The Hot Cat Report

Update 3: So who thinks nothing good comes of this?  Ecatnews.com revived by Hot Cat!

Update 2: Here is another sceptical take, that explains nicely how input power can be manipulated as long as there is an unscrutinized wire going to a device.  So, as was to be expected, this report nicely reinforces the biases of everybody following this story (as if by design – honi soit qui mal y pense).

Update:  Steven Krivit weighs in on the test.

~~~

Something I did not expect to see:  An actual report on independent testing performed on Rossi’s Hot Cat in the arxiv.org pre-print archive.

This is not a published peer reviewed paper (yet?) but it’s quite remarkable to see Hanno Essén‘s name on there. Obviously this theoretical physicist not only stands by his earlier impression of Rossi’s work, but clearly now puts his reputation behind this report.

The verdict is forcefully put forth in the abstract:

An experimental investigation of possible anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube named E-Cat HT is carried out. The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some additives. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils inside the reactor tube. Measurement of the produced heat was performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras, recording data every second from the hot reactor tube. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected in two experimental runs lasting 96 and 116 hours, respectively. An anomalous heat production was indicated in both experiments. The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental set-up without the active charge present in the E-Cat HT. In this case, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from the electric input. Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.

Some interesting quotes from the report (first test):

The device subject to testing was powered by 360 W for a total of 96 hours, and produced in all  2034 W thermal. This value was reached by calculating the power transferred by the E-Cat HT  to the environment by convection and power irradiated by the device. The resultant values of generated power density (7093 W/kg) and thermal energy density (6,81 · 105 Wh/kg) allow us to place the E-Cat HT above conventional power sources.

From the second test calculations:

According to the engineering definition, COP is given by the ratio between the output power of a device and the power required by its operation, thereby including, in our case, the power consumed by the control electronics. For the E-Cat HT2 one would therefore have (assuming a 10% uncertainty in the powers): COP = 816/322 = 2.6 ± 0.5

(…)

An interesting aspect of the E-Cat HT2 is certainly its capacity to operate in self-sustaining mode.

(…)

Even from the standpoint of a “blind” evaluation of volumetric energy density, if we consider the whole volume of the reactor core and the most conservative figures on energy production, we still get a value of (7.93 ± 0.8) 102 MJ/Liter that is one order of magnitude higher than any conventional source.

Lastly, it must be remarked that both tests were terminated by a deliberate shutdown of the reactor, not by fuel exhaustion; thus, the energy densities that were measured should be considered as lower limits of real values.

 

(h/t spacegoat)

Screen Shot 2013-05-20 at 1.30.00 AM

An unimposing looking device, reported to perform the impossible. Built by the most impossible man.

This entry was posted in Rossi and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

686 Responses to The Hot Cat Report

  1. Bettingman says:

    This is a recent report? The link says 16 may 2013?

  2. powerpete says:

    Mmm, just had a quick skim through.

    FIRST TEST
    – No real calorimetry, just the ‘point a thermal camera at one side of it and guess’ method.
    – All done at Rossi’s lab, not independent premises.
    – They couldn’t even weigh the device under test as “it was running when we got there”.
    – Bonkers sounding data logging – they videoed the power meter! And a wrist watch! “By reading the images reproducing the PCE 830’s LCD display at regular intervals, it was possible to make a note of the number of kWh absorbed by the resistor coils”. Unless I’ve misunderstood they don’t have some sort of automatic integration of the instantaneous readings set up? Or even continuous (reasonably high sample frequency) datalogging? Especially as they mention there’s TRIACs messing with the waveforms earlier… by all means video as a backup and for evidence, but you need decent data capture!

    SECOND TEST
    – Still no proper calorimetry, just pointing cameras at both sides now.
    – Still at Rossi’s lab
    – Still no proper datalogging!
    – They now mention ‘clamp ammeters’ upstream from Rossi’s magic control box – presumably connected to the PCE830 – no mention of checking for extra conductors…
    – It appears they didn’t measure the (separate) input to the control box on the live run! ” In order to determine the power consumption of the E-Cat HT2 alone, one must subtract from this value the contributive factor of the control box power consumption. As it was not possible to measure the latter while the test on the E-Cat HT2 was in progress, one may refer to the power consumption of the box measured during the dummy test…”
    – No proper error analysis
    – No mention of precautions taken against deception/fraud.

    Overall pretty weak, sadly, IMO. Would be amazed if it got published anywhere respectable.

    • spacegoat says:

      Still no proper calorimetry, just pointing cameras at both sides now.
      The accuracy of calorimetry is not necessary given the high power and ratio of input/output.
      - Still at Rossi’s lab
      Yes, but an imbecile high school student should be able to point a camera and measure electrical power.
      - Still no proper datalogging!
