviously, if cold fusion turns out to work, then skepticism has delayed it. But if it never succeeds, then the effort that has gone into it has delayed other more productive avenues. For example, if Fleischmann had not spent his later life on CF, maybe he would have discovered a water-purification system that uses less energy. And then his efforts on CF have cost the lives of however many people could have benefitted from that discovery.

          Skepticism has also “delayed” research into perpetual motion, and most scientists agree that is a good thing.

          The problem is, we don’t have a crystal ball, and so the best we can do is to make our best judgement, based on evidence, on what to spend time and money pursuing.

      • RERT

        October 2, 2011 at 11:56 am

        Cold fusion/LENR effects were from the off hard to reproduce, and the research generally pursued by people whose careers were either already successful or who otherwise had nothing to lose.

        Where I have a gripe with the scientific establishment is that given the potential benefits, even if there was a one in a thousand chance of there being something in it, there should have been a large number of well funded research groups assigned to find out one way or another. If LENR eventually succeeds in the teeth of establishment opposition, someone should be taken out and shot (figuratively).

        • popeye

          October 3, 2011 at 8:01 am

          Rert> “Where I have a gripe with the scientific establishment is that given the potential benefits, even if there was a one in a thousand chance of there being something in it, there should have been a large number of well funded research groups assigned to find out one way or another.”

          First, research groups are not “assigned” to projects funded by public funds. They propose projects and compete for funds based on their novelty, chance of success, potential benefit, and cost.

          The DOE is as acutely aware as anyone of the potential benefits of cold fusion, and of the strategic risks of other (possibly unfriendly) countries getting it first. They’re also fully capable of calculating pot odds. So are the experts they enlist to evaluate funding proposals. So the simplest explanation is that they consider the odds to be lower than one in a thousand.

          Judging strictly from the science, that seems to be a reasonable position. Theoretically, it is far-fetched, but naively plausible, and experimentally, the results are never, never definitive. That combination fits pathological science better than anything.

          The only thing that gives pause to this extreme skepticism is the thing that got the world — including scientists — excited in 1989: the fact that a few respectable people seemed to think it was real. Starting with Pons and Fleischmann, but then also John Bockris and Julian Schwinger, and some others. But both were by then involved in controversial research that led nowhere, or worse, was erroneous. In any case, far more active researchers — especially active nuclear researchers — found little or no merit in the topic.

          * * *

          A more nuanced explanation does not require odds of worse than one in a thousand. It’s not a poker game, where someone’s bet has to be called, or you fold out of the round. Besides potential benefits, the other thing that is considered in funding research is potential costs, and cold fusion research is comparatively cheap.

          The scale of the experiment is small (bench top), the temperatures and pressures are easily accessible, and so on. And both DOE panels recommended that individual proposals on aspects of cold fusion be considered in the existing funding programs. The completely justifiable thinking was probably that if the claims were true, then it would not be difficult, or expensive, to provide real proof-of-principle. And then focused funding would have flown freely.

          Unfortunately (for the cf people), strong proposals were scarce. The 2004 panel wrote that the researchers had no clear and systematic plan to investigate what they considered anomalous results. The problem is that most of them weren’t actually very good at research.

          And it’s not as if money wasn’t made available. Between Utah and Toyota, and various Italian and Japanese agencies, upwards of $100M has been spent. And advocates love to point out the large number of people who have worked on it. It’s implausible that proof-of-principle of GJ/g energy density in a bench top phenomenon could not be found with that kind of effort. It’s much more plausible that the effect is simply not real.

          > “If LENR eventually succeeds in the teeth of establishment opposition, someone should be taken out and shot (figuratively).”

          The establishment does not oppose cold fusion. Why on earth would they? It would benefit society and government economically, environmentally, and strategically, if it were real. The establishment (at least the US establishment) simply doesn’t think the chance of it being real makes it worth supporting. There’s a difference.

          If LENR eventually succeeds, it will be an unprecedented event in science. But it’s not clear exactly whose head(s) should roll? The funding agencies are mandated to use peer review to make decisions. And there is no doubt that most scientists reject cold fusion, so the agencies are fulfilling their mandate. So, do all mainstream scientists get shot? Would the system be changed so that non-experts on internet forums be given responsibility to allocate funding? Or who exactly?

          If Rossi succeeds, it will prove only that funding was not the problem. If a wild-eyed Italian with a record and a small budget can do what P&F with their own lab and $50M couldn’t do, what would that tell you about funding mainstream science labs?

    • LCD

      September 30, 2011 at 7:17 pm

      That’s easy to answer George. As soon as cold fusion/LENR becomes a reality, if it does, we will know the answer to that question. Otherwise we cannot be sure any delay has been caused.

      • georgehants

        September 30, 2011 at 7:29 pm

        LCD,
        From Pons on scientific skeptasism has delayed Cold Fusion for 23 years except for the few rebels.
        Or do you mean there is no acceptance of LENR experiments.

        • LCD

          September 30, 2011 at 8:03 pm

          To me you are asking if skepticism has had a negative impact on LENR/CF research. That’s what I’m responding too. We’ve only confirmed very low energy stuff. Maybe that’s all we’ll ever get for physical phenomena we don’t yet understand.
          My gut feeling is it has, but the magnitude of that won’t be fully known until something like the Oct 6th demo is a success.

