Tests find Rossi's E-Cat has an energy density at least 10 times higher than any conventional energy source

Rossi tests 1
(Left) The ceramic cylinder visibly heats up in an experiment performed in November 2012. In this test, the device got so hot that the internal steel cylinder housing the fuel overheated and melted. The trials in the current study were performed at lower temperatures. (Right) Thermal data of the cylinder taken from a high-res thermal camera. Credit: Levi, et al.
(Phys.org) —In the ongoing saga of Andrea Rossi's energy catalyzer (E-Cat) that promises clean, cheap power for the world, the latest events continue to bring as many questions as answers. Several scientists have performed supposedly independent tests of two E-Cat prototypes under controlled conditions and using high-precision instrumentation. In a paper posted at arXiv.org, the researchers write that, even by the most conservative of measurements, the E-Cat produces excess heat with a resulting energy density that is at least 1 order of magnitude—and possibly several—higher than any other conventional energy source, including gasoline.

Of the seven scientists who authored the paper, two are from Italy (Giuseppe Levi at Bologna University and Evelyn Foschi of Bologna, Italy) and five are from Sweden (Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér at Uppsala University; and Hanno Essén at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm).

Essén, who submitted the paper, is an associate professor of at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.

"I have followed the Rossi E-Cats for a couple of years now and participated in two experiments (including the present one) and read, and heard, about several other more or less independent ones," Essén told Phys.org. "My overall impression is that there must be something there, but scientists must always be cautious until everything has been checked and rechecked."

Essén said that there are plans to submit the paper to a peer-reviewed journal, although they understand that it may be difficult. Even though the subject is controversial, he explained that he thinks the cost of involvement is worth it.

"I got involved since, for the first time, an inventor of a new source was willing to allow meaningful observation and measurement," he said. "There is always a risk that career and reputation is damaged, but for me scientific curiosity always has higher priority."

Rossi tests 2
Ragone plot of the energy density and power density of various sources. The plot has been expanded to show conservative estimates of the E-Cat from the March tests, as well as known values of Pu-238. Credit: Prepared for Forbes by Alan Fletcher based on the original figure by Ahmed F. Ghoniem. "Needs, resources and climate change: clean and efficient conversion technologies," Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 37 (2011), 15-51, fig. 38

Rossi himself was not part of the study. However, the tests were performed on E-Cat prototypes constructed by Rossi and located in Rossi's facilities in Ferrara, Italy.

The paper presents the results of two separate tests on two different prototypes, called E-Cat HT and E-Cat HT2. The first test was carried out by Levi and Foschi in December 2012, while the second was carried out by all seven authors in March 2013. Although the E-Cat HT2 had several improvements over the E-Cat HT, both tests revealed the same important result: more heat was produced by the device than would be expected from any known chemical source of energy.

According to the researcher's conservative measurements and calculations, the E-Cat HT and E-Cat HT2 have energy densities of 680,000 Wh/kg and 61,000,000 Wh/kg, respectively. Even with a "blind" evaluation that probably underestimates the energy production significantly, the researchers still get a value that is an order of magnitude higher than all other conventional energy sources. Considering that gasoline has an of 12,000 Wh/kg, these values are extraordinary and would blow all other energy technologies out of the water.

With that being said, exactly what kind of reaction is producing the large amount of heat energy remains unknown. While the reaction was originally touted as cold fusion when Rossi first unveiled the device a few years ago, most analysts now suspect that the mechanism is more likely a low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) that is not fusion. If the reaction involves the conversion of nickel into copper, as it seems, then it would be considered a transmutation.

Somewhat frustratingly, the seven scientists were not allowed to look inside the steel cylinder that houses the fuel, which is a combination of nickel powder, hydrogen gas, and—most mysteriously—a catalyst composed of unknown additives. This catalyst is an industrial trade secret, and the secrecy makes it impossible for independent scientists to understand exactly how the device works.

"It is frustrating to observe a mysterious phenomenon but not be allowed to investigate it fully, yes," Essén said. "I understand, however, that inventors are mainly interested in commercial applications and that this requires the keeping of industrial secrets."

What the scientists could do was to operate the device, measure the heat energy it produced, and compare that to the input energy to calculate the impressive values stated above. They could also assess the prototypes for any potential radioactive emissions, of which they found none.

The basic design of the E-Cat (both versions) consists of three cylinders: an outer ceramic cylinder (33 cm long and 10 cm in diameter, or roughly the dimensions of a bowling pin), a smaller ceramic cylinder located within the outer one and containing wire coils, and finally the steel cylinder that contains the fuel. At just 3 mm thick and 33 mm in diameter, the steel cylinder is not much bigger than a quarter. By comparing the weights of the steel cylinder when containing fuel and when empty, the researchers estimated the weight of the fuel in the March test to be about 0.3 grams.

When power (here, no more than 360 W) is fed to the wire coils inside the middle cylinder, the coils heat up and cause the steel cylinder and its powder to heat up as well. The scientists used a thermal camera to measure the E-Cat's surface temperature for the entire duration of the two tests, which were 96 hours and 116 hours, respectively. They also continuously monitored the electrical power input that was supplied to the coils. In the first test, the power input was constant, while in the second test, the scientists experimented with turning the power on and off to test the self-sustaining mode. In the self-sustaining mode, they observed a periodic heating and cooling cycle that warrants further study.

To investigate whether there really is something special about the powder fuel in the small cylinder, the researchers performed a "dummy" test with an empty cylinder. They ran the test in March on the E-Cat HT2 for about 6 hours, taking measurements exactly as they did when the cylinder was loaded. They found that no extra heat was generated beyond that expected from the electric input. Whatever kind of catalyst is in the fuel seems to be indispensable for generating the excess energy.

Whether this paper gains the approval or disdain of other scientists working in related areas remains to be seen, but the seven authors of the current paper seemed to have taken pains to take all the precautions that they could, given the circumstances, to perform a valid investigation. At nearly every step of their measurements and calculations, the scientists repeatedly emphasized that they adopted the most conservative methods in order to not overestimate the device's energy generation.

The paper has so far received a mixed response on the web, with Steven B. Krivit of New Energy Times arguing that Rossi has manipulated the scientists to create the illusion of an independent test, while articles at Pure Energy Systems and Forbes are more supportive.

At the end of their paper, the researchers added that another test is planned to begin this summer. This test will last six months in order to monitor the long-term performance of the E-Cat HT2, and may help the scientists get a better understanding of the origins of the excess heat energy.


Explore further

Rossi's E-Cat gets first customers, but questions remain

More information: Giuseppe Levi, et al. "Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device." arXiv:1305.3913 [physics.gen-ph]

© 2013 Phys.org

Citation: Tests find Rossi's E-Cat has an energy density at least 10 times higher than any conventional energy source (2013, May 23) retrieved 26 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

May 23, 2013
Not science just a press release for Rossi because the ECat was developed with pseudoscience, at best. Fraud, more likely. Another day == Another scam. The e-cat has nice styling and a high price tag. From Italy no less.

May 23, 2013
This sounds remarkably like the claims of Black Light Power for their 'hydrino' system that utilizes 'fractional Rydberg States'. Basically hydrogen atoms are supposedly dissolved in a nickel-based Fermi sea that permits electronic transitions from the conventional 'ground state' hydrogen atom (N=1) to an even lower energy state with N = the reciprocal of an integer. The presence of the Fermi sea negates the need for conservation of angular momentum, so the energy emission comes as thermal motion rather than photon emission.
Look up www.blacklightpower.com

May 23, 2013
This isn't science. This is a magic show. The magician has his tricks and won't let people look behind the curtain or up his sleeves. ArXiv is not peer-reviewed science, even if it's meant to be a pre-publication site for papers that will eventually be peer-reviewed science.

May 23, 2013
Rossi can't have his cake and eat it too. Either drop the veil surrounding the "secret sauce" catalyst, or quit trying to get scientific validation and just sell the damned things. Replace the natural gas heating element of a gas turbine with an E-cat and generate electricity. Simple.

But Rossi is either unable or unwilling to sell the devices, while also being unable or unwilling to allow a true scientific validation.

May 23, 2013
Even the "third-party" paper that they put on arxiv (aka, not peer-reviewed in the slightest, they directly cited Wikipedia for fuck's sake which in itself is probably enough to fail peer review) says that they still don't have access to the internals of the device and that the catalyst is still a trade secret. The "independent" researchers have all had previous ties to Rossi. The Talk page about this on Wikipedia is really interesting and reveals a lot.

http://en.wikiped...atalyzer

May 23, 2013
Maybe Rossi should reach out to Steorn for some marketing advice. Could have a demonstration on the waterfront. lol

May 23, 2013
I believe in this invention, and I'm going to get an E-Cat as soon as it's available. Why is it so hard to understand Rossi's secrecy? Every company in the world, including Kentucky Fried Chicken, won't divulge its secret recipe It's both proprietary and patentable, and no one but those who defy the status quo are lambasted for it. It would be idiotic to throw the doors wide open to a lifetime of work so you can watch the wolves devour it. There are too many indications that the work is real, and Rossi will succeed.

May 23, 2013
This reminds me of "The Turk", a chess playing machine that was later revealed to be a hoax. Any time you can't look inside the box, it raises suspicion. If Rossi has a trade secret, he should patent it, so others can study it.

May 23, 2013
@Telekinetic: because KFC isn't seeking independent scientific validation for the deliciosity of their original recipe. you don't get to seek scientific validation while holding back the secret sauce. Period. You can, however, be just like KFC, forgo validation, and let the marketplace decide how good your product is. But just like you said, its not commercially available, otherwise you would have already bought one.

If you're a believer, I recommend writing Rossi a check equal to your life savings to help him commercialize the E-cat. Cant lose right??? put your money where your mouth is, or shut up.

May 23, 2013
I think everyone will call BS on this.

May 23, 2013
I believe in this invention, and I'm going to get an E-Cat as soon as it's available. Why is it so hard to understand Rossi's secrecy? ...


Because every piece of modern technology has well-known scientific principles underneath it. We know how transistors and radio waves and LCDs all work, and that doesn't stop companies from making a huge profit on putting them together into a cell-phone. But Rossi is claiming something that is LITERALLY impossible, scientifically speaking. It's a black box we "can't" know. We always know about the underlying science behind technology.

Otherwise he's a charlatan and scam artist, preying off of people who don't understand nuclear physics (most people, no doubt) to get them to "invest" in his magic device that will cure the world's woes. That's why I'm so pissed about this.

May 23, 2013
There are too many indications that the work is real


Such as?

May 23, 2013
It is almost impossible to get an patent on something Cold Fusion related. The only alternative Rossi has is to keep his catalyser as trade secret. Rossi is already selling his 1 MW eCat plants now that he has got SGS safety certifications, but getting certifications for eCats for home use is obviously a more complicated matter, and sales of that type will not begin before 2014.

Of all the many people who have observed the several different demonstrations of the eCat, NOT ONE has claimed that this is a fraud.

Steven B. Krivit who has been very vocal in his attacks on Rossi(most likely due to the fact that he is involved in competing projects), did NOT attend any demonstration, but simply did an interview with Rossi where he filmed one of the eCats. He does not have the qualifications to be the judge of Rossi's technology, besides having a conflict of interests.

This report is signed by 7 highly respected scientists and is certainly no "scam".

May 23, 2013
Damning comment: "there are plans to submit the paper to a peer-reviewed journal, although they understand that it may be difficult." Now why exactly would that be difficult? Could it be because they are not doing good work, or some other reason, perhaps a conspiracy?

May 23, 2013
they directly cited Wikipedia for fuck's sake which in itself is probably enough to fail peer review

Correct. Wikipedia is not cite-worthy (as its content can be altered after your paper is published - potentially rendering the cite false).

OK, here's where it gets bizarre:
I'm staring to look up the authors:

Giuseppe Levi is in an institue for nuclear and subnuclear physisc (sounds good!)...BUT: his publication list is (just) 11 papers long,. Here's my 4 favorites:

- "Macchina da caffè di tipo perfezionato" (improved type coffee machine)
- "Macchina di tipo perfezionato. " (improved type machine)
- "Procedimento per la produzione di una bevanda a base di caffè e macchina da caffè che attua il procedimento" (process for the production of a drink based on coffee and coffee machine which implements the method)
- "Method for producing a coffee-based beverage and a coffee machine for implementing the method thereof. "


May 23, 2013
... the rest of Guiseppes paper are on cellular automata for traffic simulations and one (1!) on
"Cosmic-ray positron fraction measurement from 1-GeV to 30-GeV with AMS-01"
where he shares autorship with - hold on to your hats - 183 others (no, that is not a typo. One hundred and eighty three. Lemme guess - he was one of the data typists?)

on to the next:
Evelyn Foschi
She was hard to find because she has no publications at all (besides this one). Accordnig to her LinkedIn page she's a medical techician (Xray/CT).