      Our past icons in science preferred pen and paper.
      - They now mention ‘clamp ammeters’ upstream from Rossi’s magic control box – presumably connected to the PCE830 – no mention of checking for extra conductors…
      A tube with a few connected wires, supported by a simple metal scaffolding is easy to inspect.
      - It appears they didn’t measure the (separate) input to the control box on the live run! ” In order to determine the power consumption of the E-Cat HT2 alone, one must subtract from this value the contributive factor of the control box power consumption. As it was not possible to measure the latter while the test on the E-Cat HT2 was in progress, one may refer to the power consumption of the box measured during the dummy test…”
      Assuming the high school student was watching, any switch in experimental setup would be noticed. Several experienced scientists should do even better.
      - No proper error analysis
      As per the manufacturer notes for the Optris PI 160 Thermal and PCE-830 measuring devices.
      - No mention of precautions taken against deception/fraud.
      They ate take-away lunches. :-)

      • powerpete says:

        Still no proper calorimetry, just pointing cameras at both sides now.
        The accuracy of calorimetry is not necessary given the high power and ratio of input/output.

        Um, this is meant to be the definitive report which provides the ‘extraordinary proof’ which will overturn conventional physics! By that standard, indirect measurement with a heat camera just doesn’t cut it. Although as you say maybe it’s not so critical: there are plenty of ways to fake the test even assuming the heat out measurement is sufficiently accurate… the most obvious one is that some extra electrical input ‘off the meter’ was activated for the live run only – even if the precise mechanism can’t be determined from this write-up.

        - Still at Rossi’s lab
        Yes, but an imbecile high school student should be able to point a camera and measure electrical power.

        Yes, indeed :-). But if the tests were done at the researchers’ own labs this would give readers more confidence that (a) power supplies etc had not been tampered with (b) the researchers had used their own instrumentation which wouldn’t repeat systematic errors Rossi’s kit may have introduced (c) Rossi wasn’t around to interfere with the ‘independent’ experiments and (d) Lab personnel with at least one extra degree of separation from Rossi’s friends might be involved and be independent witnesses and (e) it would represent rather more of an endorsement by the university(ies) whose labs were being used, as opposed to what seems like the independent activities of a number of possibly ‘gone emeritus’ academics.

        - Still no proper datalogging!
        Our past icons in science preferred pen and paper.

        But if they had had modern datalogging equipment available, I bet they’d have used it. Again, this was meant to be a definitive, scientifically credible report. Why not log the data automatically and frequently (and document the full set-up exhaustively)?

        - They now mention ‘clamp ammeters’ upstream from Rossi’s magic control box – presumably connected to the PCE830 – no mention of checking for extra conductors…
        A tube with a few connected wires, supported by a simple metal scaffolding is easy to inspect.

        Why didn’t they mention it then, if only to add credibility? Did they also check for DC bias in notionally AC supplies? Did they check earth conductors were actually earthed? etc etc.

        - It appears they didn’t measure the (separate) input to the control box on the live run!…
        Assuming the high school student was watching, any switch in experimental setup would be noticed. Several experienced scientists should do even better.

        Of course they should… but that level of vigilance doesn’t come across in the report. Also, scientists should know how easily they can be fooled by a competent ‘magician’ – there have been plenty of documented examples.

        - No proper error analysis
        As per the manufacturer notes for the Optris PI 160 Thermal and PCE-830 measuring devices.

        It’s more the possible systematic errors which need quantifying. Like how much power transient could sneak past their ‘take a picture of the readout every so often’ data capture… again even if this element of the report is accurate, it would add credibility to see errors treated more rigorously.

        - No mention of precautions taken against deception/fraud.
        They ate take-away lunches.

        LOL :-)

        But this is the most puzzling bit surely – if they wanted this report to be the definitive proof of something anomalous surely they should have addressed, and ruled out, all of the possible ways they could be fooled (or be fooling themselves).

        Most people would want all such possibilities ruled out definitively BEFORE looking to explain any anomalous heat via a new-to-physics nuclear reaction (which mysteriously doesn’t produce ANY radiation above background).

        For a dispassionate observer fraud plus no nuclear reaction is a much easier explanation to believe unless fraud is definitively and credibly ruled out.

        One more thing: the power/temp curve ‘analysis’ on p. 25 onwards – they say it’s not what you’d expect from resistor heating. But it looks pretty much exactly what I’d expect from resistor heating plus a bit of thermal inertia. Of couse ‘off meter’ electric input could also alter the curve shapes but I don’t think that’s even necessary to explain what’s shown.

        • MaxS says:

          considering the time spent and efforts taken the report is far below standards of a proper scientific paper. Reasons have been mentioned above, no point of repeating again. It is inexcusable and disappointing once again. It seems either these folks are incapable to do scientific work, or the magic only works that way.