        • LCD

          September 30, 2011 at 9:11 pm

          By the way I’m not even going to mention the fallout that will occur if LENR ends up being what we all think it is.

      • maryyugo

        October 1, 2011 at 2:29 am

        “As soon as cold fusion/LENR becomes a reality, if it does, we will know the answer to that question. Otherwise we cannot be sure any delay has been caused.”

        If Rossi is telling the truth, the only thing delayed the E-cat is Rossi and his lack of understanding on how to properly test a heat generating machine. All he had to do was to ask some heat transfer and fluid flow experts– not general physicists. Or he could have repeated the excellent experiment that Dr. Levi did but did not document and calibrate properly. If the E-cat is real, the lack of a real experiment proving heat production that can only be attributed to fusion is entirely Rossi’s fault.

        If every skeptic suddenly became a believer, Rossi still would not have proven that the E-cat works.

        • LCD

          October 1, 2011 at 1:46 pm

          R u serious?

  10. Dale G. Basgall

    September 30, 2011 at 9:28 pm

    Skepticism (or scepticism) generally refers to any questioning attitude of knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere. (Wikipedia)

    Being skeptical about things seems to be a personal issue, I hope for the sake of science and future development of whatever seems to be happening that there are really good reviews “after” testing is completed. I am even skeptical that the test will go forward on the 6th. Possibly a delay or a missing inventor?

  11. LCD

    September 30, 2011 at 10:24 pm

    Ransom I left you a voicemail

    • Ransompw

      September 30, 2011 at 11:27 pm

      Office?

  12. Ben

    October 1, 2011 at 3:23 am

    Want Steam?

    http://www.ecat.com

    • Ransompw

      October 1, 2011 at 3:27 am

      Really hysterical!

    • Ben

      October 1, 2011 at 4:13 am

      I honestly cannot stop laughing at that. Whoever made that commercial understands exactly what is going on and knocked that one out of the park. Save it to your hard drive. It will go down in history as the world’s first e-Cat commercial. Let’s hope there will be many more to come..

    • Roger Barker

      October 1, 2011 at 5:25 am

      Well, this is rather curious. We know ecat.com was owned by exxon and we know the website has existed since 2004. We’ve seen the website recently route to a green energy company’s website (I can’t remember the name). And finally we see a countdown advert on the website that has October the 6th (the same day as Rossi’s big demo) as the big day. Someone’s having a laugh!

      • Daniel de França MTd2

        October 1, 2011 at 6:05 am

        The ecat.com had a counter for almost 2 months. E-cat.com, another domain, was the one that belonged to exxon and now redirects to KPCB, which is the main investor of EESTOR (LOL).

        • Roger Barker

          October 1, 2011 at 8:05 am

          I see. My bad. Have KPCB been suckered in again?! 😉

        • Ben

          October 1, 2011 at 2:14 pm

          KPCB was not the only one that got “suckered” by EESTOR. So was Lockheed-Martin, one of the biggest defense contractors on the face of the planet. KPCB also was the primary investor for Google and Amazon.com, so they have some significant successes to show for their efforts.

          Amazon founder Jeff Bezos currently is investing in General Fusion, which is trying to develop a type of fusion reaction, and Bill Gates is investing in TerraPower, yet another type of purported fusion reactor. Fusion is hot folks. It seems to be all the rage for billionaires with money to throw around.

          Gerald Celente of the Trends Journal, who predicted the financial collapse in 2008 and the Arab Spring that occurred this year, among other things, calls cold fusion “the greatest investment opportunity of the 21rst century.”

          http://wp.me/pYQbF-Ej

          • popeye

            October 1, 2011 at 2:45 pm

            > “and Bill Gates is investing in TerraPower, yet another type of purported fusion reactor”

            No, terrapower uses fission.

            > Gerald Celente of the Trends Journal, who predicted the financial collapse in 2008 and the Arab Spring that occurred this year, among other things, calls cold fusion “the greatest investment opportunity of the 21rst century.”

            I don’t ask Richard Garwin about economics, and I don’t ask Gerald Celente about nuclear physics. And I don’t ask a plumber to do my bypass surgery.

  13. Daniel de França MTd2

    October 1, 2011 at 3:54 am

    DAMN! THAT WAS A FUNNY ADVERTISEMENT! 😀

  14. Susan

    October 1, 2011 at 8:08 am

    Could be Julian Brown the EPO’s officier attending the October 6th Rossi’s performance ?
    I think he’s the most qualified one 🙂 LOL
    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3727appendixd5.shtml
    I hope they don’t forget a wealthy buffet to well impress the crowd.

    • maryyugo

      October 1, 2011 at 8:22 am

      A wealthy buffet? Like maybe a Warren Buffet?

      • Sojourner Soo

        October 1, 2011 at 5:51 pm

        Buffett, the surname, has two Ts. Buffet, the food table, has one.