Erm. It gets better:
Torbjörn Hartman...he's a friggin' vet.

Bo Höistad: Finally someone relevant. He's a professor from the department of (astro)physics with work in high energy particles.


May 23, 2013
If he wants to keep the details secret then tell him to shut up about it and develop it himself. If he wants to be credited with the science let him publish so others can replicate it. If he isn't going to do either of these he's an entertainer selling a spectacle.

May 23, 2013
Not to mention that Rossi never explained why the copper "fusion by-product" from his previous test had the same isotopic ratio as natural copper. Just another nail in the coffin.

May 23, 2013
Roland Pettersson: (retired) professor of chemical analytics (sounds relevant)
He's been at a demonstration of Rossi's in 2012
http://www.e-catw...at-demo/

But when I read quotes by him like this:
"Roland Pettersson told Ny Teknik that the system was now much more stable. A new set of control electronics was used and the system was started just pushing a button. However, no energy measurement was performed."

Erm...Ok, doesn't sound like someone too interested in what actually is relevant. Impressed by a one-push-button contraption? Riiiiight.

Lars Tegner: Department of Engineering Sciences, Division of Electricity (also retired)
Only paper I could ind by him was
"Flash photolysis experiments in the vapour phase at elevated temperatures I: spectra of azobenzene and the kinetics of its thermal cis-trans isomerization" (co-authored with Roland Petterson)


May 23, 2013
@Telekinetic: because KFC isn't seeking independent scientific validation for the deliciosity of their original recipe. you don't get to seek scientific validation while holding back the secret sauce. Period. You can, however, be just like KFC, forgo validation, and let the marketplace decide how good your product is. But just like you said, its not commercially available, otherwise you would have already bought one.

If you're a believer, I recommend writing Rossi a check equal to your life savings to help him commercialize the E-cat. Cant lose right??? put your money where your mouth is, or shut up.

I'm on a waiting list of people who want to buy the E-Cat. Rossi struggled for years to finance his research, and borrowed against his own house, which is unlikely a ploy. By reserving a machine, I have "put up", therefore you, fmfBrestel, can shut up.

May 23, 2013
Hanno Essén: He seems actually legit. Department of Mechanics but with a publications in the electrodanymic sector and quantum chemistry (and he's still actively employed by the Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden)

The authors of this paper are a rather mixed bag.

May 23, 2013
I have been following this saga since January 2011. After several years of hard research and development work, the invention starts to be quite close for commercial success. If you want to check the origins of the finding this Ni-H LENR phenomena, read professor Sergio Fodardi publications, starting from 1994.

Main stream science or most of the commentators here do not believe much on LENR phenomenas existence yet. Anyway, whatever you think, you don't need to guess for long time anymore. 6 months continuous test will start soon. It will be very difficult to cheat with such a small device, when continuos measurement devices and video recording are all the time on for 6 months, and the little device need to produce around 10 kW heat power all that time, without interruptions. Just calculate how much for example gasoline you would need for that !

After the 6 months test, there starts to be change for Rossi to get worldwide patents for E-Cat: before that he will not reveal the catalyst.

May 23, 2013
It will be very difficult to cheat with such a small device, when continuos measurement devices and video recording

It would be convincing if they actually started measuring radiation...you know...because it's supposedly fusion?
Either during the test or at the very least afterwards after breaking open the container and comparing to measurements on the individual components beforehand.

I wonder why they never try that.

May 23, 2013
I consider myself to be a logical person. This leads me to a series of thoughts:

A black-box can't break the laws of physics.

Whether or not the exact mechanics of the device is revealed is not important, not objectively.

Just because we don't understand what's happening doesn't mean the laws of physics are being broken.

I support Rossi's attempts to validate his claims. If his device works in practice, and the promise is met, then what's there to complain about, If it doesn't work, then so be it, whatever.

This isn't complicated at all, it doesn't even warrant all this debate.

This device either works or it does not, and the world will know the truth when people put it to work.

That's about all there is to it. Someone presents blackbox fx = y, and fx is not defined for us, but y is the output and y is the promise. What else do you really need? And don't give any of that 'keeping secrets isn't fair' BS, it's called economics, business, etc.

May 23, 2013
It will be very difficult to cheat with such a small device, when continuos measurement devices and video recording

It would be convincing if they actually started measuring radiation...you know...because it's supposedly fusion?
Either during the test or at the very least afterwards after breaking open the container and comparing to measurements on the individual components beforehand.

I wonder why they never try that.


It's obviously not fusion, or some kind of special case. We know what our instruments measure, a machine generating heat and not much else, use that information to infer on what it may be.

The nature of the device is being kept secret, that's a fact we have to live with. If it's a process taking place in the natural world it's obviously not breaking any laws of physics.

May 23, 2013
Its hard to think outside the box. Fine, but when you mock people involved its really to much. Torbjörn Hartman a "friggin vet"? Yeah, rigtht. He is MD vet med yes, he also holds a master in engineering. Checked out his workplace? Do that, please. In a team doing scientific work - I find I need to inform you, usually you have different roles, competences, ages etc. Not all can be department icons, author/coauthor of 500 papers. You need to have doers and thinkers of the right mix. In this case you must also find those accepting the academic risque involved. Read the paper and and evaluate its content. You can bank on that the people who authored this piece is credible.

May 23, 2013
There seems to be some confusion here between trade secrets and patents. Perhaps Mr. Rossi feels the underlying technology is either unpatentable or cannot be protected well enough from patents; if so, then keeping it trade secret is the only means of protecting his substantial investment and providing a means for sole proprietorship going forward.

May 23, 2013
aroc91:
Not to mention that Rossi never explained why the copper "fusion by-product" from his previous test had the same isotopic ratio as natural copper. Just another nail in the coffin.


this is not just "another" nail in the coffin. This is _the_ nail. If there's any kind of nuclear reaction taking place, it will be perfectly evident in isotopic ratios of the feedstock and the waste product. If we don't see such an effect, then no nuclear reaction is taking place.

Furthermore, we also know that a photon of one energy (say a gamma ray released in a nuclear process) is not at all the same as many photons of lower energy that sum to the initial energy (the heat claimed to be generated by this device). Most quantum processes prefer to emit energy in a single discrete jump, radiating a high energy photon, rather than many little photons along the way (if such photons are physically allowed at all).

The claim simply does not match any other observation ever made.

May 23, 2013
I find the real douchbags to be those who were instrumental in making research into this phonomenon synonymous with pathological science. They are right now in a crap storm themselves explaining to their financiers why nothing have happened in 50 years time (and multiple billion of dollars later). Poetic justice.

May 23, 2013

"Cosmic-ray positron fraction measurement from 1-GeV to 30-GeV with AMS-01"
where he shares autorship with - hold on to your hats - 183 others (no, that is not a typo. One hundred and eighty three. Lemme guess - he was one of the data typists?)


Actually, Antialias, this isn't too surprising. For many large institutions, the entire collaboration is listed as authors, as they've all contributed to the paper's result in some way, even just in data collection. I think I'm on a few in just such a manner.

May 23, 2013
It is easy to say that something was faked, but how, in this case, was it done? Either the thing actually worked somehow, or the investigating scientist are in on the scam to the ultimate doom of their careers and reputations - does Rossi have that kind of money?

How do you fake something with a simple electrical input so that it appears to generate vastly more power than that input provides for an extended period? It may be a black box in regards to its internal mechanism, but if it works, it works.

May 23, 2013
Because every piece of modern technology has well-known scientific principles underneath it. We know how transistors and radio waves and LCDs all work
Much of 20th century tech was developed and applied without the science to support it. Aeronautics for example. Humans were using fire for millenia before the principles of combustion were understood. In fact tech has more often than not preceded the science which explains it.
But Rossi is claiming something that is LITERALLY impossible
Well if you were familiar with the latest developments re widom larsen theory, including NASA and the US navy support, you would be saying 'presumably improbable' rather than 'LITERALLY impossible!!!' If you were unbiased that is.

Here is some reasonable discussion on how rossi could be hoaxing people.
http://www.e-catw...testers/

-It would seem difficult to supply that much power by any other means, surreptitiously or not.

May 23, 2013
@ "it's not science"

did you read the paper the scientists wrote up in evaluating the e-cat.

It is science. Science is about observation and measurement. That is what happened. No theories could be presented because well the catalyst was not evaluated. What was evaluated was whether this 'scientist' was making fraudulent claims. And it seems he was not making fraudulent claims. The e-cat actually seems to make energy. And it does so in a fashion that current science does not have an answer for.

That means this is a discovery. It is not cold fusion - but it is a some kind of nuclear reaction.

Now if the catalyst ends up being weapons grade plutonium all bets are off :-)

And let it also be repeated Rossi has stated many time - he has no idea why it works. None, not even a really good testable theory. He suspects it is LENR but that is just speculation.

But he doesn't need to know why it works to sell it. IT JUST HAS TO WORK --- that's all that's need for this to not be fraud

May 23, 2013
Now if the catalyst ends up being weapons grade plutonium all bets are off :-)
This much power could indeed be weaponized.
But Rossi is claiming something that is LITERALLY impossible
We already know of other methods of initiating LENR and people are looking to develop these as well.
http://www.starsc...-fusion/

-And there may be additional methods we are not yet aware of.

May 23, 2013
This fails to impress me simply because the trend in our hyper promoting society is there is very little substance behind all the media hype 99% percent of the time. Yes the 1% is possible, just not probably.

Here is a great post in a more obvious energy hype fail:

http://metabunk.o...uot-scam

"There's a type of scam out there that's being going on for at least 100 years."..."claims to have invented or discovered something that will make a lot of money."..."They will get people to invest in their company. The technology will go nowhere slowly, and eventually the principals will withdraw, and the investors will end up with nothing."

May 23, 2013
Otto, it's not just that we "don't know" like with fire. It's that we have decades and piles of research that all very definitively points away from the claim Rossi is trying to make. He has to overturn a lot of very well established observations in order for his initial claim to be valid at all. And he's simply not making the effort to make that happen. That smells of charlatan to me.

May 23, 2013
RealScience: none of the telltale signs of any form of "nuclear reaction," low-energy or not, are present here. The isotopes are wrong, the radiation signature is wrong. A nucleus, as far as this research goes at least, is a pretty well understood thing.

May 23, 2013
It's that we have decades and piles of research that all very definitively points away from the claim Rossi is trying to make
Funny you dont sound like the NASA scientists along with widom and larsen who are much more familiar with this research than you, and who seem to be somewhat more optimistic.

In fact you dont sound like most any scientist who accepts that we still have a great deal to learn.

Like I say we already know of ways to initiate LENR. We KNOW it is possible.
none of the telltale signs of any form of "nuclear reaction," low-energy or not, are present here. The isotopes are wrong, the radiation signature is wrong. A nucleus, as far as this research goes at least, is a pretty well understood thing
NOT according to widom-larsen theory which you are obviously not familiar with.

Take some time and look it up.

May 23, 2013
He is just a liar.
I am italian and I swear any italian psychologist could say he is faking while he talks all the time.
He's just ridiculous.
And the fact that he didn't register patents about his stuff proves that he's just a scammer looking for fame and some money.

May 23, 2013
Skepticism is in order here. However, if this is a fraud, what is his endgame?

May 23, 2013
The media said fusion -- Rossi makes no such claim --if eh did he no longer says fusion out loud...

the media hypes up fusion -- and cold fusion --- read the darned paper -- not eh article above the paper that is linked here I will make it easy for you

http://arxiv.org/...13v1.pdf

read it -- it is science

May 23, 2013
Otto: where exactly is this Widom Larsen theory published? Just because someone has worked at NASA does not make them an expert on nuclear physics. The nuclear physicists I've studied with (as I am a PhD in Nuclear Physics myself) find cold fusion claims to be pretty ridiculous on the whole

May 23, 2013
@RealScience2:
I understand your dislike of skepticism. It might even be "easier" in this case to be skeptical. But the adage "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." is well founded through the history of human greed.

I believe in consistency of human behavior as much as the scientific process. Both in the dark under currents of sociopaths to fabricate their intricate schemes and in the self delusions of optimists and needful people to deliver them from ordinary existence or from some kind of certain fate.

Your best coarse is to abstain from forming opinions for a long as you can. Longer than what your emotions tell you. Longer than what reason tells you. Longer than it takes others to form their opinions.

May 23, 2013
@sstritt
"Skepticism is in order here. However, if this is a fraud, what is his endgame?"

See my link above. Or below :-P

http://metabunk.o...uot-scam

May 23, 2013
I find I need to inform you, usually you have different roles, competences, ages etc.