          Scientifically it is not worth much more than previous demonstrations, apart from the fact that more people are involved now. Now we are back to the point of believing, right? Now we have to believe in the integrity of Levi and his helpers.

        • lcd says:

          the control experiment makes this result difficult to dismiss.

          • John Milstone says:

            the control experiment makes this result difficult to dismiss.

            Only if one assumes that the tests were being conducted honestly.

            This “test” was set up by Rossi, conducted in Rossi’s facilities, using Rossi’s test equipment (unless I missed something from the report).

            Given Rossi’s history, it is “difficult to dismiss” the likelihood of fraud.

          • Adambomb says:

            It’s easy to dismiss fraud… given a proper test that eliminates the possibility.

            This test was not that. Obvious sources of potential shenanigans weren’t even mentioned, much less controlled for.

            If this doesn’t make you suspicious, you may be a gullible fool.

          • LCD says:

            Or maybe I’m smarter than you

          • JNewman says:

            All the most strident and vocal advocates for LENR are people with no scientific training. More than a coincidence?

      • Adambomb says:

        “A tube with a few connected wires, supported by a simple metal scaffolding is easy to inspect.”

        Are these insulated wires? Looking at the pictures in the paper, it’s hard to tell but seems to be “yes”. If so then there could easily be two conductors hidden inside. Visual inspection would reveal nothing.

        “As per the manufacturer notes for the Optris PI 160 Thermal and PCE-830 measuring devices.”

        And per the manufacturer, the PCE-830 is an AC power analysis device. It does not detect DC currents.

        Right there are two simple ways in which the “excess” energy could be coming from the obvious source — the wall socket — that they did absolutely nothing to control for.

        • LCD says:

          Except they didn’t detect it in the dummy ecat as excess power

          • Santa Claus says:

            What was Rossi doing in the time interval between the end of the dummy experiment and the live one ? We don’t know ! ( hint: setting up the extra hidden DC source… )

          • Adambomb says:

            Thus precluding an extra power source that cannot be switched on and off. Well, that settles that then.

            Amazing how credulous folk are about this genius inventing the unprecedented, while so incredulous that the same guy has the smarts to set up a basic (and well-precedented) “free energy” scam.

    • robiD says:

      eh eh eh!
      I know, it’s hard to accept that something strange it’s happening. Keep on closing your eyes … maybe it’s only a nightmare.

  3. dsm says:

    I am not won over on the strength of that claim.

    Seems to me Rossi has been lying so long (he claimed he had a commercial ready product well over 2 years ago) and I know he has his patent claim in ‘the balance’ so for me it is all posturing.

    But we shall again wait at Rossi’s never ending pleasure while it all gets shredded or accepted – my bet is no – this opinion is based on Andrea Rossi’s extraordinarily unprofessional behaviour in the past!.

    DSM

  4. Brad Arnold says:

    It is comical to read the pessimists/skeptics scramble to try to rationalize their disbelief in Rossi and his LENR technology. I wonder what it will take – maybe attaching the electrodes to their private parts? Short of a physical shock they’re too detached from reality to wake up and smell the roses. Oh well, I wonder what they will say when Rossi starts selling them like hot cakes later this year…

    • Brad Arnold says:

      “The results obtained indicate that energy was produced in decidedly higher quantities than what may be gained from any conventional sources.” HA HA, in your face!!!!

      “Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?”
      ― Carl Sagan

    • popeye says:

      Brad Arnold said on May 20, 2013 at 5:56 am

      Oh well, I wonder what they will say when Rossi starts selling them like hot cakes later this year…

      I’ll be cheering right along side the true believers, if it happens. If it doesn’t, which is far more likely, you’ll still be a true believer.

      That’s the difference between skeptics and TBs. Skeptics would change their mind in a heartbeat with the right evidence. There is nothing that will change the minds of True Believers.

      • Brad Arnold says:

        You have been a true blue skeptic popeye, so I doubt you will seamlessly make the transition to a cheering supporter. I mean, there is reasonable doubt, and then there is hard headed denial. You’ve crossed the line several times in past posts.

        OTH, I sincerely appreciate your generous words of promised support based upon some imagined irrefutable evidence. Until then, keep grasping at straws;)

      • LCD says:

        Popeye are you at least questioning your unwavering faith that cold fusion is not possible?

        • popeye says:

          LCD said on May 22, 2013 at 12:45 pm:

          Popeye are you at least questioning your unwavering faith that cold fusion is not possible?

          I have no such faith, but if you’re asking if this paper has changed the level of certainty that cold fusion is bogus, then, yes.