  15. Tony

    October 1, 2011 at 8:28 am

    Interesting. If you’re capable of sarcasm, then perhaps Mr Bushnell is as well:

    “Well done, as usual.” (that is: a terrible job, as is usual)

    “Look forward to your reporting of the upcoming Rossi tests” (that is: I’m not really looking forward to it at all :))

    • Frost*

      October 1, 2011 at 10:37 am

      That’s the way i read it too.

      Only DB can confirm that it was a sarcastic remark or not, maybe krivit took it at face value of suppport for his stance.

      We need Poirot to figure this one out 🙂

      • H. Visscher

        October 1, 2011 at 7:55 pm

        Daniel wrote on his blog:

        Greetings from Lake Garda from Riva!
        I do not know if Rossi has already published on the email that JoNP Bushnell wrote in response to the request for clarification on what reported by Krivit … I just read: KRIVITSKY was caught IN THE HANDS FULL WITH THE JAM! :))

        So Bushnell is making fun with Krivit…

  16. georgehants

    October 1, 2011 at 10:14 am

    From Cold Fusion Times

    HEAVYWATERGATE CONTINUES IN THE USA WHERE COLD FUSION WAS FIRST ANNOUNCED
    October 2011 – The systematic coverup of cold fusion and attack on cold fusioneers (a.k.a. scientists and researchers) is called: “HEAVYWATERGATE”. It is characteristic behavior by some in the US Patent Office (and the allegedly overseering Board of Patent Appeals), by some in other US agencies. Despite the US Constitution promising protection of Inventors who reveal their inventions, some in the USPTO are systematically obstructing the technology in the USA, while helping to transfer the technology revealed to the US Patent Office (on the promise of a patent) overseas.
    The names of those obstructing will be released shortly — and accountability may follow.

    Instead of simply following normal process, there has been deliberate ignoring of the Evidence (and destruction of same) with no accountability to those responsible. Even as the corrupt USPTO Examiners and the **notified** judges of the US Board of Patent Appeals have declared that cold fusion (energy production) inventions have “no utility”, Americans (and others worldwide) continue to suffer an energy crisis because of them. These corrupt, lying Examiners — and their condoning overseerers– continue to work for interests other than the United States of America as they encourage obstruction through false statements. No utility of “clean, efficient, energy production”?

    Why has the US Patent Office been obstructing Cold Fusion and other Clean, High Efficiency, Alternative Energy Production Patent Applications?
    WHY HAS THERE BEEN NO ONE IN THE US CONGRESS WHO CARES?

    The US Congress (caring ONLY about itself) remains as oblivious about this as it is about much else OR directly on the take from competing interests in oil and hot fusion. Either way, meanwhile the rest of the world moves ahead on cold fusion for clean, efficient energy in the future, and inventors slog on having wasted 23 years on a thoroughly corrupt process. Shame on the USPTO and the members of the US Congress who have done nothing even when fraud was shown to them indelibly, for their treason, perjury and abdication, respectively.

  17. Frost*

    October 1, 2011 at 11:21 am

    It looks like that video on ecat.com is indeed a Rossi site.

    On his JONP blog he says the swoosh of steam is from a 10kW module.

    Dear Luca Salvarani:
    1- probably will be possible to extend the self sustained mode
    2- The steam swoosh you saw is from a 10 kW module
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • AB

      October 1, 2011 at 12:37 pm

      The video on ecat.com is not showing steam produced from an ecat though, it’s taken from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeBOVQUrSgE

      I’m not sure how to interpret Rossi’s comment. It sounds like something Krivit would say. Do coal plants consist of several 10 kW modules?

      • Ivan Mohorovicic

        October 1, 2011 at 12:42 pm

        I think somebody should ask Rossy more precisely if he has something to do with that video.
        I don’t think he really understood the question.

        • AB

          October 1, 2011 at 1:02 pm

          It could be that Rossi was not paying attention while answering the question and mistakenly assumed that Luca Salvarani was talking about the “fat cat” demo with Lewan.

          • Renzo

            October 1, 2011 at 2:43 pm

            I agree, Rossi probably has never seen the video of ecat.com, it is a misunderstanding

    • Peter Roe

      October 1, 2011 at 1:00 pm

      “The steam swoosh you saw is from a 10 kW module” Unless this is a release from a large steam reservoir, I find that rather hard to believe. After all, 10kW is just the equivalent of half a dozen domestic kettles – the discharge from the blue container (?)s looks much larger by a factor of 5 or 10. And what’s that building behind it – it looks like part of a power station. If that’s the U of B, its hideous!

      EDIT: AB put up his post while I was typing this observation. I don’t have time to check out his link before this edit window closes, but I’m sure all is explained (except what AR intended to mean).

    • Sebastian

      October 2, 2011 at 1:53 pm

      Guys, you should quote Ross’s statement correctly: You omitted the last line!!
      It says there: “p.s. For gum chewers: please go to a dictionary and search:” Irony”.”
      He of course knew what video he was being asked about and replied with – well – irony 🙂

  18. david

    October 1, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    I think rossi is just a stupid liar.
    he says the steam swoosh is from a 10 kW module but
    this video was posted on youtube 3years ago.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeBOVQUrSgE&feature=player_detailpage

    • Ransompw

      October 1, 2011 at 2:51 pm

      Did you see Rossi’s response and ps, I think he was being funny, not lying.