Certainly. But If you read scientific papers you may notice that invariably ALL the authors and co-authors have specialties relevant to the subject...And I'm wondering why that isn't the case here.

Yes: You occasionally have someone who contributed - and whose specialty is maybe only marginally relevant. But here we have a paper where people basically watched someone else set up a system (without giving them insight into the details) and then write about what they saw.

I'm not sure what you call that - but I don't call that a scientific paper.

I'll agree: Skepticism is in order here

May 23, 2013
Here is how Rossi has fooled the bunch of physicist this time:

He has given them the thick insulated cables to measure with a
"clamp ammeters". This type of measurement uses magnetic field created by the current flowing trough a wire. The calculation of the current has an assumption of a single, non-wound and non-shielded wire. However, internal structure of the cables used in this setup were not exposed. It can be seen that they are thick enough to hide things like shielding, winding, or even ferrite rings that could completely distort the magnetic fields and so the validity of the measurement.
It looks like while focusing a lot on temperature measurement, they got fooled by simple electric measurement distortion. Cables are definitely thick enough to deliver
several kW of power while apparent "measured" current would be much less if magnetic field that is being measured is partly shielded. Input power underestimated - "unexplained energy" appears... Rossi did it again!

May 23, 2013
is the indication of anomalous heat energy in a reactor device at energy densities far above conventional


And that's all you really can say though. There's insufficient evidence to discount chicanery. What if the feedstock isn't what he says it is? What if there's an additional source of energy that's hidden somehow in the apparatus? Or some chemical reaction occurring? There's not enough investigation into the entire setup to definitively say that this isn't a hoax. Thus the burden of proof still falls upon the claimant (Rossi) to show he's not giving the world a hoax.

May 23, 2013
It is easy to say that something was faked, but how, in this case, was it done?

The simplest way I can think of is in that he turned up the juice on the coils in the cylinder.
Quote from the article
. The charge sets off the production of thermal energy after having been activated by heat
produced by a set of resistor coils located inside the reactor.


With those you could keep a lump of metal glowing indefinitely as long as you keep the juice running, easily. And faking the output of a power-meter is not exactly rocket science (you need all of one resistor for that - which will cost you a few cents)

May 23, 2013
Otto: where exactly is this Widom Larsen theory published? Just because someone has worked at NASA does not make them an expert on nuclear physics. The nuclear physicists I've studied with (as I am a PhD in Nuclear Physics myself) find cold fusion claims to be pretty ridiculous on the whole
Let me be polite. Look it the fuck up. Try GOOGLE.
The simplest way I can think of is in that he turned up the juice on the coils in the cylinder
Od course if AA would really want to know, instead of just pretending, he would try the link I posted where people are discussing real possibilities.

AA has never educated hisself re widom-larsen either, have you AA? Much more fun to make stuff up-

May 23, 2013
Just think for a moment:

WHY THE HELL IS HE NOT PATENTING HIS STUFF AND REVEAL THE BIG SECRET?

That's the only answer you need.

May 23, 2013
With those you could keep a lump of metal glowing indefinitely as long as you keep the juice running, easily
Well, per the discussion over at ecat world;

"We have also seen pictures of the E-cat glowing. The surface temp likely needs to be at least 525C for this to happen, much higher if you consider this to be more of an orange color. 800K for this size reactor would be over 2800W of output with emissivity of 1, 1175W even if you take e down to 0.3."

-Now how can you get that sort of power to this thing through a wall outlet and conventional power cord?
The nuclear physicists I've studied with (as I am a PhD in Nuclear Physics myself) find cold fusion claims to be pretty ridiculous on the whole
Sure you are. Dont most nooklear physmatists know how to educate themselves? Dont they teach you how to use GOOGLE at hogwarts?

May 23, 2013
he would try the link I posted where people are discussing real possibilities.

You do know that I skip most of your posts - I seem to have told you that on occasion.

I like to maximize my time reading stuff from people who post interesting things. The others...meh.

May 23, 2013
he would try the link I posted where people are discussing real possibilities.

You do know that I skip most of your posts - I seem to have told you that on occasion.

I like to maximize my time reading stuff from people who post interesting things. The others...meh.
So then why then do you comment on things youre not familiar with? Why waste peoples time and space?
WHY THE HELL IS HE NOT PATENTING HIS STUFF AND REVEAL THE BIG SECRET?
He has a patent. He is busy producing units and delivering units.

His tech is apparently easy to copy as others are doing so at this moment. He wants to make as much money as he can as quickly as he can.

And he doesnt much care what you think. And neither would you if you were in his place.

May 23, 2013
Believe it or not, Otto, the internet has lies on it. I mean where, as in what real-world scientific prestigious journal, is this paper published? I don't see it in any of the big names I'm familiar with.

May 23, 2013
He has a patent. He is busy producing units and delivering units.


An application in 2008 to patent the device internationally had received an unfavorable preliminary report on patentability at the World Intellectual Property Organization from the European Patent Office, noting that the description of the device was based on "general statements and speculations" and citing "numerous deficiencies in both the description and in the evidence provided to support its feasibility" as well as incompatibilities with "generally accepted laws of physics and established theories." The patent application was published on 15 October 2009.

On 6 April 2011 an application was approved by the Italian Patent and Trademark Office, ..., valid only in Italy. Under then-current Italian law, the examination of the application was more formal and less technical than for the corresponding PCT application.International, European, and U.S. patent applications are still pending.


May 23, 2013
@antialias_physorg, : And how is not their backgrounds relevant to this study? Care to admit that you barked at the wrong tree about the "friggin vet" yet?

Reading you comments it becomes clear: you don't go in for any factual comment or question on the actual content in the paper, but you spend a lot of time mocking the authors, people making factual comments and in general spreading your wisdom on how "real" science is done.

May there be things to question? Yes there are. That is what I meant by thinking outside the box. Take a look outside, you might find in invigorating.

@kochevnik, megmaltese et.al : With your line of commenting, I seriously doubt you even bothered to read the paper. You should also take a step outside and smell the fresh air.
It is a black box test. More goes out than goes in. By a great deal. Conservatively speaking. The paper show that to a satisfactory level.


mvg
May 23, 2013
I certainly cannot pass judgment on whether or not this device works as claimed—

However, the overall tenor of this discussion (and so many more like it) should tell us something about the character of the participants and the fractious nature of academia in general..

Is it against "scientific method' to disagree WITHOUT becoming disagreeable?

Is it possible to appraise someone's work WITHOUT the judging someone negatively out of hand on the basis of their number of (or lack of) degrees/and/or papers?

Is it possible to conduct a discussion WITHOUT imputing evil motives?

Does it weaken your argument to be civil?

Is it just my imagination—or do these discussions all to frequently devolve into forums of pettiness?

May 23, 2013
Any guy who invents such an energy source is going to become the richest man on Earth in a year.
This guy is selling crap to the poor ones who believe him or want to test his stuff.
He is producing a very small number of units and they all are just prototypes.
If his stuff worked he would have found a funder by now. Or watch, he could open a project on Kickstarter but he is so ignorant he can't even do that.

Otto, we all want "free energy", but science is not dreaming, it's imagination and realization.

May 23, 2013
Believe it or not, Otto, the internet has lies on it. I mean where, as in what real-world scientific prestigious journal, is this paper published? I don't see it in any of the big names I'm familiar with.
And physmatists know at least a little about sorting truth from lies yes? You didnt see because you didnt look.
http://newenergyt...l#papers

May 23, 2013
Freethinker, this is not a judgement court.
You are not "innocent until proved guilty".
It's a science bench. If you don't show your stuff, it is legitimate to suspect and doubt.
That's ALL science is about.
And 99% of cases, when a "scientist" doesn't give proper informations, keeps all in misterious wraps, it's because he is just teasing the world.
This happened countless times in the past and statistically this is one of those times.
And fun is, there's always somebody ready to believe on the word :)
And no, I didn't read the paper, no time to waste.

May 23, 2013
Any guy who invents such an energy source is going to become the richest man on Earth in a year.


Remember what J. P. Morgan said when Tesla tried to get him interested in his wireless energy project: "If anyone can draw on the power, where do we put the meter?" After which, he would not fund Tesla's research. If this thing actually works, it won't be the J. P. Morgans of the world who profit.

May 23, 2013
If his stuff worked he would have found a funder by now
In rossis words:

"Q. Many LENR researchers are having funding problems. Are you and your research and/or your E-Cat development program being hindered in any way because of lack of funding?

A. We never worked upon funding, our strategy has always been based upon making working plants with our own money and get the funding from the payments of the Customers. This has always been our policy, because I believe in my work.

Q. In my previous question I was referring to available money from any source. Is your research or E-Cat development hindered in any way because of the lack of money?

A. No, it is not."

-And the 3rd party report was funded by the testers:

"ELFORSK AB, the Swedish energy R&D organization established by utilities and manufacturers in the country has issued a statement on its website commenting on the 3rd party Report which it funded, along with the Alba Langenskiöld Foundation."

May 23, 2013
"In the self-sustaining mode, they observed a periodic heating and cooling cycle that warrants further study."

Yea I am stupid. Sounds like a jumper wire to me. Snake oil. Good snake oil.

May 23, 2013
@Yevgen

. However, internal structure of the cables used in this setup were not exposed.


but they measured the power put into the device from the power source itself -- so the input wires being shielded is a red herring

@antialias

i shouldn't have to do this -- but since you as a troll got some many people to believe you -- without offering proof

in responce to your claim that the authors of the paper are from unrelated fields of study i present the authors of the paper to phys.org peer review -- may God help us all

1)Lars Tegnér - Professor at Department of Engineering Sciences, Division of Electricity

2) Torbjörn Hartman - Senior research engineer

3) Bo Höistad - Professor at Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nuclear Physics

4) Roland Pettersson - Senior lecturer at Department of Chemistry - BMC, Analytical Chemistry

5) Hanno Essén - associate professor of theoretical physics -- && -- former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society

May 23, 2013
if the electrical engineer -- the research engineer -- the nuclear physicist - the analytical chemist -- and the theoretical physicist who used to chair the SKEPTICS SOCIETY OF SWEDEN -- all say that this thing is producing energy then why are we arguing against -- just because the test wasn't done in the USA???? what is the argument here people --- they went into this to prove it was fake -- and evidence shows otherwise ---

and for Antialias to say they were from fields that weren't capable of evaluating the machine -- then Antialias -- i humbly conject that perhaps you should keep your thoughts to yourself

@PoppaJ

In the self-sustaining mode, they observed a periodic heating and cooling cycle that warrants further study.


you didn't read the paper either - and the author of the article i can not give an excuse for - what they are referring to is in self sustaing mode to prevent constant energy going in they set an upper bound on the temp -- and the coils were turned off

May 23, 2013
And 99% of cases, when a "scientist" doesn't give proper informations, keeps all in misterious wraps, it's because he is just teasing the world.


I am not going to disagree with your general point, but I feel I should mention a couple things:

Rossi is basically a hack engineer and businessman, not a scientist in the accepted sense of the word. As such, he admits he does not understand the physics behind his device (more importantly he cannot patent the device because of this, at least as an internationally recognized patent). So as a businessman, he must protect his process from scrutiny and possible replication because he has no legal protection. In other words, if everyone suddenly knows how his device works, he just lost all potential revenue. Hence the secrecy.

I make no claims as to the validity of this device, but you seem to be discounting it outright without even reading up on it (as you say, due to limited time). Leave the comments for a bit and check it out?

May 23, 2013
Here is a nice and very accessible presentation by j m zawodny of NASA on widom-larsen theory and its potential ramifications
http://newenergyt...2010.pdf

And hey -shakira- it has pictures

May 23, 2013
A. We never worked upon funding, our strategy has always been based upon making working plants with our own money and get the funding from the payments of the Customers. This has always been our policy, because I believe in my work.

HUGE BULLSHIT.
Setting up a project in Kickstarter requires NOTHING and would launch the invention to stars in no time.
It is not a question of believing in own work (and after all he is a businessman, right? not a scientist, so what EXACTLY is he believing in?).
It's just finding a system to speed up things. If he can't understand this he is stupid.
Otherwise he is in bad faith.

But I see: you guys WANT to believe, so you believe.
Keep believing.
I wonder how many others bullshit you believe in. Area 51? Some magnetic machine for free energy? Ghosts? ;D

May 23, 2013
oh yes otto, how could I have overlooked the very prestigious "New Energy Times." All the cool professors read that one.

May 23, 2013
An excellent discussion of the recent demonstration and it's problems are on physicist Ethan Siegel's "Starts With A BANG" site:

"The E-Cat is back, and people are still falling for it!"
http://scienceblo...-for-it/

May 23, 2013
oh yes otto, how could I have overlooked the very prestigious "New Energy Times." All the cool professors read that one.
Ahaahaaa just click on the link, see the list of prestigious papers with hotlinks, and click on them to see copies of many papers from presitigious journals.