          As with every other new claim that fails to prove cold fusion, it adds a little more confidence to my skepticism. Because if it were real, I’m nearly certain this is not the way it would be revealed. I’m satisfied that if the claims were true, it could be self-sustaining, and even if not, for some obscure reason, with the existing claims, a truly whiz-bang demo could be easily staged, and Rossi would be on tour showing it off from the mountain tops. It would *not* rely on the trust of a few men.

          • LCD says:

            Popeye that doesn’t even make sense. Without knowing the fundamental theory behind it how could you be sure it’s self sustaining.

            In my opinion you need to do a better job of putting yourself in rossis shoes.

          • popeye says:

            If 360 W evenly spread out over the outside of the reactor is enough to initiate the reaction, how could 1600 W generated within the reactor not be enough to keep it going? And if it’s not, you could insulate the thing, and use controlled cooling to allow it to reach whatever temperature is required to keep it going.

            Of course, this assumes that it’s strictly thermal input that’s needed. But if you need some fancy electrical waveform to keep it running, how does it work with gas, as he has claimed?

            These wild-ass claims *always* have input. And a COP of 3 (or even 5) for electric-to-thermal is practically worthless, given heat pumps give us that. So the assumption has to be that this is merely a theoretical demonstration, and that they can do better, and well enough to close the loop with electricity if they’re gonna have any value. Well, if that’s the assumption, why don’t they *ever* satisfy that condition before they take it to the public? It would make the theoretical claim unequivocal, *and* it would demonstrate its usefulness.

          • LCD says:

            I think they will eventually get there with closing the loop. Gosh you want everything so fast!

            I think as long as the COP is above 1 with good SNR then this is very interesting, cause the potential to be much better than a heat pump is there.

            The test taken at face value (i.e. no fraud) easily proves this.

            Now lets see what June 3rd brings

  5. Alexvs says:

    I can hardly understand how so “prominent scientists” (I do not know any of them) could subscribe such a document. Measurement procedures are the weirdest, most complicated and most error-sensitive one can imagine. From my personal point of view, the introduction of the so called “hot E-cat” has difficulted enormously the calorimetric measurements now involving thermal radiation, convection losses etc. As always in this story confusion over confusion.
    I remember the polemic dicussion at the time of original E-Cat about dry steam. As the easy test of warming from room temp. to <100ºC temp. would have been conclusive, instead of performing it, Rossi et al. brought the hot E-Cat, the E-mouse and all kind of
    new devices. I remember the excitation raised with the 10 Kw E-Cat. Even at 70ºC it would have been a technological revolution.

    Please, do not open the champagne bottle. The moment is not arrived.
    Greetings.

  6. 123star says:

    A quick comment: quoting the article

    As it was not possible to measure the emissivity of the coating used in this analysis, it was decided to
    conservatively assume a value of ε = 1, thereby considering the E-Cat HT as equivalent to a black
    body. This value was then input in the thermal imagery software, which allows the user to modify
    some of the parameters, such as ambient temperature and emissivity, even after having
    completed the recordings. The camera software then uses the new settings to recalculate the
    temperature values assigned to the recorded images. It was therefore possible to determine the E-Cat
    HT’s emitted thermal power on the basis of surface temperature values that were never
    overestimated with respect to effective ones

    For our calculations, therefore – in view of the fact that the effective
    value of ε was not available for our test, and that it was felt desirable to avoid any arbitrary source
    of overestimation – ε was left set to = 1 in all areas.

    Actually, setting ε in the camera software equal to 1 leads to an overestimation of the temperature, since a body with low ε will achieve a higher temperature if we keep the power constant.
    P=(radiating area)*ε*σ*T^4.
    Some materials have ε as low as 0.03. E.g. polished copper or aluminum or gold.

    In other words, note that
    T=(P/((radiating area)*ε*σ))^(1/4).
    For example, just to show my point, if we keep the power constant and change the emissivity, we have T(ε=0.03)=2.40*T(ε=0.03). I.e. the temperature of a body radiating in the vacuum with ε=0.03 will be higher by a factor of ε^(-1/4)=2.40 w.r.t. a black body.

    Said that, I think that the camera uses some sort of Wien displacement law estimation based on the detected peak wavelength AND declared emissivity in order to compute the temperature (I’m not an expert in this, this is what I am guessing) so I’m not certain of the actual overestimation.

    In the article they subsequently plug the temperature they get in Stefan-Boltzmann formula and they get an overestimated output power.

    I won’t comment on the convection heat calculation for now.

    • 123star says:

      I wrote

      Actually, setting ε in the camera software equal to 1 leads to an overestimation of the temperature

      Sorry I was wrong, thinking again I realized the temperature estimation by the camera choosing ε=1 is probably OK (non overestimated). Apologies for that.
      Anyway I’d appreciate some references about emissivity correction in IR thermography.