      • Frost*

        October 1, 2011 at 4:08 pm

        Pity he didn’t make it more obvious in the first place though, it would have saved us from more confusion.

        It’s no wonder emoticons became popular. 🙂

  19. Don Witcher

    October 1, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    If You think there are a lot of fatuous remarks on the blog sites just wait till the main stream media engages.

    Like Rossi says—look up irony.

  20. Az

    October 1, 2011 at 6:16 pm

    Per who.is:
    ECAT.COM SITE INFORMATION
    IP: 64.246.32.29
    IP Location: Houston, United States.
    Hmmm, does this mean site belongs to NASA and customer is NASA?

    • Ivan Mohorovicic

      October 1, 2011 at 6:27 pm

      That is only the geographical location of the server, not the owner’s.

    • Jim Cramer

      October 1, 2011 at 6:56 pm

      FWIW, the last three lines in the trace route for ecat.com show:

      12 61 ms 59 ms 59 ms te2-7.dsr02.hstntx1.networklayer.com [70.87.253.54]
      13 61 ms 62 ms 59 ms po2.car02.hstntx1.networklayer.com [207.218.245.6]
      14 60 ms 64 ms 59 ms soma.net [64.246.32.29]

      The technical & admin contacts for the soma.net domain name show (according to the DNS record at Network Solutions):

      Hodge Interactive
      Rusty Hodge (rusty@hodge.com)
      4158269500
      Fax: 1.4158266666
      2180 Bryant Street
      Suite 208
      San Francisco, CA 94110
      US

      http://www.hodge.com redirects to a blog about issues affecting streaming internet radio.

  21. Peter Roe

    October 1, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    I would imagine that NASA runs its own in-house servers, so the IP could reflect the location.

  22. Ivan Mohorovicic

    October 1, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    Source: Daniele Passerini (22passi):
    http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/09/fatti-non-parole.html

    From: BUSHNELL
    Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:55:10 -0500
    To: Steven Krivit
    Subject: Request

    Put in your Blog.

    My “well done” remark referred to the accuracy of your reporting of my quotes from the GRC meeting. Period. Was not referring to the veracity of the entire piece.

    D.

    • Ivan Mohorovicic

      October 1, 2011 at 8:39 pm

      Krivit hasn’t put that in his blog yet, as of now.

    • AB

      October 1, 2011 at 9:10 pm

      GRC presumably means Glenn Research Center. Piantelli’s meeting probably occured there and Bushnell’s “well done” probably refers to Krivit keeping to his NDA and not saying more than he was allowed to.

      Krivit just couldn’t resist the opportunity to abuse Bushnell’s quote to unfairly discredit Rossi.

      • Ransompw

        October 1, 2011 at 9:35 pm

        I don’t think Bushnell’s comment (assuming the above e-mail is accurate) had anything to do with Piantelli or Rossi but the September 22 LENR Innovation Forum held at GRC at which Bushnell spoke. Krivit commented on it in the blog.

        I’m curious if Krivit, who I once e-mailed and called a chicken s&$t, has the good sense to post Bushnell’s reply. If not, I guess he is really proving my point. In either case, he is the master of the half truth, beware if you take anything he writes seriously.

        • maryyugo

          October 2, 2011 at 6:06 pm

          “I’m curious if Krivit, who I once e-mailed and called a chicken s&$t”

          There’s a powerful argument, counselor. Do you do that sort of thing in court too?

          • Tony

            October 2, 2011 at 7:05 pm

            Ransom’s right. Look at the facts.

            Krivit’s behaviour is odd; perhaps he’s always behaved like this, but the spotlight has never been this intense on him before?

          • Ransompw

            October 2, 2011 at 11:02 pm

            Well, no I really never use that tone or color in my profession. And my e-mail to Krivit was after many rejected posts which I carefully prepared to meet his posting requirements. He was the one who chose to post my frustrated comment to him. His behavior has in my opinion confirmed the truth of the comment.

  23. Burt

    October 2, 2011 at 8:55 am

    I’m a bit puzzled that it is the 1 MW plant that will be tested in Bologna. Will it really be shipped in time to the US for setup and test within this month? Or are there 2 of these plants? I don’t think so…

    • Renzo

      October 2, 2011 at 9:22 am

      The test is on a single module, the 1MW plant has already been shipped

      • Burt

        October 2, 2011 at 9:36 am

        I read “1 MW plant”, but being less lazy I read “on a module of a 1MW plant”

        You are right Renzo, thanks!

  24. Renzo

    October 2, 2011 at 10:12 am

    I read in a italian blog that the university of Bologna has asked (or will ask) Rossi to amend the invitation because it is false that it will take place “at a lab made available by the University of Bologna”. The university has been informed by some very hard skeptics. Really I admit it was a strange mistake, was it the fault of Cicogna patent office? This error has supplied new ammo to those who think that Rossi is abusing the connection with UoB to gain credit

    • georgehants

      October 2, 2011 at 11:56 am

      Bologna University would have to be like most academic establishments where they have to have six committees and triple peer review before they can simply confirm or deny something.