Heres one
Srivastava, Yogendra. N., Widom, Allan and Larsen, Lewis, "A Primer for Electro-Weak Induced Low Energy Nuclear Reactions," Pramana - Journal of Physics, 75(4) 617-637 (Oct. 2010)
http://newenergyt...Weak.pdf

-Ah youre just a troll arent you?


May 23, 2013
Who cares whats inside? Either it does what it says it does when you buy it , or it's fraud plain and simple. Scientific validation has no bearing on the market.

You buy something.
It does what the seller says or it doesn't.
If it does what is advertised we have a deal.
If it doesn't we have fraud.

There is no need for any peer review other than a jury.

May 23, 2013
An excellent discussion of the recent demonstration and it's problems are on physicist Ethan Siegel's "Starts With A BANG" site:

"The E-Cat is back, and people are still falling for it!"
http://scienceblo...-for-it/
Not as excellent as this article in Forbes
http://www.forbes...ter-all/

-Nor as well-read, nor as well-regarded.

May 23, 2013
I think everyone will call BS on this.
Well if you scan the thread you will see that many people think it is real. Perhaps english is not in your repertoire? Sind Sie sichtlos vielleicht?

Oh hey AA I just read one of your posts
Giuseppe Levi is in an institue for nuclear and subnuclear physisc (sounds good!)...BUT: his publication list is (just) 11 papers long,. Here's my 4 favorites:

- "Macchina da caffè di tipo perfezionato" (improved type coffee machine)
-Well coffee machinas use heat dont they? Is there some reason why you think a person who has analysed coffee machinas is unqualified to measure heat generated from rossis gadget, as well as being familiar with other ways of generating said heat?

May 23, 2013
@megmaltese: You are such a lost cause. You haven't read the paper - by own admittance in previous comments, yet you claim others who have are believers. What are you then, if not the greatest believer of them all. You are uninformed, loud and obnoxious. Read the paper. Pose informed question. If this is a scam, you will shoot it down right away.

May 23, 2013
What's all this diversion with "patenting" and "commercial in confidence" claptrap? It's all a scam. It must be, because whatever "the invention" is, as soon as it is "released commercially" it can be reversed engineered and made public domain technology. So the whole thing must be a scam if he resists the patenting route which could give him at least some revenue from licensing, even if only in Italy. Either it's a scam or...it's a scam. The signs are all there. One possible way of inputing energy into the "apparatus" would be to make the "container" out of Microwave absorbing material and put the device in a specially designed room "microwave reflective box" which would direct MW energy eventually into the apparatus, just like your dinner in your home microwave "box". The MW generator could be outside and the "witnesses" outside that room would be none the wiser that external source of energy is involved. Get a life, suckers. I man that in the nicest possible way! :-)

May 23, 2013
Now if only he had a quantum physicist to explain how it works, a geiger counter to monitor any reaction (Beta decay or neutrons?), a nuclear chemist to analyse the product isotopes, or a patent agent paid to see it: He could be a very, very rich man!
But that's a curiosity, he doesn't have any of those..

May 23, 2013
Another group of . . . scientists, duped. As Tuco said, "when you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk." If this thing works, then build it and plug it in. It's the same old dog and pony show setup.

May 23, 2013
Megmaltese wrote - "Setting up a project in Kickstarter requires NOTHING and would launch the invention to stars in no time."
-
Despite what you might think, money is not the answer to all problems.
-
This is the same type of thinking as "If one woman can have a baby in nine months, then nine women should be able to have a baby in one month".
-
Sometimes the right answer is a small group of scientists and engineers. Adding more employees will just slow down the process.

May 23, 2013
they directly cited Wikipedia for fuck's sake which in itself is probably enough to fail peer review


OK, here's where it gets bizarre:
I'm staring to look up the authors:

Giuseppe Levi is in an institue for nuclear and subnuclear physisc (sounds good!)...BUT: his publication list is (just) 11 papers long,. Here's my 4 favorites:

- "Macchina da caffè di tipo perfezionato" (improved type coffee machine)
- "Macchina di tipo perfezionato. " (improved type machine)
- "Procedimento per la produzione di una bevanda a base di caffè e macchina da caffè che attua il procedimento" (process for the production of a drink based on coffee and coffee machine which implements the method). "-antialias


You see, antialias, your prejudice and propensity for dyslexia has made you read "Giuseppe Levi" as the coffee machine inventor, when it is Levi Giuseppe who is the coffee machine inventor. With that, I leave you all to your creepy circle jerk of skepticism.

May 23, 2013
@EyeNStein: From where do you know that he has none of them? Stay with the facts.

May 23, 2013
Favorite misdirection of the illusionist - get people arguing about *how* it works so they forget that you haven't actually demonstrated *that* it works.

I'm with a lot of others here. If it's real, use it to generate power. Take your whole lab off the grid. Surely the inventor of a new power source knows how a steam turbine works.

May 23, 2013

Because every piece of modern technology has well-known scientific principles underneath it.


You are seriously out of touch with modern technology. We still don't know how high temperature superconductors work. Yet they work, and are manufactured and sold. And it has been decades since they have been invented.
When Nakamura invented the blue laser the physics behind it were unclear. I haven't heard if that has changed but that doesn't stop people from buying Blue Ray.

May 23, 2013
Watch Freethinker: I admit I didn't read the paper.
But I also say that my judgement on the question is based on statistics.
We have here all the "symptoms" of a scientific scam.
So, it's 99.9% scam for me.
But it's not only that.
It's also the way this person talks, his gestures and behaviour that brings me into this direction.
He is not professional at all.
He doesn't look professional.
He doesn't talk professional.
He doesn't ACT professional.
He says bullshits and contradicts himself: "I don't get funds because I believe in my work" (but for his admission he is not a scientist, but a "businessman", so in what type of work exactly he believes, if he can't patent his stuff because he doesn't know how it works exactly?).

Man, just face it: you have ALL the symptoms of huge bullshit here.
I don't say you should be sure like me about his scamming, but I think that the right starting point here is a sane skepticism, but for you and Otto it looks like you are on the other side.

May 23, 2013
You can believe, the cold fusion is as real, as the dense aether theory is valid. In the late 1920s, two Austrian born scientists, Friedrich Paneth and Kurt Peters, reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis when hydrogen was absorbed by finely divided palladium at room temperature. In 1927, Swedish scientist J. Tandberg stated that he had fused hydrogen into helium in an electrolytic cell with palladium electrodes. On the basis of his work, he applied for a Swedish patent for "a method to produce helium and useful reaction energy". After deuterium was discovered in 1932, Tandberg continued his experiments with heavy water. His application for a patent in 1927 was denied again, as he could not explain the physical process. The final experiments made by Tandberg with heavy water were similar to the original experiment by Fleischmann and Pons. Fleischmann and Pons were allegedly not aware of Tandberg's work.

May 23, 2013
In 1959 R.J.Kokes and P.H. Anderson were studying adsorption of hydrogen on Raney nickel and observed "strange feature of exothermic reaction". What they observed predated the Piantelli work by 30 years, and the Rossi catalyst by over 50 years... Neither 1959's findings were attempted to replicate, neither Piantelli&Rossi experiments from 1992...

So, if the physicists wouldn't behave like the ignorant imbeciles living in their ivory towers, we could have cold fusion developed seventy years already. Lets face the reality: the contemporary energetic and subsequent financial crisis is just their job - and they should pay for it.

May 23, 2013
One of the chief scientists at NASA, Dennis Bushnell recently recognized the potential of the Andrea Rossi energy catalyzer to positively impact the energy field. Although there have already been many demonstrations and the opening of Defkalion Green Technology's 1 megawatt facility in Greece in October 2011, the scientific community and major media is just beginning to acknowledge the light of E-cat.

"I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now."

"This is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geopolitics of solving quite a bit of [the] energy [problem.] – Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist of NASA Langley.

Interview of: Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist of NASA Langley

May 23, 2013
"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote.... Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."
- Albert. A. Michelson, speech at the dedication of Ryerson Physics Lab, U. of Chicago 1894

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement" - Lord Kelvin ca. 1900

A bit earlier...

"So many centuries after the Creation, it is unlikely that anyone could find hitherto unknown lands of any value." - Spanish Royal Commission, rejecting Christopher Columbus' proposal to sail west.

And before that...

'Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not' -- Jeremiah 5:21

In summation - Best to keep the mouth shut and eyes and ears open.

May 23, 2013
He is not professional at all.
He doesn't look professional.
He doesn't talk professional.
He doesn't ACT professional
You mean like this?
http://en.wikiped...ngue.jpg

May 23, 2013
He is not professional at all. He doesn't look professional. He doesn't talk professional. He doesn't ACT professional.
This is not the professional argument based on matter of fact arguments - but the application of formal objections to subject of critique similar to medieval Malleus Maleficarum. But you ignored the fact, twenty years before Andrea Rossi a duo of professional physicists - Francesco Piantelli and Sergio Focardi claimed the same result (just with COP ~ 3 instead of COP ~ 6 of Andrea Rossi). Their experiments were described in details in official journal of Italian Academy of Science - and did happen? They were ignored as well, despite they were professionals. They were actually dismissed from the same reason, like the Andrea Rossi was dismissed: it brings the unwanted competition for the rest of physics. The cold fusion is direct competition for all researchers involved in alternative energy research.

May 23, 2013
LOL Otto, you really can't catch it.

I'll try to be more clear.

When Einstein was talking about physics, he KNEW what he was talking about, and you could spot it when he talked.
This guy talks bullshit all the time, that's all.

But, you want to believe? Believe, I don't give a f*ck honestly. There are a lot of new age guys like you, so nothing strange.

May 23, 2013
"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

May 23, 2013
The cold fusion is direct competition for all researchers involved in alternative energy research.


Sorry, ValeriaT. But if that is so, then he could put them all out of business immediately, and so make himself the most famous and wealthy human being that ever lived, by just releasing his invention for other researchers to "develop" in efficiency and commercial robustness. Why doesn't he? No more whining about patenting woes and commercial in confidence "difficulties". It's a scam unless he immediately puts all those "competitors" you mention out of business asap and prevent global warming/climate change catastrophe NOW rather than stringing out this coy "cat and mouse" scam exercise which does no one any good. That is my honest asessment and opinion on him and his scamming activities and diversions. :-)

May 23, 2013
This isn't science. This is a magic show.
I do agree - but Andrea Rossi is private subject, he isn't obliged to reveal absolutely anything about his know-how. If you want the serious demonstration of cold fusion, why don't you ask the mainstream physicists for replication of twenty years old experiments of Piantelli and Rossi? Why just the entrepreneur like Rossi (who never did publish anything about cold fusion) should be the only arbiter and guaranteer of cold fusion viability? Aren't we paying the mainstream scientists for the replications of their own findings from our taxes for years? Is such situation normal for you?

May 23, 2013


When Einstein was talking about physics, he KNEW what he was talking about, and you could spot it when he talked.


Well, consider his cosmological constant in that context. How sure of that one was he?

May 23, 2013
and so make himself the most famous and wealthy human being that ever lived, by just releasing his invention for other researchers to "develop" in efficiency and commercial robustness
How? How the releasing the know-how for free could make you rich? Andrea Rossi even didn't got the patent for his technology in the USA (despite USA granted many similar patents of cold fusion like the the application of Zawodny from NASA during this time). The Americans apparently doesn't want to allow the commercialization of cold fusion for inventors outside of USA. How Andrea Rossi could become rich under such a situation, when everyone else patents the cold fusion technologies freely without single working device in accordance to silly first-to-file act? The strict guarding his know-how is his only chance, how he could get his investments returned at least a bit.

May 23, 2013
That's a might fine Ragone diagram you've got up there.

http:// cdn.physorg.com / newman/gfx/ news/2013/ rossitests2.jpg

You can see the original at

http:/ /b-i.forbesimg.com/markgibbs/files /2013/05/130520_ragone_04-1024x624.png

I don't mind your cropping some of my captions from the image. And I'm glad that you took the time to type out MY acknowledgement of the original in your caption.

But I do object to your cutting off MY NAME from your image, or failing that, acknowledging that it's my work product, and that you got it from Forbes.

You can credit it to "Prepared for Forbes by Alan Fletcher, based on ... etc etc"
Or just replace it with a copy (or link to) the original.

Alan

ps : I'm working on updating my "fake" papers to include this test.

pps : Images have a funny way of getting separated from their captions on the web. That's why I always put them on my images. And why I never crop of the originator's names.