      My point really is: they can’t just assume that ε=1 in the final output power calculation.

      For example let’s say that I perform an experiment with a blackbody and then I switch to a graybody (in the vacuum for simplicity). If I choose ε=0.5 and I keep the same input power, the temperature Tg of the gray body will be Tg= Tb ε^(-1/4) = Tb * 1.189.
      I’m assuming that my IR camera always reports the real temperature value.
      If I now plug this value in the formula P=(radiating area)*σ*T^4 neglecting on purpose the coefficient ε the power will be off by a factor of (1/ε)=2. Here is my “fake” COP of 2. =(1/ε)

      • spacegoat says:

        The experimenters assumed ε=1. Rossi claimed to be using a special industrial paint with ε approaching 1. The experimenters state “… by assigning a value of 1 to ε in to every area, we are in fact performing a conservative measurement”

        Thus this appears to be a non-issue.

        • 123star says:

          I think that they refer to a “conservative measurement” only in relation to the temperature estimation via the camera software.

          The problem is that they use the same ε to calculate the output power via the Stefan-Boltzmann formula. I don’t think that using ε=1 is justified at that point.

          Anyway, can we trust their electrical input power measurement? IIRC We were discussing this months ago at the old ecatnews forum.

      • Frank says:

        I didn’t have time to read the report so far, but what bothers/wonders me most is: From the pictures on top of this thread (and previously “leaked” photos) we can see that the hot-cat has a nice flange on one end, which would make it easy to install it in a water tank /boiler. So why are this guys messing around with surface temperature measurements when it would be much more conclusive if they heat ups reservoir of water ???
        I guess Rossi didn’t permit such a test configuration for ‘some reasons’.

        • Asterix says:

          Exactly my issue–radiometery not calorimetry. Use of a sensor not calibrated to the temperature range being measured, “secret” waveforms and clamp-on ammeters.

          Why a “secret” waveform? Surely the thermal inertia of the heater assembly would smooth that out.

          Given that Stefano-Boltzmann is a fourth-power rule, I can readily see where huge measurement inaccuracies can really skew results.

          And Levi in charge of it all. Someone who dearly wants this to succeed. The unit under test appears to be self-contained. Why not submit it to a real testing establishment? “Here’s a thingummy, put electricity in one end and measure the heat for 24 hours coming out and compare it to the amount of electrical energy used.” In other words, a measurement of efficiency–something done every day by qualified testing labs.

          In the words of Joschka Fischer, “You have to make the case.” I don’t think that this has been accomplished.

      • 123star says:

        I found a nice page with a table with low emissivity black paints to be used for heliostats. That’s quite interesting!
        Look here:
        http://www.redrok.com/concept.htm#emissivity

  7. 123star says:

    Oops, admin, please fix my blockquote tags in the previous message.
    The quote ends with “ε was left set to = 1 in all areas.”

  8. Ransompw says:

    So Rossi was being accurate about a third party test (with some Rossi BS included) and now a report has been prepublished. It will be interesting to see if it is accepted for publication in any of the tower of virtue journals. It will not be very interesting to read the response of the pseudoskeptics, since that response is obvious and would be the same no matter what the report said, who conducted it or where it is published.

    A person like Popeye has too much invested in his dream world to fracture it with the thought of being incorrect. So let the skeptics go at it with their idiocy, I for one am satisfied that reasonably independent and competent individuals are supporting Rossi’s claim. That I think is the most compelling aspect of this report. I do think the report hints at issues which make the ecat less than a perfect product and might account for the numerous delays. I also think my view of reality is the most likely after seeing this report, ie, Rossi has something with a COP of about 3 and continues to work to engineer a better result with little success. I think that better success likely awaits an understanding of the process. The reality of LENR however, is becoming more difficult for the pseudoskeptics to deny (but of course they will).

    • MaxS says:

      this has nothing to do with reality of LENR, it is only about Rossi´s e-cat what is being examined.
      We were promised a paper in a peer reviewed journal, that´s not it. And we expected 3rd party examiners, 11 professors, now we get Levi and helpers.
      I don´t know a journal that would publish an article that was previously published in the internet. Science journals request authentic content for exclusive publication.
      Rossi had to deliver something finally. The really surprising thing is that he got respected scientist to sign off this sub standard work. If it is real, why can´t they make a serious, credible paper about it? That puzzles me. If it is not real, why they give their name for it?

      • Ransompw says:

        MaxS:

        The physicists of this world aren’t going to admit to being wrong no matter what the paper says, no matter who publishes it, and no matter who says it. That was a foegone conclusion before this began. Rossi was right at the beginning when he said only working products will convince the scientific community, they are way too in the bag to consider another reality. You included.

        • John Milstone says:

          Rossi was right at the beginning when he said only working products will convince the scientific community

          And he still hasn’t produced any such thing.