      • maryyugo

        October 2, 2011 at 6:05 pm

        They don’t have that many, George, but they do need some. Or would you rather they make stupid errors like the time, not so long ago, when Targ and Puthoff published their silly paper in Nature, claiming that the crook (and lousy magician), Uri Geller, really had supernatural powers.

        • georgehants

          October 2, 2011 at 7:27 pm

          maryyugo,
          You must have a personal God that gives you all these certain answers, your very lucky the rest of us have to wait for open-minded research results.

          • maryyugo

            October 2, 2011 at 7:55 pm

            If you’re speaking of Geller, the research is all in. He’s an obvious fraud. Properly observed, he can’t take psychic pictures and he can’t bend spoons. He also can’t move compass needles without his hidden magnet. He’s a cheap, crummy magician with less psychic power than a wooden duck. That was known a dozen or more years ago. You’re way behind. As usual.

          • Roger Barker

            October 2, 2011 at 8:41 pm

            You are something else maryyugo! You’re the one who brought up Uri Geller and then tried to pin in it on George! There is a term for people like you. They’re called trolls.

            You’ve made your point. Now stop harping on about it.

    • Ben

      October 2, 2011 at 9:54 pm

      Renzo, can you post a link to where someone says the University said that they want the invitation amended? I will admit that I find the attempt to link the test to the University of Bologna troubling when it seems like the test will occur at the same place as all the demos. However, the University has had its name bantered about for months in association with Rossi but I am not aware of them issuing any public statements in an attempt to distance themselves from Rossi. It seems to me they are attempting to hedge their bets with him.

      If anybody has a link to a public statement by the University of Bologna that either attempts to distance them from Rossi or contradicts Rossi’s statements about his association with them, please post it. Thank you.

  25. Sebastian

    October 2, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    Admin: The link to the original fax in this article seems broken.

    • Susan

      October 2, 2011 at 7:27 pm

      Are they fixing the false statement about the University Bologna lab ?

      • Tony

        October 2, 2011 at 7:40 pm

        Is Mr Krivit fixing the false context of Bushnell’s statement on NET?

        • Susan

          October 3, 2011 at 6:52 am

          Just a “small” difference: Mr. Krivit is not claiming to save the energy future of humankind.
          P.S. On 22passi blog they still have a copy of the fax. Hurry up who wants to have a memory before the dog aet it along the device warming his facility for two year. hahaha

          • Tony

            October 3, 2011 at 7:05 am

            A “small” difference?

            Deliberately quoting something out of context to give the wrong impression seems significant to me.

          • Susan

            October 3, 2011 at 10:07 am

            So, if Krivit write false assertions then Rossi is legitimate to make his false ones ?
            Sorry Tony, but I don’ t get your point.
            Please note that I’m not defending Krivit here.

  26. Roger Barker

    October 2, 2011 at 10:29 pm

    Some questions about Rossi’s upcoming tests:

    1) My understanding is the fat cat weighs about 80kg in weight. The test on Oct 6th will be run for about 12 – 15 hours and will produce 10kw of power. Could a unit weighing 80kg conceal enough fuel to produce 10kw of power for 12 – 15 hours?

    2) Has Rossi explained the huge weight/size discrepancy between his original 4 – 5kw eCat modules and his fat cat module?

    3) In the fat cat test Rossi ran with Mats Lewan, from memory, the input power to produce the 10kw of output power was about 2.4kw. For his 1MW test/demo there will be 52 of these individual fat cats hooked up together. Does this mean Rossi will be pulling 125kw (52×2.4kw) from the grid to run this test?!

    I might well have got some numbers wrong but the questions still stand.

    Thanks
    Roger

    • maryyugo

      October 3, 2011 at 1:03 am

      “2) Has Rossi explained the huge weight/size discrepancy between his original 4 – 5kw eCat modules and his fat cat module?”

      No, he has not. And the original E-cat was said to produce more than 4-5 kW. In fact, as much as 130 kW for a brief period during one of Dr. Levi’s water cooled / no steam tests. Rossi was complaining of problems with moderating power, not producing it. The need to make an 80 kg device is at best puzzling. It’s not hard to calculate the energy yield of a lithium battery of that weight or gasoline of that weight. For very exotic materials, say some sort of rocket fuel and oxidizer mix or something like Raney nickel, it might be trickier to predict but it can be done. It just takes a bit of work. I don’t have time to attempt it right now. I hope the scientists who check Rossi’s device take the time to do it and also take apart the device down to the core which they can weigh by itself. The insulation and shielding also need examination but they should be no energy source.

      It makes no sense to use a new device when the old design supposedly worked fine in an Italian factory producing 35 kW continuously to heat a factory for several years! Why not test that one? Maybe the dog ate it along with Levi;s homework? Some appetite Rossi’s pooch has.

      OK– a quick look at the wiki says 2.2 kwHr for the best Liion battery. This is a rough estimate from here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery

      That would mean 160+ kwHrs for an 80 kg battery. Of course there may be better systems and I only browser the web page so it could be more. As expected, the larger the device, the longer you have to run and/or the more power you have to make to get a valid test.

    • popeye

      October 3, 2011 at 8:06 am

      Barker> “1) My understanding is the fat cat weighs about 80kg in weight. The test on Oct 6th will be run for about 12 – 15 hours and will produce 10kw of power. Could a unit weighing 80kg conceal enough fuel to produce 10kw of power for 12 – 15 hours?”