May 23, 2013
@tothestars
staying with the facts:-.
The 'facts' as available are published on the web: Google them yourself. But none of them were peer reviewed journals (because there weren't any) so I won't quote them.
Choose what you want to believe. One of them even claimed that the 'new made' copper had an unaccountably normal isotope mix. (Feel free to look up 'Energy Catalyzer' on Wikipedia and chase the refernces as far as they go.)

May 23, 2013
Cables are definitely thick enough to deliver several kW of power while apparent "measured" current would be much less if magnetic field that is being measured is partly shielded
This is nonsense, as the experimental device has been calibrated just with using these wires without any hydrogen introduced during blind run. If "clamp ammeters" would be somehow insensitive to the actual current inside of reactor heaters, then this blind experiment would reveal it immediately. Of course, whole this technology can be still somehow faked, but why the hell Andrea Rossi should do it? He cannot sell any his device without explicit functionality warranty given anyway: he would be even jailed immediately for fraud, if he would even attempt for it.

May 23, 2013
Why doesn't he?


Why indeed.

No more whining about patenting woes and commercial in confidence "difficulties".


But Sir, the continued existence of our daily jollification & drollery depends on a good conspiracy theory or two.

It's a scam unless he immediately puts all those "competitors" you mention out of business asap


I can't say for certain it's a scam. But I can say it is a thing that is not being presented as science. It should not be bandied about on science sites until the "promoters" start acting as scientists do.

and prevent global warming/climate change catastrophe NOW


I'm with ya on that one. And he should take note, in Italy they can put ya in gaol for withholding your scientific wisdom, a la, the geophysicists who refused to issue an earthquake warning....

By the By: I gave ya the 5 vote, good to see ya back.

May 23, 2013
Of course, whole this technology can be still somehow faked, but why the hell Andrea Rossi should do it? He cannot sell any his device without explicit functionality warranty given anyway: he would be even jailed immediately for fraud, if he would even attempt for it.


Maybe ya answered your own question while stating it. It's the answer I would have given to your "why Rossi should do it" (playing shenanigans with the "testing"). He can't/won't sell it. He hasn't delivered a working model to anyone. Why is that? The "functionality warranty" thing? Or the going to gaol "immediately for fraud" thing?

May 23, 2013
Who the cheater is actually the Joseph Zawodny from NASA, who already patented cold fusion without having single working device available. But in this case its tolerated without problem, because NASA could use the cold fusion for military devices. For me whole the NASA engagement in cold fusion research is just a fake, the only purpose is to have the patenting of cold fusion under control of USA government and to clean their hands of past suppression. The obstinate effort to rename the cold fusion to LENR is just another attempt to reset the twenty if not seventy years old history of ignorance of cold fusion research in the eyes of layman publics. They just want to tell us: the suppression of cold fusion is indeed right, because it doesn't work - but the LENR - this is different stuff! The renaming of well known phenomena is usual praxis of claiming the false priority.

May 23, 2013
He hasn't delivered a working model to anyone. Why is that?
This is another widespread lie of cold fusion deniers - Andrea Rossi already delivered two 1 MW E-Cat units for USA and he's preparing the shipment of third one for Swedish company. The "functionality warranty" is the real thing at the case of E-Cat, as Rossi guarantees the COP > 6 for all his device shipped under full money return warranty. He wouldn't make a single dollar, if his device wouldn't work.

May 23, 2013
This >>
Who cares whats inside? Either it does what it says it does when you buy it , or it's fraud plain and simple. Scientific validation has no bearing on the market.

You buy something.
It does what the seller says or it doesn't.
If it does what is advertised we have a deal.
If it doesn't we have fraud.

There is no need for any peer review other than a jury.


May 23, 2013
@tothestars
My Correction: look up 'Sergio Focardi' and an Italian peer review journal called "Nuovo Cimento" there are certainly some reputable folk who believe this is more than snake oil.

May 23, 2013
We should realize, that A. Rossi is not selling licenses for his technology or access to development kit and similar stuffs, like many know-how consultants and similar cheaters. He just sells the physical devices, where the cheating is virtually impossible due the strong protection of customers by international business laws. In addition, his device is producing an energy, not some esoteric unmeasurable effects, i.e. cheating is virtually impossible there without serious penalties. BTW Why all people in this thread are downvoted with open account (former lite voting troll) with striking exception of Q-Star account?

May 23, 2013
The electric wiring that powers the internal heater of course.

"It is easy to say that something was faked, but how, in this case, was it done? " - Foofie

Current flow was only measured by a clip over ammeter rather than a clip through ammeter.

There are a variety of methods that Rossi could have used to fake the results.

May 23, 2013
Andrea Rossi already delivered two 1 MW E-Cat units for USA


And just where are these two 1 MW E-Cat units" operating in the USA? I would like to go see it for me own self.

The "functionality warranty" is the real thing at the case of E-Cat, as Rossi guarantees the COP > 6 for all his device shipped under full money return warranty.


Guaranteeing something ya haven't sold is not a thing I find very impressive. But then, I'm the silly miscreant who gives free advice with a double your money back guarantee if ya don't like it.

He wouldn't make a single dollar, if his device wouldn't work.


The entire subject of today's long comment section, he isn't making a single dollar because his devices aren't out there working.

May 23, 2013
Current flow was only measured by a clip over ammeter rather than a clip through ammeter.
In this case during blind calibration the heater would get a much higher temperature than it corresponds the Lamber-Beer law. You didn't understand my point at all. After all, it has no meaning to dispute it. All doubters have twenty years of Piantelli/Rossi experiments with COP > 3 thoroughly described in peer-reviewed press. If they don't believe the cold fusion, they should start to prove it experimentally with attempt for replication of just these experiments. We aren't required to bother with Andrea Rossi E-Cat cryptic device at all: we have this technology described in details elsewhere at many places already.

May 23, 2013
LOL Otto, you really can't catch it.

I'll try to be more clear.

When Einstein was talking about physics, he KNEW what he was talking about, and you could spot it when he talked.
This guy talks bullshit all the time, that's all

But, you want to believe? Believe, I don't give a f*ck honestly. There are a lot of new age guys like you, so nothing strange
Yeah I prefer to let the evidence speak for itself and I dont much care where it comes from. Evidence is pretty overwhelming that LENR is real and that it is only a matter of time until someone like rossi or NASA or the US military makes it work.

But, you dont want to trust evidence? So dont. I don't give a f*ck honestly. There are a lot of old age geezers like you, so nothing strange.

May 23, 2013
This may go the way of Tesla if the energy companies latch onto the patent of the 'secret ingredients'.

May 23, 2013
where the cheating is virtually impossible

Good point, so there should be lots of success stories like "Google datacentre powered by LENR" but where are they? Hey, even "off grid house powered by e-cat" would do.

May 23, 2013
Current flow was only measured by a clip over ammeter rather than a clip through ammeter.
There are a variety of methods that Rossi could have used to fake the results.

Such as:
http://scienceblo...c-1.jpeg

This is from a more complete analysis of the demonstration at:
http://scienceblo...-for-it/

May 23, 2013
BTW Why all people in this thread are downvoted with open account (former lite voting troll) with striking exception of Q-Star account??


I hardly ever down vote ya Zephyr. But I do vote ya the 5 from time to time. I'm actually rather fond of ya.

May 23, 2013
Also, I do understand the secrecy behind the secret concoction. I would want international patent rights before I revealed something as Earth-shattering as this. Assuming it's real.

May 23, 2013
Yeah I prefer to let the evidence speak for itself and I dont much care where it comes from. Evidence is pretty overwhelming that LENR is real and that it is only a matter of time until someone like rossi or NASA or the US military makes it work.

But, you dont want to trust evidence? So dont. I don't give a f*ck honestly. There are a lot of old age geezers like you, so nothing strange.


LENR is a legitimize area for research. We should never say never, the best we can say is "not yet" or "not soon".

By the By: Ya are one of the one of the last people I would think of with the words "new age". I often agree with some of your comments, and sometimes disagree, but calling ya "new age" is not fair. (Any one who has read your comments on philosophy and spirit-stuff gobbledegook would know that.)

May 23, 2013
There are a variety of methods that Rossi could have used to fake the results.
Why just Rossi, Rossi, Rossi all the time? Couldn't Piantelli fake his results too for last twenty years? But I see - I know where the problem with Piantelli for all cold fusion deniers is - his experiments are easily replicable, so that every could ask, why they weren't attempted to replicate during last twenty years and who is even responsible for it. Such a questions could be never allowed, so that Rossi is much easier target from this perspective, because he demonstratively hides details of his technology.

Lets make things perfectly clear: every person, which doubts the Andrea Rossi without doubting of Piantelli (the original founder of this type of cold fusion) is a CLEAR DENIER of cold fusion, who is trying to detract the attention from the original source of problem, which is the negativist attitude of physicists. I'm not so stupid for being fooled with focusing the attention to Rossi.

May 23, 2013
We should never say never, the best we can say is "not yet" or "not soon".
How long we could say it? The first successful experiments with cold fusion are 90 years old already and they were never attempted to replicate! Lets talk about open pluralistic ignorance, spiral of silence, negativism, dismissal and pathological skepticism and incompetence of mainstream physicists - nothing else. I'm not taking any other explanations and excuses here. If we won't absolutely clearly say, what actually happened there, then we will never learn from history and the same situation will repeat again and again for any other fundamental finding in future.

May 23, 2013
I know where the problem with Piantelli for all cold fusion deniers is - his experiments are easily replicable,,,,,,,,


Then why aren't ya out replicating them?

Lets make things perfectly clear: every person, which doubts the Andrea Rossi without mention of Piantelli (the original founder of this type of cold fusion) is a CLEAR DENIER of cold fusion,


They are not deniers of cold fusion. They are denying that the people who claimed to do have in fact done it. There is a subtle difference Zeph. It's not enough to say "I can do it". That means nothing until till ya can explain "how ya do it" AND can "do it again" with someone watching over your shoulder.

It's like anything else in the pursuit of science and understanding nature. YOUR OWN experiment is meaningless and useless unless SOMEONE ELSE can "do it - using your methodology".

Reproducibility is what separates true science from sociological-statistical-pontificating..


May 23, 2013
Prof. Hagelstein and Dr, Swartz of MIT gave a one week seminar this year on the anomalous heat effect they have observed in LENR experiments. Prof Hagelstein is developing a theory to explain the effect. They demonstrated a device to the public last year which substantiates their observations.

Question to the Nay Sayers on this forum. Are they also scam artists? If so what is their motive?

May 23, 2013
Then why aren't ya out replicating them?
Didn't I explained it here many times? Nearly every physicist is somehow engaged in alternative research of alternative methods of energy production/transform/transport and storage, which would become useless and nonsensical at the case of cold fusion acceptation. It's clear economical motivation following from conflict of interest. These guys are interested about their jobs, grants and salaries - not about actual progress and they're supported in it with substantial portion of layman society, which is of the same opportunism and moral credibility.
They are not deniers of cold fusion.
Yes, they are - the Rossi is substitute problem in this regard. The rationally thinking people cannot ask, what's problem with Andrea Rossi, when the twenty years old Piantelli, Focardi, Fleischmann and Pons etc. claim the very same results.

May 23, 2013
We should never say never, the best we can say is "not yet" or "not soon".
How long we could say it? The first successful experiments with cold fusion are are 90 years old already and they were never attempted to replicate!


Zeph, no matter how many times ya repeat that MISCONCEPTION/PERCEPTION/LIE,,, it will always remain false.

They were not replicated, because everyone who tried failed. And moved on. One person can claim to do something, then over the course of 10 or 20 or 50 years no one else can make it work. At what point do ya realize, that that 1st guy LIED/GOT-SOMETHING-WRONG?

NO ONE HAS REPLICATED IT, BECAUSE THAT 1st GUY "CLAIMED" HE DID SOMETHING THAT NO ONE ELSE COULD GET TO WORK.

Pssst, By the By: That's why there is only one person working on the "Aether Wave Theory" today. He's the only one who can get it to work. No one else can get the theory to work.

May 23, 2013
They were not replicated, because everyone who tried failed. And moved on
Nope, nope nope... ;-) You have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for it - so you're willfull liar and clear denier of cold fusion - despite you're realizing it or not. Nobody attempted to push the hydrogen ions into palladium anode under vacuum after Paneth & Peters in 1926, to publish it in scientific press the less, in peer-reviwed press the less. Despite these experiments are cheap and easy to replicate. This is a fact. Are you surprised? You shouldn't be.

I'm perfectly aware of the fact, that absolute majority of people has absolutely no idea how the community of scientists is actually working. I'm possibly the only man on the world, who can see many such a things clearly in this moment. It's not just about dense aether model, but about many other things, which you don't realize by now.