          This is yet another dog & pony show, with Rossi controlling the environment and test equipment.

          If Rossi were credible, this would be significant. But we all know that Rossi isn’t credible. He has a long criminal history of business fraud, he has lied about every business relationship he has claimed, and he has never (including this “demo”) allowed a truly independent test of his gadget.

          But I’m sure this will sell more franchises, which is Rossi’s true goal.

        • popeye says:

          Ransompw said on May 20, 2013 at 8:23 am

          The physicists of this world aren’t going to admit to being wrong no matter what the paper says, no matter who publishes it, and no matter who says it. That was a foegone conclusion before this began.

          That’s almost true for me, although I’m a sailor. In fact, I said something very close to that *before* the paper was published.

          But I’d rewrite it as follows:

          I won’t accept a claim of cold fusion no matter what the paper says, no matter who publishes it, and no matter who says it, as long as the who is acting on their own, without the backing of a major lab or university, and the experiment is performed in private using undisclosed devices not available to anyone else for checking.

          Since the latter two conditions were almost definitely known, if there was to be a report, they are hardly necessary.

          I do admit that if it were published in Science or Nature, it would give me pause, but I suspect that deliberately withholding key information for the experiment (other than in a news story), would violate some sort of editorial policy.

          Rossi was right at the beginning when he said only working products will convince the scientific community, they are way too in the bag to consider another reality.

          But that’s nonsense. I’ve described many times the sort of thing that would convince this skeptic, and it falls far short of a commercial product, but goes well beyond a group of academics publishing an experiment performed in secret, involving a black box, and other proprietary secrets. Do you know of a single scientific discovery that was rejected by the mainstream until a commercial product came on-line?

      • H D says:

        Putting pre-prints into arxiv is not unusual, that’s why it’s called a pre-print archive.

        Yet, for the other reasons mentioned before, getting this kind of report into a respected journal will be difficult.

        Will be interesting to see if and where it will be published.

    • oakthicket says:

      You gotta admit, Ransom is pretty funny. He goes as the wind blows, except that he’s forever a Rossi apologist.

      But Rossi accomplished what he wanted. He knows that there’s no way to convince the mainstream that he’s not a fraud. He just wants to hype up the true believers (again). Predictably, that’s happened. This should be good for wringing money out of a few more head-in-the-clouds nitwits.

      It’s just another Rossi-controlled gong-show, like the series he had a couple of years ago. Independent third-party tests my foot. In his lab, with his equipment and running when folks arrive.

  9. John Milstone says:

    So let the skeptics go at it with their idiocy, I for one am satisfied that reasonably independent and competent individuals are supporting Rossi’s claim.

    And Ransom does a back flip! LOL

    Just a few days ago, you claimed to believe that Rossi was a fraud. Now, based on a dubious report (which will become clear to everyone over the next day or two as we start analyzing it), you have abruptly changed your mind.

    You must get headaches from spinning around so much!

    • Ransompw says:

      I never claimed Rossi was a fraud. I have gone on record numerous times to say I thought Rossi likely had a LENR reactor that wasn’t close to commercial and has been working to no avail to improve it. I also think based on what I have read that he never will (improve it), and I still think that is the most likely outcome.

      As to LENR, based on what I have read I think it is likely and have held that view for quite some time also.

  10. JNewman says:

    Well, the people with no scientific background who already believed Rossi are now even more convinced that he is legit. Mission accomplished. As an added bonus, believers can now solidify their disdain for skeptics because the skeptics will not be won over by this bizarre new set of data.

    Meanwhile, is the world any closer to a new energy source? Not so much.

    • Ransompw says:

      How would you know if the world was closer to a new energy source?

      The one thing this individual with no scientific background is convinced is that most of the posters on this site aren’t competent to question the report that just came out (you included) and are likely a lot more incompetent than the 7 scientists who signed their name to the report.

      Of that I have little doubt.

      • John Milstone says:

        The one thing this individual with no scientific background is convinced is that most of the posters on this site aren’t competent to question the report

        A number of people here are competent to question the report.

        You’re not one of them.

        (But it’s nice to see you finally admitting that being a lawyer who “googles” for physics information doesn’t constitute a “scientific background”.)

        • Ransompw says:

          I sincerely doubt that anyone posting here is competent to question the paper. You have to first be unbiased and willing to evaluate a subject with objectivity.

          That eliminates Milstone, Newman, Popeye, The General, Oakthicket and a host of others. You can clown around and pretend to be expert and objective but you prove by every post that you don’t have in you.

      • JNewman says:

        It is convenient that people here with scientific backgrounds are not competent to question this report but people with no such background are comfortable with accepting it as legitimate. This is a very special kind of double standard.