      The overall energy density (150 kWh / 80kg “2) Has Rossi explained the huge weight/size discrepancy between his original 4 – 5kw eCat modules and his fat cat module?”

      The original ecats were ~30 kg and were claimed to be 10 – 20 kW.

      My guess (based on the most recent demo) is that Rossi will try to focus on periods when the power is turned off, and so he needed much more thermal mass. But presumably his inspectors will be able to calculate the total energy input.

      > “3) In the fat cat test Rossi ran with Mats Lewan, from memory, the input power to produce the 10kw of output power was about 2.4kw. ”

      There was no evidence for 10 kW output. Lewan’s interpretation gave a range of 3.5 – 8 kW (or so), but that assumes relatively dry steam. Definite evidence for more than about 1.1 kW output was not given.

      However, the input was zero for part of the time, so the average input would be lower. Rossi claims 1:3 duty cycle, corresponding to only .6 kW per unit, but in the demo, the duty cycle was more like 1:1 for equilibrium operation.

      • popeye

        October 3, 2011 at 3:48 pm

        Sorry a block of text somehow vanished in the above comment:

        > “1) My understanding is the fat cat weighs about 80kg in weight. The test on Oct 6th will be run for about 12 – 15 hours and will produce 10kw of power. Could a unit weighing 80kg conceal enough fuel to produce 10kw of power for 12 – 15 hours?”

        The overall energy density (150 kWh / 80kg, which is less than 2 kWh/kg) isn’t even close to the density of the best chemical fuels. Gasoline has an energy density of about 14 kWh/kg, and some are almost 3 times higher still. But it is better than batteries which top out at about 1/3 kWh/kg. Self-oxidizing fuels like thermite come in at about half at just over 1 kWh/kg.

        But the question advocates will focus on is could they conceal a fuel with a controlled way to burn it. It would be difficult to do, but for a really definitive demo, I don’t see why they wouldn’t want to exceed chemical energy density by many times. They won’t be anywhere near that.

        The problem with being close, especially if there is input power, is the possibility of misrepresentations of one kind or another. The Houdini defence, as someone called it. Rossi managed to get a factor of 8 in power by claiming dry steam without evidence. Houdini would have been proud. That will presumably not be available to him here, but it shows how easy it is to fool willing believers. Hopefully, it will be possible to inspect the heat exchanger and other “complementary” components.

        […]

  27. Ghost Dawg

    October 3, 2011 at 1:05 am

    Advisory Board Findings and Recommendations for LENR
    – There is good evidence of excess heat and transmutation.
    – New theory by Widom[-Larsen] shows promise; collective surface effects, not fusion
    – Low-energy implantation of ions

    Summary
    Low-energy nuclear reactions are showing some remarkable progress with respect to energy (excess heat) production and transmuted element detection, but experiments remain only thinly reproducible. LENR also suffers from a basic lack of understanding of the governing physics.
    There is also a compelling need for a theory that can explain production rates and lead to specific electrode treatments and electrolyte compositions and predictions of reaction power, energy and products. The Widom[-Larsen] theoretical construct appears promising but lacks robust experimental verification and rigorous peer review.
    The polarizing history of LENR is a detriment to expanding research efforts, and it seems unlikely that deployable/useable devices could be expected within a five- to ten-year horizon. Some low-level funding by 6.1 agencies seems appropriate, both to exploit the possibility of a breakthrough and to monitor other (international) research in this field. Nonetheless, DTRA should not go it alone; rather, it should provide the leadership to build interagency research consortia with a focus on fostering improved research facilities and rigorous experimental protocols.

    Recommendations
    LENR still suffers from negative publicity associated with cold fusion and is viewed as being conducted outside the domain of legitimate, mainstream science. Nonetheless, the persistent and increasingly repeatable demonstrations of excess heat and transmutation suggest that there is something here worth pursuing. DTRA should not do so alone but rather foster consortia that would help bring discipline and rigorous experimental protocol to this field. Additionally, efforts to better understand the physics of LENR as well as the development of first-principle predictive models are encouraged.

    • Ben

      October 3, 2011 at 1:20 am

      Nice info Dawg. Where did you find this?

      • Ghost Dawg

        October 3, 2011 at 1:33 am

        Sorry, the original comment this is attached to is “awaiting moderation” because I forgot and included 2 links in the post.

        (Admin/Paul – you can get rid of my original post as I will repost it now.)

        ———————–

        New Energy Times Obtains DTRA Report on LENR
        Posted on October 2, 2011 by Steven B. Krivit

        Link: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/DTRA/DTRA-Report-on-LENR.shtml

        On Dec. 12, 2006, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency held a meeting in Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, to review several controversial areas of research. Low-energy nuclear reactions were among those topics.

        New Energy Times has obtained the first public record of this meeting through the use of a Freedom of Information Act request. Click here for a copy of the document.

        • Ghost Dawg

          October 3, 2011 at 1:35 am

          Here is the PDF from the the Defense Threat Reduction Agency…

          Pdf: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/DTRA/2006-DTRA-LENR-Krivit-FOIA.pdf

          • Ben

            October 3, 2011 at 3:02 am

            Thanks Dawg.