May 23, 2013
Obtaining a patent for an invention from the Patent Office does not guarantee protection against infringement by a long shot. If there is an infringement it needs to be challenged in court which is a very lengthy and costly process. Alexander Graham Bell found out the hard way. It took ten years for Polaroid and a bevy of legal counsel to win its suit against Kodak for infringement before the case was settled. Also certain industrial manufacturing processes are never patented and kept as trade secrets for fear of competition. The recipe for Coca Cola is a good example.

Incidentally, eminent scientists claimed heavier than air flight to be impossible several years after the Wright brothers demonstrated it to be the case. Even Scientific American claimed it was all an illusion and fraud.

May 23, 2013
How much gamma radiation was measured? Some interesting copper isotopes should also be produced. There are easy ways to check whether this device is really working. My main question, though: Who will invest in this?

I really hope this thing works. As a boon to humanity, it sounds too good to be true. Which is my principle concern, that this sounds to good to be true.

May 23, 2013
Then why aren't ya out replicating them?
Didn't I explained it here many times? Nearly every physicist is somehow engaged in alternative research of alternative methods of energy production/transform/transport and storage, which would become useless and nonsensical at the case of cold fusion acceptation.


Zephyr, nice try (not really, it was actually a lame try, but as I say, I am fond of ya) but the question I asked was. IF IT IS SO EASY TO DO why aren't YA out there replicating the thing?

Out of the hundreds of thousand of physicists in the world, why can't ya find a single one who is honest enough to come out and reproduce this thing that is so easily replicable in a straightforward public open way?

May 23, 2013
@ Q-Star:

"They were not replicated, because everyone who tried failed."

Wrong! The anomalous heat effect has been replicated at MIT, SRI, a group in Israel, Italy and Japan. Several Corporations have also been doing research in the field and reported positive results ie Mitsubishi and Toyota for instance. Educate yourself before making wild unsubstantiated statements.

May 23, 2013
IF IT IS SO EASY TO DO why aren't YA out there replicating the thing?
Why I should do it? I'm not payed for it from public taxes. We are educating and paying the physicists for doing research from public taxes - yes, even for my own money. BTW I'm replicating the dense aether model of Oliver Lodge instead, I'm not obliged to save whole world at the moment, when mainstream physicists are drowning public money in "duh" science and solely useless research. After all, the cold fusion has been replicated successful by so many times with alternative physicists, that I couldn't contribute significantly to it. The problem isn't lack of successful replications of cold fusion - but their ignorance with mainstream physics.

May 23, 2013
Nobody attempted to push the hydrogen ions into palladium anode under vacuum after Paneth & Peters in 1926, to publish it in scientific press the less, in peer-reviwed press the less. Despite these experiments are cheap and easy to replicate. This is a fact. Are you surprised? You shouldn't be.


People don't publish failures as a general rule, unless it is particularly noteworthy. Ya keep saying that the "experiments are cheap and easy to replicate",,, but Zephyr, coming from ya that means little. Because to everyone else it begs the question: WHY HAS NO ONE DONE IT? NOT ONE PERSON?

I'm possibly the only man on the world, who can see many such a things clearly in this moment.


It would be to easy to work with that one, I'll give ya a pass.

It's not just about dense aether model, but about many other things, which you don't realize by now.


But Zeph, ya seem to be the only person in the world who does "realize by now".

May 23, 2013
@ Q-Star:

"They were not replicated, because everyone who tried failed."

Wrong! The anomalous heat effect has been replicated at MIT, SRI, a group in Israel, Italy and Japan. Several Corporations have also been doing research in the field and reported positive results ie Mitsubishi and Toyota for instance. Educate yourself before making wild unsubstantiated statements.


I'm pretty well educated thank ya. I stated that LENR is a legitimate area of research. But replicating a heating anomaly is not the same thing as performing "cold fusion".

So maybe ya should try educating yourself instead of reading an article or two and thinking that ya know all about science.

May 23, 2013
People don't publish failures as a general rule, unless it is particularly noteworthy.
This is unacceptable at the case of so important strategical and important research, as the cold fusion research is. Every experimental route should be documented clearly here - if nothing else, then just because every other approach is data fishing and unscientific by its very nature. The people hiding negative results aren't scientists in my eyes. But the actual problem is, these attempts for replication were never done and you're lying again in effort to cover the previous lie. I'm not buying your speculations about it at all.
But replicating a heating anomaly is not the same thing as performing "cold fusion"
This is just a word-splitting. After all, at the case of fusion of hydrogen at nickel wasn't replicated the both for twenty years.

May 23, 2013
After all, why just two years after first extempore of Rossi still only Franceso Cellani is who is performing the cold fusion at nickel wire officially - i.e. in similar way, like the Piantelli did before twenty years? I'm the only guy, who can see it again? The general unwillingness to replicate anything, which is known to work at the case of cold fusion is the undeniable sign of pathological skepticism again. From the same reason the opponents of Galileo refused to take look at his telescope. Not because they didn't believe, it works - but just because they knew it already!

May 23, 2013
I'm not buying your speculations about it at all.


I'm used to that Zephyr, we've known each other a long time. But anyhoo, I've got to go do some of that tax payer funded fraud and roguery for the evening.

While I'm away, I'll ponder:

1) Do cold fusion, make more money than Bill Gates.

Or 2) Continue to be greedy and get rich at the rate of $90,000 a year (at the tax payer's expense).

It's a hard choice I know, to give that $90K, why would anyone consider doing that for the paltry billions they'd make in cold fusion (even if it is "cheap and easy" to do.)

May 23, 2013
Do cold fusion, make more money than Bill Gates
Mr. Gates technology didn't threat the jobs, salaries and social credit of anybody in his time. But if you would attempt for cold fusion in the time of 60's (the last oil boom), you would be killed with FBI instead. Even Rossi by now, in the time of apparent energetically crisis must judge his steps very carefully - or his results would be closed in treasure for ever. The human society doesn't accept the findings, which "advance their time". i.e. threats the existence of powerfull people instead of helping it. Your problem is, you're naive troll, who has absolutely no idea, how the contemporary civilization is actually working.

May 23, 2013
Your problem is, you're naive troll, who has no idea how the contemporary world is actually working.


But I am content with life Zephyr. I don't have to fight demons, phantoms, banshees, or the men in black.

Psst, this is me whispering to ya.(Though I do occasionally worry that the Illuminati might send out the Templars to deprive me of the vast wealth I am receiving by the tax payer funded fraud I do. That's the real reason I am anti-cold fusion.)

Got to sign off now, I'll catch ya later.

May 23, 2013
Okay, dummies, we now have two competing entities to "defraud" the world:
" It is interesting to note that Defkalion no longer uses any chemical catalyst to break H2 gas into H1 because their "plasma ignition" method does it all. Unlike Andrea Rossi's design, resistance heating elements are only required during the initial start-up phase of the reaction. Defkalion uses timing of the frequency of high voltage bursts to control reactor core temperature within safe limits. Their system is highly energy efficient, allowing a COP of over 20, meaning their reactors output over twenty times energy input. Andrea Rossi's latest Hot Cat high temperature reactor has a claimed COP of 11.7, and he now claims energy input is provided by burning natural gas instead of using electricity. A COP of over 10 using natural gas as energy input makes Rossi's invention cost competitive with Defkalion's device, which uses more expensive electrical input power."

May 23, 2013
Defkalion no longer uses any chemical catalyst to break H2 gas into H1 because their "plasma ignition" method does it all
It doesn't use physical ignition only. And it doesn't use a plasma, but a radiowaves. You apparently don't know everything about it. You shouldn't rewrite the dumb posts from anonymous forums about it.

May 23, 2013
@ValeriaT:
I agree with you about the murderous shenanigans of the oil barons, like John D. Rockefeller, but Gates fought allegations of monopolistic maneuvers in the courts spending millions in legal counsel and won. He was a criminal at heart, as was Steve Jobs, the tax fraud.

May 23, 2013
Defkalion no longer uses any chemical catalyst to break H2 gas into H1 because their "plasma ignition" method does it all
It doesn't use physical ignition only. And it doesn't use a plasma, but a radiowaves. You apparently don't know everything about it. You shouldn't rewrite the dumb posts from anonymous forums about it.

"A report on the Italian web site NextME cites a communique released by Defkalion Green Technologies announcing the formation of a joint venture between DGT and Milan-based MOSE s.r.l.
The article explains that the partnership, to be known as 'Defkalion Europe' will be a research and development venture which will focus on developing the Hyperion reactor. According to Defkalion's announcement, they are able to produce a stable reaction using a PLASMA DISCHARGE mechanism, and can safely produce temperatures of 600 C. They say their product, unlike Andrea Rossi's E-Cat, does not need recharging every six months."

May 23, 2013
Why is it so hard to understand Rossi's secrecy? Every company in the world, including Kentucky Fried Chicken, won't divulge its secret recipe It's both proprietary and patentable, and no one but those who defy the status quo are lambasted for it.

The reason it's so had to understand the secrecy is because the protection of trade secrets (amongst other things) for the purpose of commercial exploitation is precisely what Patents are for.
It would be idiotic to throw the doors wide open to a lifetime of work so you can watch the wolves devour it.

Indeed it would - and the (presumed) $squillions he'll make if it's real - so the best thing for him to do would be to take Patent protection on the invention's trade secret because otherwise, as soon as the thing gets out "in the wild" how long do you think it'll take for someone to pull one apart and replicate it? At least with a Patent he'd have legal protection while also the scientific community can study the thing.

May 23, 2013
I'll quote the succinct explanation by the poster Mannstein:

"Obtaining a patent for an invention from the Patent Office does not guarantee protection against infringement by a long shot. If there is an infringement it needs to be challenged in court which is a very lengthy and costly process. Alexander Graham Bell found out the hard way. It took ten years for Polaroid and a bevy of legal counsel to win its suit against Kodak for infringement before the case was settled. Also certain industrial manufacturing processes are never patented and kept as trade secrets for fear of competition. The recipe for Coca Cola is a good example."
I also have been burned by corporations when I divulged product ideas believing I could trust them. Live and learn.

May 23, 2013
Also, I do understand the secrecy behind the secret concoction. I would want international patent rights before I revealed something as Earth-shattering as this. Assuming it's real.

Yes, the secrecy before applying for or obtaining a Patent is understandable. However, protection is provided as soon as a Patent is "pending" (i.e. on submission of the Patent specification). So he really has no excuse to not apply if this invention is really what he claims.

Also, a Patent can only be applied for while the invention is not in the public domain (discussed with or shown to anyone outside of a non-disclosure agreement). As far as I know his "trade secret" is still secret but with every demonstration, successful or not, he risks un-Patentability. He is a fool if he thinks his invention will stay secret, and remain solely his for commercial product development and sale, if he doesn't protect it legally but still produces the devices commercially.

May 23, 2013
@Telekinetic
That's quite true and if one takes out a Patent (or indeed any other IP protection) it's only worth the paper it's written on if you're also prepared to defend it. But my point is that he otherwise has absolutely no protection and something is better than nothing.

And actually, an infringement doesn't *have* to go to Court; sometimes a "cease & desist" letter is quite sufficient, especially if a big corp is the infringing party because their damages payable can be substantial. And double-especially if a proposal to license the Patented invention comes along with the Cease & desist.

May 23, 2013
You obviously don't have any experience in this area. The world is crawling with industrial spies,
corrupt officials that do the bidding of corporate interests, government agencies that decide what would be disruptive to the social order, and countries like China that laugh at patent protection. Corporations lie, steal, and when necessary to their interests- murder.

May 23, 2013
Also certain industrial manufacturing processes are never patented and kept as trade secrets for fear of competition. The recipe for Coca Cola is a good example."

But I don't think this was a very good example by Mannstein. Ever heard of Pepsi-Cola? Competition, no?

May 23, 2013
You obviously don't have any experience in this area.

You shouldn't make assumptions. Not so.

However, besides that, you seem to be saying that not Patenting is better than Patenting because there's always someone who'll rip you off regardless?

I respectfully disagree. Even given all the industrial spying, the possibility of some Chinese, or other nationalistic dis-respecter of IP rights, company starting up in competition, corrupt officials, etc, that you mention, isn't it better to have at least some way to legally enforce your rights than to have nothing to fall back on except trying to keep it secret? Because that strategy seems almost certain to ultimately fail.

May 23, 2013
"Here is how Rossi has fooled the same bunch of academic physicists this time:

He has given them the thick insulated wires to measure with a "clamp ammeters." This type of measurement uses magnetic field created by the current flowing trough a wire. The calculation of the current has an assumption of a single, non-wound and non-shielded wire. However, internal structure of the cables used in this setup were not exposed. It can be seen that they are thick enough to hide things like shielding, winding, or even ferrite rings that could completely distort the magnetic fields and so the validity of the measurement.