        • Ransompw says:

          Newman:

          No one has a problem with legitimate scientific skepticism. But what we have here is clearly NOT that.

          Essen and associates spent what, months looking at these issues. They spent days observing the reactor.

          This group spent an hour or so arriving at conclusions.

          There is no competent scientist posting on this site, just pseudoskeptics who may (and I use the word loosely) have some science training.

          • John Milstone says:

            No one has a problem with legitimate scientific skepticism. But what we have here is clearly NOT that.

            That’s because what we have here is clearly not scientific inquiry.

            Regardless of whether Rossi really has a revolutionary new device, his behavior has clearly been less than honest.

            Science is based on an assumption of honesty. When that assumption has been invalidated (as is the case with Rossi), the scientific method fails to work.

            It will take a little time to properly evaluate the report, and separate the facts from the assumptions and claims. I will be enormously surprised if the report actually stands up to critical investigation.

          • Ransompw says:

            Milstone:

            You don’t think the seven scientists that put their names on the report were conducting a scientific inquiry. Isn’t it sad to be so biased?

          • John Milstone says:

            You don’t think the seven scientists that put their names on the report were conducting a scientific inquiry.

            Based upon the actual contents of the report, they were seven scientists who watched a “magic trick” by Rossi.

            They observed only and exactly what Rossi wanted them to observe, and they accepted everything that Rossi told them as truthful.

            That’s definitely not how science is done.

          • Ransompw says:

            Milstone:

            You really can’t be that dense. There isn’t anything secret about this test except the contents of the “active ingredients’.

            All they did was measure energy in and energy out. Unlike the earlier tests the energy out was measured much more carefully. So for that matter was the energy in. What part of the magic trick did they miss.

            The only possibility is some energy input they didn’t measure. I don’t know where you think it came from, do you? I think you better read the report a little closer.

          • popeye says:

            Ransompw said on May 20, 2013 at 2:31 pm

            You really can’t be that dense. There isn’t anything secret about this test except the contents of the “active ingredients’.

            The experiment was performed without an audience. The participants were kept hush-hush until the paper was ready to publish. That makes it secret. And the device and the power shaping are kept secret.

            Of course, most experiments are performed in private, but then most experimenters reveal all the relevant information so anyone skilled in the art can check the claims.

            That’s not possible here. And that makes all the difference.

            All they did was measure energy in and energy out. Unlike the earlier tests the energy out was measured much more carefully.

            Well, you can’t get much worse than wet steam, so maybe this is better, but then they also claim a smaller COP than the claimed in January 2011.

            So for that matter was the energy in.

            I think they are equally inadequate. I’m pretty sure, as someone said, these guys did not question Rossi about the input power, and did not check it carefully. But how can we ever know? No one can else can try it for themselves. Rossi is gonna keep it that way for a long time while he reels in the suckers, until impatience rears its ugly head again. And if the past is any judge, he’s a genius when it comes to finding a new configuration to keep the controversy alive…

          • LCD says:

            Hey I thought I was competent

  11. Ransompw says:

    Oakthicket, Newman, Milstone

    You honestly claim this report is not worth considering on the issue of LENR?

    Are you all really that biased? Why should anyone pay anymore attention to your posts? It is abundantly clear that you have your minds set and nothing will change your view and I mean nothing. How would you describe such people? How about Pseudoskeptics. I have another Religious Fanatics.

    • oakthicket says:

      Ransom

      If I claim something I’ll say it. I don’t need a scientifically-ignorant lawyer to put words in my mouth.

      But I’ll say it again since you don’t seem to have the drift of it.

      The test was NOT an independent third party validation. It was another in a long string of witness demonstrations. It was Rossi’s equipment, set up by Rossi and run by Rossi. Even someone as scientifically uneducated as you should be able to figure that out.

      What makes this different than demonstrations viewed by Focardi, Levi, Larsen, Kullander and other supposedly knowledgeable engineers and scientists? You remember those, right? You even had a favorite which you kept referring to until people got tired of talking about it. Of course many of those other demonstrations ‘positively’ demonstrated cold fusion. Later Rossi stated it wasn’t cold fusion. Frankly, I don’t know what he claims now except something anomalous. He’s learned it’s better that way. No embarrassing questions about radiation. It’s best to keep it mysterious and have the true believers assign their favorite phenomenon.

      As a chemical engineer, I cringe whenever someone states something generates more heat than known chemical reactions. This contention is incredibly vacuous. What chemical reactions were considered? They never say. They just make a blanket statement. I don’t know if any of them are competent to make statements about chemical reactions. Heck, I remember how clueless Kullander and Levi were about simple steam thermodynamics. Kullander even admitted it. Chemical reactions are much more complex than nuclear reactions.