            Contrary to some opinions expressed here, there are people in high positions in the US government who are aware of the reality of LENR. We have reports from SPAWAR, NASA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and now the Defense Threat Reduction Agency all giving credence to the technology….yet some in the mainstream scientific community still largely believes it to be “pathological science.” There seems to be quite a disconnect between the military and intelligence apparatus and the scientific community.

            The question is, if all these entities have an interest in this technology and some have even done successful research on it, why is there such a dearth of funding for it?

          • popeye

            October 3, 2011 at 8:10 am

            Ben> “Contrary to some opinions expressed here, there are people in high positions in the US government who are aware of the reality of LENR. We have reports from SPAWAR, NASA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and now the Defense Threat Reduction Agency all giving credence to the technology…”

            Note that this DTRA report is from 5 years ago, and yet it could read the same as if it were written today or 20 years ago (except for the Widom part). In ordinary, non pathological fields, the complete lack of progress in the 5 years since the report would indicate that the expressed optimism was misplaced.

            And the reports do not admit the “reality of LENR”. They hedge, saying it is thinly reproducible, but the evidence for heat and transmutation suggests something worth pursuing.

            The DIA report, which came 3 years later, is even more cautious, suggesting little more than if it were real, it would be great.

            So it seems like the military reports are getting less positive as time passes.

            I’m not aware of a SPAWAR report; only reports from people working at SPAWAR.

            Moreover, the DTRA report has a disclaimer that the views expressed in the report are those of the 2 authors. So, 2 authors, of unknown background attended a session of cold fusion cheerleaders, and they were persuaded that it is worth pursuing. That’s not that impressive. Especially when you look at what they say about the Widom-Larsen theory. Like Bushnell, they demonstrate only the most superficial understanding, claiming it is weak interactions, when the energy comes from strong interactions, and completely ignoring the huge energy barrier to electron capture in the first step (10 times higher than the barrier to D-D fusion, which they boast is avoided).

            The DTRA authors did observe that WL lacked robust experimental verification and rigorous peer review. WL was only a year old at the time, but now, 5 years later, it’s still true. They do have some peer-reviewed papers, but I suspect what the report meant by rigorous peer review was citations from other physicists with either criticisms, support, or extensions. But there has been only silence in 6 years. Compare that to Einstein’s famous paper on relativity in 1905; within the year it was being cited, extended, and criticized.

            > “…yet some in the mainstream scientific community still largely believes it to be “pathological science.” There seems to be quite a disconnect between the military and intelligence apparatus and the scientific community.”

            Given the risk of other countries getting their hands on potentially strategic technology ahead of the US, it is perhaps not surprising that the military is a little more nervously speculative on this sort of thing.

            > “The question is, if all these entities have an interest in this technology and some have even done successful research on it, why is there such a dearth of funding for it?”

            Do we know if there is a dearth of funding in the military for CF? If so, maybe it’s because the DTRA and DIA reports were written by non-experts in consultation almost exclusively with CF researchers. When the decisions are made higher up, they probably consult some more impartial experts who shoot it down.

            But, I agree, it’s hard to believe that with the sort of support voiced by Bushnell and these reports, that these organizations (who do have budgets) have not put some money into it, and yet, the progress within them is no better than McKubre at SRI, or Dardik at Energetics, or Hagelstein at MIT, or WL at NorthEastern.

            Some things just don’t get better by throwing money at them…

          • LCD

            October 3, 2011 at 2:37 pm

            Well one thing about SPAWAR they, along with McKubre really believe that the data is telling them it trully is DD fusion at room temp. Referring to Palladium-D.

        • admin

          October 3, 2011 at 11:04 am

          Wow… Good catch, Ghost Dawg. Original deleted.

          Paul

  28. Dale G. Basgall

    October 3, 2011 at 3:35 am

    It seems most of the past research has been on hot fusion, and the methods are not giving good returns yet. It seems like the funding comes after someone comes up with a gismo that has the potential to make someone their investment cash back. I asked a CEO the same question regarding funding and his reply was “come up with something that works and their will be plenty of research money.”

    You would think something so life changing that shows a potential like the green energy nickel-hydrogen method would have every country supporting this type of science.

    Rossi calims in his Italian Patent in the claims and the abstract that this is an exothermal reaction and also calls it cold fusion. A little odd but he also states in his US claims and in the text of the Italian patent that heated hydrogen is pulsed and names a device in the US claims as the solenoid. It’s just that we only were shown a hydrogen bottle and valve not an oscillator driving a pulse solenoid for the hydrogen.

    • popeye

      October 3, 2011 at 8:11 am

      Basgall> “You would think something so life changing that shows a potential like the green energy nickel-hydrogen method would have every country supporting this type of science.”

      What potential has been shown? Great potential is claimed, but in the judgement of most scientists, none has been shown experimentally yet.

      • LCD

        October 3, 2011 at 2:21 pm

        Thats an irresponsible statement popeye, did you take a poll? We cant possibly know what most scientists think let alone the scientists that can actually make informed opinions.