It looks like while focusing a lot on temperature measurement, they got fooled by simple electric measurement distortion. Cables are definitely thick enough to deliver several kW of power while actual measured current would be much less if magnetic field that is being measured is partly shielded. So while there was no mistake in heat calculation, the electric power measuremen"

May 24, 2013
As much as I'd love to believe this is true, it's clearly a scam. Rossi is a convicted criminal.
I'm quite disappointed with this site. The author didn't even know that LENR is the new term people use for cold fusion and the author doesn't know that conversion of Nickel to Copper is a fusion reaction. Go write stories somewhere else.

May 24, 2013
I can't go through every comment above so let me just reply to all the people that think this is real. HE WON'T LET PEOPLE LOOK INSIDE!! Don't you see that as a problem? He's one of the following:

1. A great genius that's figured out cold fusion and he can share it with everyone and help the ENTIRE PLANET and 6 BILLION PEOPLE.

2. He's a great genius and figured out cold fusion but he's an absolute monster of a human being that cares more about making a few million euros for himself than helping billions of people on the planet by simply releasing the way his reaction works. The fact that he's not doing this means that he's probably one of the worst 10 people on the entire planet right there with mass murderers and war criminals given that people die every day that could be saved if he just released the info.

3. He's a fraud.

Which is it?

May 24, 2013
Wow-- an amazing number of people crying "foul" without ever even reading the paper. I bet 90% of the people raising a ruckus here never even read the published paper on arXiv.

So many people claiming it's against "known" science when HALF the papers summarized on Phys.Org alone around nanotechnology aggrandize the fact the physics of nano-chemistry are completely obscure.

We don't even understand the physics of light and couldn't describe the equation that explains a single atom of more than three elementary particles-- yet are willing to denounce this as fraud.

Everyone on the internet, hiding behind a pseudonym, appears to be a loud mouthed expert. Whatever happened to "Hmm, that's interesting... I wonder if I should read the data?"

May 24, 2013
People claim there's no patent. Yet did you know the US patent office, by law, immediately denies any claims of cold fusion. Ever ask yourself the reason why?

People claim Rossi will not give up his secret sauce... yet fail to understand if he can't patent it (see above) there's no advantage.

Micro-minds immediately claim current science doesn't allow for what he claims... yet fail to explain why half the physics papers in Nature and Science are all about NEW things people never understood or saw before. And... technology advances are about using new understandings of the world to enable new inventions.

When did we suddenly realize we understood everything worth understanding?

The vitriol in some of these comments is astounding. No wonder we can barely advance beyond the caves.


May 24, 2013
Obvious: Rossi does not actually seek scientific, peer-reviewed validation of his method. He keeps his method secret.

Obvious: Rossi never-the-less produces a deluge of press announcements and supposed scientific 'validations' which avoid peering into his black box. None are peer-reviewed.

Now, if the guy had something useful, and just wanted to take it to market without messing around with peer review, that's understandable. Develop it quietly, begin production, make sales.

Or if the guy wanted scientific cred, then he'd develop it openly, and let people know what he's doing in that black box and obtain peer-reviewed validation of the principles involved.

He's not doing either. Instead, he's behaving exactly like a hoaxer seeking attention and proving he's smarter than everyone else by fooling them.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

May 24, 2013
When is Phys.org going to start adding some value to these stories instead of just aggregating them and claiming copyright? They could start with some basic fact checking...

May 24, 2013
There seems to be some confusion here between trade secrets and patents. Perhaps Mr. Rossi feels the underlying technology is either unpatentable or cannot be protected well enough from patents; if so, then keeping it trade secret is the only means of protecting his substantial investment and providing a means for sole proprietorship going forward.


People hugely misunderstand patents. All they do is give the holder a more or less solid basis for spending very large sums of money to defend them against infringement. No enforcement protection whatsoever comes with the high cost. Small resource inventors should avoid them like the plague and spend the money instead on development and security. Keeping the secret is a far better way of protecting your idea unless and until you have the deep pockets of an IBM behind you.

May 24, 2013
You do know that I skip most of your posts - I seem to have told you that on occasion.
So then why then do you comment on things youre not familiar with? Why waste peoples time and space?

Because I expect others to do the same? Duh.

May 24, 2013
i really don't get it. it works, or it doesn't. you measure energy input, fuel used, and energy output. is it really that hard? honest question, physics/engineering is not my area.

May 24, 2013
Ah Lisa Zyga, bravo! back at it again, I see...This is now transmutation of the energy density. Wow! Even better than Madame Blavatsky Theosophy, Orgone energy, ye John Dee's Monas Hieroglyphica, Dr Dulcamara's Elixir and the Wonderful Wizard of Oz! I must let the Chairman of AIG know to get in now and create a new esoteric derivative security for E-cats!

May 24, 2013
If he dies from radiation soon I will take another look :)

May 24, 2013
For the more ignorant people : Here is the CEO of National instruments, James Truchard in his keynote of 2012 confirming Cold fusion and Rossi (which he doesn't specify by name) watch it from 14:00
tinyurl.com/ox7mjwo

May 24, 2013
UrgeIt is so goddamn right.

And to say it all, he could also do all this just for the heck of it, just to show how the scientific community is easy to fool.
It wouldn't be the first time somebody has this target, happened in the past.

As UrgeIt wrote: you are afraid somebody steals your invention before you make money out of it?
You start production as soon as possible and SELL.
You don't keep sending around prototypes to show off what you can do, increasing the danger that somebody steals your idea/process/machine.

You don't believe in patenting because there's court and stuff?
Go back to point 1 and start selling as soon as possible.

You don't have money to fund your production?
Start a project on some crowdfunding site and get money to start mass production.

The problem in all this affair is not how scientifical is the stuff Rossi says he based his machine or principle on, but that his behaviour is so damn laughably contradictory and stupid.

May 24, 2013
This arxiv paper is even better than Signore Martini and Rossi: Felinic principle and measurement of the Hubble parameter http://arxiv.org/...82v1.pdf Reviews are in: Bow Wow or Meow? The jury is still out on this...Tune in next time.

May 24, 2013
I am not at all surprised that Big Carbon are wetting themselves in fear right now. This rent-a-crowd of pseudo-skeptics is evidence of their overwhelming dread.

Wail, Big Carbon, you fat prick. Your screams of agony are music to my ears.

May 24, 2013
For the more ignorant people : Here is the CEO of National instruments, James Truchard in his keynote of 2012 confirming Cold fusion and Rossi (which he doesn't specify by name) watch it from 14:00
tinyurl.com/ox7mjwo


Nice impressive video with great "technological music" and sound effects.
You should have been really impressed by all this dramatic stuff.

May 24, 2013
but that his behaviour is so damn laughably contradictory and stupid.

Exactly. you have to decide:

Publish (in which case you can't patent anymore)
or
Patent (in which case you shouldn't publish)

But this arxiv article is a weird mixture of both (and effectively is neither a sceintific article nor something that is useful for patenting). It looks scientific but contains 'secret recipies'.

What it is is more akin to people in lab coats walking around in the background of dishwasher commercials.

May 24, 2013
But this [physorg] article is a weird mixture of both (and effectively is neither a sceintific article nor something that is useful... It looks scientific but contains 'secret recipies'.

What it is is more akin to people in lab coats walking around in the background of dishwasher commercials.


Couldn't help but update this quote to be more fitting to this site. It's only missing something about screaming children to cover how the comments on here work.

May 24, 2013
Couldn't help but update this quote to be more fitting to this site.

Physorg is an aggergation of press releases and abstracts ABOUT science related subjects - not an aggregation of scientific papers themselves.

A scientific paper is something you find in peer reviewed journals/peer reviewed conference proceedings

And here is where arxiv gets iffy, since there is no peer review. It's a preprint server and OK to use IF the paper goes on to peer review and publication. If the paper's lifecycle stops at arxiv then that means nothing.

Citing arxiv papers is also one of these iffy things. It really depends on what you cite it for at that point (e.g. whether it's for the state-of-the-art section or the methodology section of your paper) but usually it's better to go on looking for a peer reviewed cite if available.

May 24, 2013
If Rossi wants anyone to take this "product" seriously he needs to shut up and back off and let someone like his physicist "colleague" Sergio Focardi handle the demo's if they are real.
When someone like Rossi who has a degree in philosophy (not physics) and a criminal record claims to be the inventor, people are bound to smell a rat. Especially when he refuses to unplug the mains and uncouple the "earth" current path. And his claims seem to change from day to day. (e.g. gamma emmissions??) Otherwise you are buying a power device from Harry Houdini or PT Barnum.

May 24, 2013
The conditions of Cold Fusion are not the same as hot fusion.
What are you going to believe? Your model of how the Universe works or the empirical evidence?
The lack of neutrons is not evidence that your eyes are lying to you. It is evidence that your theory needs a lot of work. Prof. Peter Hagelstein has been on the search for the last 20 years. In Daejeon Korea he told us how he had just cracked the problem. And he used his hypothesis to predict the production of collimated x-rays from the surface of the metal mercury.
A True skeptic wants the evidence. A pseudo-skeptic has his eyes screwed shut and his fingers in his ears and sings "La, La La La, I can't hear you."
Do you believe that Black Swans exist? Why?

May 24, 2013
ad hominems by the hundred. if you can't play the ball, play the man.

May 24, 2013
The lack of neutrons is not evidence that your eyes are lying to you.

But the lack of gammas is. If, for some reason, this fusion is miraculously neutron-less it should still produce copious amounts of gammas (especially in such an unshielded contraption as the one depicted in the paper)

The thing is: Your eyes can easily deceive you (ask any illusionist, con-artist, scammer or even second-hand car salesman). Eye-witness reports are the most uselsee type of evidence in science.
So you should NOT trust your eyes - but only cold, hard facts obtained by the most meticulous, and independent measurements possible.

If a person refuses to let their contraptions be subjected to such scrutiny (and I'm not even talking about opening up the cannister and examining his 'secret catalyst'but merely such stuff as unplugging and replugging the powerline with a power-meter in between) then it smells.

May 24, 2013
EEStor comes to mind ! What ever happened to EEStor ? I would hope such questions as " works or not , feasible ? practical ? profitable ? consequences ? are all parts of the investors dilemma or conscience even if the last one there is an arbitragable compromise and accordingly to some comments the secret magic box strategy is a more prudent position . In the light of resent and not too so recent patonic judicial quagmire ,it is an understandable stance ,but don't forget " They're asking for money "

May 24, 2013
It may be a scam, it may be for real.

We don't actually need scientists to explain HOW it works, but just to asse IF it works.
Even if it's a "magician" trick, if scientist can mesure that this device outputs more energy than any conventionnal energy storing device of the same mass, it's still interesting...

After all that's how scientists discovered plenty useful drugs from plants: They were not searching for any explanation but for an actual effect.

May 24, 2013
Good god people -- this is not cold fusion -- cold fusion is supposed to be room temperature -- this happens at like 500 C --- i think there is a difference

May 24, 2013
@El_Nose: even the Pons and Fleischmann experiment creates a plasma which is hotter than room temparature. It was called "cold" because it was much colder than temperatures at which fusion normaly occours.
BUT: The media called it "cold fusion" P&F called it anomalous heat. It is not said that it is fusion. It could be for example triggerd beta decay though weak interaction.

May 24, 2013
much higher if you consider this to be more of an orange color. 800K for this size reactor would be over 2800W of output with emissivity of 1, 1175W even if you take e down to 0.3."

-Now how can you get that sort of power to this thing through a wall outlet and conventional power cord?

Do you have a dish washer?
Do you own a clothes dryer?
Do you own a washing machine?
Do you own a table grill?
Do you own a space heater?
...

Any one of these can draw 2kW easily (dryers up to 4kW) - especially if you have an older model.
None of these needs a special outlet or special power cords.

May 24, 2013
@natello: yes. I ment it is not the same process like hot fusion. It is a multibody reaction.

May 24, 2013

I'm on a waiting list of people who want to buy the E-Cat. Rossi struggled for years to finance his research, and borrowed against his own house, which is unlikely a ploy. By reserving a machine, I have "put up", therefore you, fmfBrestel, can shut up.


waiting list. heh. been waiting a while? get used to it. So how much did you have to pay to reserve your e-cat?

Lots of people borrow against their homes. its called a mortgage, and sometimes second mortgages. lots of people who end up declaring bankruptcy get mortgages.

Going into personal debt is not a sign of legitimacy, just the opposite. If the invention were real he could go to an angel investor, sign an NDA, show him the secret sauce and get all the financing he wants. There are TONS of investors willing to plunk down major $$$ to get in on the ground floor of a new energy tech.

Oh wait, but the secret sauce is a lie, so he cant do that. Possible excuses for not going to an Angel investor:
1 paranoia
2 lies

May 24, 2013
@fmfbrestel: he did something like that. He is now only the chef scientist (or engineer) and has a board of directors above him

May 24, 2013
WHY HAS NO ONE DONE IT? NOT ONE PERSON?
THEY_HAVE. Many times.

Heres one example
http://www.youtub...VK82Mngc
replicating a heating anomaly is not the same thing as performing "cold fusion"
LENR is not cold fusion.
Any one of these can draw 2kW easily
And how big would the wire have to be to supply the current necessary to make the cylinder in the pic above glow white-hot? Assuming its just not shooped that is.
But the lack of gammas is. If, for some reason, this fusion is miraculously neutron-less
Its not neutron-less
it should still produce copious amounts of gammas
In widom-larsen, the reaction provides its own gamma shielding
http://newenergyt...ry.shtml
Your eyes can easily deceive you
-And when you refuse to use them to investigate evidence, you are deceiving yourself.
http://newenergyt...#summary

May 24, 2013
waiting list. heh. been waiting a while? get used to it. So how much did you have to pay to reserve your e-cat?
You can indeed pre-order an ecat
http://ecat.com/e...-an-ecat

You can also fly into space with leo dicaprio
http://www.eonlin...far-gala

-See nothing is impossible.

May 24, 2013
I think it quite possible this guy is not committing fraud of any kind, but simply stumbled onto something he truly doesn't understand. As a result he is afraid to let anyone know how it ticks for fear of losing his current monopoly on whatever technology it is through a fully technical analysis. Problem is, he wants to use scientific validation for marketing purposes while withholding facts, which simply should not be allowed.

May 24, 2013
It seems to me that Rossi could have avoided a lot of criticism by providing the "black box" to the scientists, then let them hook it up to their own power supplies according to his directions, doing the demonstration without any other of Rossi's equipment. This way, he could protect his trade secret, and demonstrate that it indeed is putting out more energy than is being supplied. Unfortunately, all the connections to the box were using Rossi's equipment, and it was already running when the scientists arrived. This creates a lot of suspicion, and I wonder why the scientists involved did not insist on more control.

May 24, 2013
You can indeed pre-order an ecat
http://ecat.com/e...-an-ecat

-See nothing is impossible.


You bring nothing to the table in this or any discussion. You only uses non peer reviewed, highly opinionated sources, and choose to ignore facts despite being proven wrong in every possible way by multiple users.
Each post you make is exceedingly more childish than the last and proves nothing. I hope you are trolling this forum as I find it hard to believe a human being out there exists that is as blunt and illogical as you.


May 24, 2013
You bring nothing to the table in this or any discussion. You only uses non peer reviewed, highly opinionated sources
But the widom-larsen list I linked for instance is full of peer-reviewed papers, yes?
and choose to ignore facts despite being proven wrong in every possible way by multiple users
Im sorry youll have to be a bit more specific.
Each post you make is exceedingly more childish than the last and proves nothing. I hope you are trolling this forum as I find it hard to believe a human being out there exists that is as blunt and illogical as you
Naw youre just upset because you tend to post crap and I tend to expose crap-posters. And I will not stop.

For instance
I think everyone will call BS on this
What is the purpose of this post? Why would you think that EVERYONE would call BS on such a contentious issue? Again sorry but its worthless crap. Just like zero growth requires zero births. Was that silly or what?

May 24, 2013
Problem is, he wants to use scientific validation for marketing purposes while withholding facts, which simply should not be allowed
But it is done all the time in product development. And he was as factual as he needed to be to satisfy the 3rd party investigators.

May 24, 2013
How is providing a link to pre-ordering the device not helpful? You'd have to do the same if you wanted to buy a Tesla Model S. We're in a renaissance of innovation in medicine and alternative energy production, i.e., stem cells, solar, wind, cold fusion, etc. thanks to the end of the Bush stranglehold on progress. We will bear witness to events equivalent to what people must have experienced when the Wright brothers first got off the ground. Only a nincompoop believes that nothing new will come to pass.

May 24, 2013
What kind of pollyanna-ish jive is that, DavidW? Do you hold Apple, Microsoft, or any other producer of goods accountable for not pre-releasing information? Rossi is under no obligation to the "world" to
be forthcoming with any information except perhaps to an investor, if that's in a contract. Do you ask a pharmaceutical company with a cure for an epidemic to release it before it's thoroughly tested? You're being childish.

May 25, 2013
I contacted the "company" about a preorder. Lets see how this plays out...
The site says 3 months out. We'll see. Time for Rossi to walk the walk.



May 25, 2013
Why Rossi will never actually sell one:

One of the first buyers will immediately crack it open, extract the secret sauce, and have it analyzed for composition. If Rossi were even slightly OK with that happening, these "independent" testers would have been allowed access to the secret sauce.

Anyone remember the story not long ago about the Iranian inventory who claimed to have a machine that could predict the future 7 years out? He refused to sell the device because the chinese would just reverse engineer it and flood the market with copies.

The reason everyone immediately knew that guy was nuts, is the same reason why everyone should know that Rossi is nuts. If the invention is real, there is no need for the paranoia. Copy cats and pirates hurt a company's margins, but is not a reason to completely avoid taking a valid product to the marketplace.

JRi
May 25, 2013
And how big would the wire have to be to supply the current necessary to make the cylinder in the pic above glow white-hot? Assuming its just not shooped that is.


They calculated the power emitted by the tube being around 1600W. Assuming Italy has 230V and the fuse is a common 16A, one can drain 3600W from a power socket. Enough to make even two tubes glow like that.

May 25, 2013
Wow it is sooo cool being a pseudo-skeptic. You get sound off without having to do any homework.
You can just throw assertions around like confetti.
Don't quit your day job.

May 25, 2013
Assuming Italy has 230V

Correct. You can also hook it up in a three phase setup (which gives you 400V or 3x230V fed through 3 fuses...the usual setup that is used for cooking ranges/baking ovens, which also doesn't use a noticeably different cable)

May 25, 2013
He's not telling the truth
Andrea Rossi is just claiming COP = 6. The Piantelli is claiming the COP = 3 with the same nickel - hydrogen system for twenty years. Piantelli documented his experiments thoroughly and he published them in peer-reviewed press. Do you believe him instead? If yes, why not Rossi? If not, what's your objection against Piantelli?

May 25, 2013
Lets address one of the more trollish lies posted above:
Erm. It gets better:
Torbjörn Hartman...he's a friggin' vet.

"One myth that arose and still seems to persist was the one of the testers was a veterinarian … this simply wasn't true and seems to be due to people misinterpreting the qualifications of one of the team, Hartman, which are listed as "Dr.Med.vet., civ.ing." One commentator wrote "I guess that means Veterinarian Medicine and Civil Engineering." This was, of course, a wild and very wrong guess. Apparently this abbreviation is Swedish and in full is : "Doktor i Medicinsk Vetenskap, Civilingenjör""

-More facts for the honest:
"The E-Cat Testing Team, Real or Ringers?"
http://www.forbes...ringers/

-Its kind of informative that FORBES no less is interested in dispelling lies for rossi isnt it AA?

May 25, 2013
Rossi stated that "these plants consume only 1 gram of Nickel for every 23 gigawatt-hours of heat they produce."
This is just a blind estimation based on cold fusion mechanism involving strong nuclear force. The LENR based on weak nuclear force could bring only megawatt-hours per gram of Nickel, which is still very interesting option for home users, but way less interesting for central producers and distributors of energy.

Whole this discussions about relevance of Rossi measurement is attempt for distraction of publics, because Piantelli and Celani generate the heat of the same order (with COP > 2) in systems, which are perfectly documented and described, but no one wants to test & replicate them in similar way, like the opponents of Galileo refused to take look into his telescope. For cold fusion deniers it's therefore way easier and simpler to simply doubt A. Rossi, because they know, he will never publish his know-how from good reasons, so there is nothing to replicate.

May 25, 2013
So I can just repeat: everyone, who is willingly ignoring the twenty years old history of cold fusion research of Piantelli and he just wants to doubt the E-Cat of A.Rossi, is just an open enemy of cold fusion - i.e. not scientific skeptic. Because the scientific skeptics always ask: how I could replicate that finding? Well, Piantelli - not Rossi - has shown us. If nothing else, the people who are ignoring the priority and published experiments of Piantelli on behalf of undisclosed technology of A. Rossi are just demonstrating, how the pathological skeptics actually value the work of real scientists in this field.

May 25, 2013
Time for Rossi to walk the walk
Oh esai are you going to bring him down all by yourself? How brave.

"Your pre-order has been accepted. By the way: so far we received about 50,000 pre-orders and counting, which is not bad, for a product that has still to be described in details. Our 10,000 target has been burnt rapidly.' -rossi January 23, 2012

-Maybe if you are tall enough or loud enough you will stand out in line.

Ever hear the term 'egomaniac with an inferiority complex'? I bet you think you are the only one ahaahaaaa

May 25, 2013
Time for Rossi to walk the walk
Oh esai are you going to bring him down all by yourself? How brave.

"Your pre-order has been accepted. By the way: so far we received about 50,000 pre-orders and counting, which is not bad, for a product that has still to be described in details. Our 10,000 target has been burnt rapidly.' -rossi January 23, 2012

-Maybe if you are tall enough or loud enough you will stand out in line.

Ever hear the term 'egomaniac with an inferiority complex'? I bet you think you are the only one ahaahaaaa


You, sir, are merely a troll who craves negative attention. Whatever the truth about Rossi's claim he doesn't need addicts like you.

May 25, 2013
IMO is he isn't even sure with alleged reaction Ni + H = Cu. He isn't professional nuclear physicist and he even has no equipment for it.

May 25, 2013
Something as important as this requires complete truthfulness.
So why scientists aren't replicating it again and again? If the cold fusion is so important, why everyone waits just for Rossi with his garage equipment and zero investments (he sold his house for doing research of cold fusion)?

This is pathological and unmoral behavior. We are paying the scientists for doing such research - not Andrea Rossi. We all should be thankful for it and jail the mainstream physics parasites for their ignorance.

May 25, 2013
Otto, Otto, Otto. Why do you attribute such cynicism and hate to others?
If actually trying to order what he is selling "trying to take him down" what does that say about what he is selling?

Yes Otto, I believe I am the only one that want to buy one of these.
What a stupid thing to say.

Here is the response to my preorder request. -

Thank you for visiting ECAT.com and registering your interest in Andrea Rossi's ECAT 1 MW plant.

ECAT.com is now qualifying potential customers on behalf of Andrea Rossi and Leonardo Corporation. Due to the overwhelming number of inquiries, we need to authenticate all customer related information to obtain a better understanding of the outstanding demand - this will enable us to provide you with a quote for the ECAT 1 MW plant.
We kindly ask you to provide us with the following information:
1. Company name: 2. VAT-number /Organization number 3. Country of Origin...etc.

The estimated delivery time for the ECAT 1 MW plant is currently four months.


May 25, 2013
Continued. -
- Yours sincerely,

Peter La Terra
Sales Director, ECAT.com

So I sent him my company info and await yet another response.

I just love the ever out of reach production date.
No customers willing to be public about a sale yet. Hmmmm.
At least he has millions in escrow to burn through trying to produce the first working model for sale. I wonder how long it will take before he is exposed as a scam? Again.

As much as I truly want this product to be a reality, the fact that noone will admit to actually buying and using one, and the lack of a truly reputable demonstration lead me to believe he is selling a space heater with a core of nickel and snakeoil.

Try not to take it personally, Otto.

May 25, 2013
Anyone making such claims that is hiding what is going on, given the state of this world, is the one exercising unmoral behavior.
At first, Rossi doesn't own his company anymore - so he is obliged to keep secrecy for to protect the investments of its owners in the same way, like every other employee of Leonardo Corp (and every employee of every other private company on the world). Ask the owners for details, not Rossi. BTW Every research of breakthrough technology in history was secret. Do you think, that the development of nuclear weapons would be more moral, if it would be publicly open? Do you think, that the research of viruses or GMO or cancer cure is open for everyone, until the researchers aren't willing to publish the final results? Which planet are you coming from?

May 25, 2013
Even nuclear power, something understood and explained by physics that actually works, that promised us unlimited energy, did not pan out as promised
Of course, from reasons which are easy to foresee. The nuclear fission releases deadly radiation and it leaves the deadly waste and uranium reserves are limited and environmentally unfriendly to mine. What did you expect? Cold fusion has just these disadvantages removed. And what the killing of animals for food has to do with it? With sufficient fusion energy we could fabricate all food in plants and leave the surface of Earth free in virgin state for recreational purposes.

May 25, 2013