        Also experiments by patterson, focardi, and now maybe rossi have shown enough “potential”.

        No the problem we have right now is no working theory other than WL. AND the risk of being labeled a crank for the rest of your career because pf the PF circus.

  29. Ben

    October 3, 2011 at 4:27 am

    “Come up with something that works and their will be plenty of research money.”

    No form of “hot fusion” reactor has yet proven to provide anything useful but an average of a billion dollars a year has been spent on it for the last 60 years.
    An article in New Scientist stated the following concerning hot fusion’s new baby, ITER:

    “The current timetable is very, very, very ambitious,” said one veteran last week. “I think it will be 100 years before we have commercially viable energy.”

    That was in 2006, so we only have 95 more years to go. See if your CEO buddy can explain that.

    • popeye

      October 3, 2011 at 8:13 am

      Ben> “No form of “hot fusion” reactor has yet proven to provide anything useful …”

      Actually, not true. They don’t provide energy yet, but you can buy fusion reactors as neutron sources.

      > ““I think it will be 100 years before we have commercially viable energy.””
      > “…See if your CEO buddy can explain that.”

      The principle of hot fusion power has been demonstrated; even skeptics admit that it works, in the sense that they can trigger fusion. Getting a practical reactor though is a challenge.

      In the case of hot fusion, you’ve got well-understood science, but a massive gamble on practical applications, that will not benefit us for a long time.

      In the case of cold fusion, you’ve got no science and almost unanimous skepticism that there will ever be benefits.

      That’s the difference.

  30. georgehants

    October 3, 2011 at 7:56 am

    Mr. Rossi is in a fight on his page about him publishing papers that main-line science censor.
    Perhaps a little support for him in his effort to bypass close-minded, establishment controlled science and journals and apparently the media would help against the injustices common at present.
    Not publishing the papers because some “expert” disagrees with it is a crime, if the paper is wrong it will show up in time, if correct then it is put into the community for reference and any scientist who sees merit to work from.

    • popeye

      October 3, 2011 at 8:18 am

      georgehants> “if the paper is wrong it will show up in time, ”

      Like Andrew Wakefield’s paper on vaccines and autism. By the time its data manipulation was exposed, and the paper withdrawn, vaccination rates had dropped below that required for herd immunity in many places, and for the first time in ~50 years, flu incidence and deaths increased significantly in England.

      • georgehants

        October 3, 2011 at 8:50 am

        One can always find exceptions to any rule, why was his data not checked and reproduced before utilisation.
        Blame the people who just took his word for it.
        Papers are to put information and theories into the community, for others to use as a possible basis, not as final definitive results.
        CERN’s controversial paper on light is a good example of information now into circulation, but until other confirmation is obtained it rightly should be treated with caution.
        The argument is about not allowing papers like CERN’s into print until final proof is shown.
        Final proof comes at a later stage, other scientists do not have the pull that CERN has and are ignored and abused for theories challenging “Known Science”.
        Their knowledge and theories therefore stay hidden.

        • popeye

          October 3, 2011 at 9:01 am

          > “ignored and abused for theories challenging “Known Science”.”

          Papers are not rejected for challenging known science, or science would never change. Papers are rejected for errors in logic, errors in analysis, for being unsupported or unjustified by experiment, or in Guglinski’s case, for being incomprehensible.

          • georgehants

            October 3, 2011 at 9:13 am

            You are going off at a Skeptical tangent and answering none of my points.
            Please refer specifically to a point or transfer your opinion to your own comment and like others, stop wasting my time.
            Thank you.

  31. georgehants

    October 3, 2011 at 11:04 am

    Should this really be necessary.

    New Energy Times has obtained the first public record of this meeting through the use of a Freedom of Information Act request. Click here for a copy of the document.

  32. Mahler

    October 3, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    Passerini wrote in his blog:

    > I have been authorized to make this clarification in Bushnell Krivit referring to the “famous quote”:
    >
    > From: BUSHNELL
    > Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 06:55:10 -0500
    > To: Steven Krivit
    > Subject: Request
    >
    > Put in your Blog.
    >
    > My “well done” remark referred to the accuracy of your reporting of my quotes from the GRC meeting. Period. Was not referring to the veracity of the entire piece.
    >
    > D.

    http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/09/fatti-non-parole.html?showComment=1317495596520#c624661338223957213

  33. Pingback: Patent Examiner Invited to Oct 6 eCat Test | ecat | Scoop.it

  34. Joe Shea

    October 6, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    Unfortunately, Krivit’s blog has become unreliable with respect to Rossi and the E-Cat. NASA has also become opaque rather than transparent on its participation, and apparently he and other NASA observers are now bound to secrecy about any role they may have in attempting to duplicate the device results. Since NASA’s Dennis Bushnell, who was doing the replication, is currently out of the country, he may have gone to Italy for the tests being conducted today. They would be undewrway at this time, and I certainly wish there was somewhere we could get up-to-the-minute news or streaming video for our newspaper, The American Reporter. Please let us know amreporter@aol.com of any news from today’s demonstration. Thank you!

  35. Rodney

    October 6, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    Yes, yes, yes! Please can anyone tell us where to go to find information about what is going on in Bologna right now.

    Many thanks.