      I’ve seen poorly-controlled hydrogen over nickel catalyst reactions hit exotherms of over 1000 deg.C Did the esteemed scientists consider that chemical reaction? I doubt it.

      You should remember what ‘anomalous heat’ actually means. It means ‘I haven’t a clue where it’s coming from’.

      • Ransompw says:

        Oakthicket:

        Come on the energy storage is outside of the known Ragone Chart by an order of magnitude. If this is a known energy source that wouldn’t be true.

        I think you need to do a lot better if you want to just ignore this report which was a third party evaluation.

        Rossi’s setup based on this report looks a lot more like a real technology development effort than a scam as has been suggested here ad naseum.

  12. Ransompw says:

    By the way:

    Ecat News has gone active given this report.

  13. spacegoat says:

    There is enough in this story to merit penetration of the mainstream media and displace for 5 minutes cute domestic pets performing inane anthropological behaviours. Will the masses be allowed this break in subject matter?

    Alexvs said:
    “Measurement procedures are the weirdest, most complicated and most error-sensitive one can imagine.”

    Two measuring instruments applied to a simple tube on a simple scaffolding is complicated and weird? Error-prone leading to measurement error of 600%? How?

    • Alexvs says:

      Yes, weird because any experimental physicist can design better methods to measure energy balance. Complicated because part of the measured magnitudes are function of variables which are being estimated. Error sensitive because parameters introduced in equations are uncertain.

  14. JB says:

    Just as true believers must stop reading too much into this report, I think also we sceptics must take the report of what it is and is not. For example I can’t imaging that all the authors for a second think that this paper will be taken as any conclusive evidence on if the E-cat works or not. As long they can’t have a full control over the measurements or be able to investigate the interior of the E-cat, such an investigation is probably impossible. In order for it to be the beginning of any conclusive evidence it must include all details that make it repeatable.

    So why are they doing it then? I guess it is just curiosity. I guess that all sceptics in here would take the chance to investigate the E-cat, even if you, just as them, wouldn’t be allowed to do a fully controlled investigation.

    Based on their language used, I also think it is clear that they don’t think they say too much. I agree that they put their reputation on line, but I am not sure that they would agree on that.

    I haven’t gone through the report in detail, but I think their approach could be sufficient during the circumstances. If they aren’t fooled, the Cat can be shown to produce more excess heat (high COP) that what could be explained chemically with, i.e. the accuracy of the output measurement could be sufficient while being fooled on the input.

    However, since they didn’t have fully control over the Cat, they can never claim that they are no chance that they weren’t fooled. Therefore they might think that it is quite “safe” to write such a report, because if it turns out they were fooled, they can just say: “Yes, but since we weren’t allowed to get full access, this was always a possibility”.

    • John Milstone says:

      Therefore they might think that it is quite “safe” to write such a report, because if it turns out they were fooled, they can just say: “Yes, but since we weren’t allowed to get full access, this was always a possibility”.

      Exactly.

      There is a whole industry of “expert witnesses” who will support whatever position their client is pushing. They may not believe it themselves, but they will carefully select what to say in order to make it appear that their client is right. They won’t lie, but they won’t provide any information that contradicts the conclusion their client wants.

      I don’t know how much this applies to the author(s) of this report, but this is one reason for a careful review of exactly what was and wasn’t said in the report. It appears from a cursory review that the test was conducted by Rossi, in Rossi’s facilities. That leaves open all sorts of opportunities for cheating by Rossi. And, of course, Rossi has a long history of dishonest behavior.

      • H D says:

        Yes, but few of these experts for hire headed their country’s sceptic society for a few years like Hanno Essén did, which is why I emphasized him in the blog post.

        • John Milstone says:

          Based on his ready acceptance of some of Rossi’s earlier, seriously flawed, demos, I would question his credentials as a skeptic.

          Was it Essen or Kullander who admitted to Krivit that he had completely overlooked the fact that steam has 1600 times the volume of water, and that there didn’t appear to be enough steam at the demo(s) he attended to justify Rossi’s claims? Either way, they both just accepted Rossi’s figures without even bothering to look for signs of fraud (such as insufficient steam, or water percolating out of the gadget and in to the drain, etc.)

          • H D says:

            He was not much of an ecat sceptic but given how I saw the saga developing, I expected him to melt away in the background, instead he chose to double down.

          • JB says:

            I agree. If they would have been normal scientists, they might think that it is worth the risk since it is a Nobel prize in the pot if they are first and they don’t risk too much if they are careful. But being such involved in the sceptic community they should be more careful and don’t even trust their own expertise that much.

      • Asterix says:

        Have done my time as a consultant for a large litigation firm, I was surprised by a statement made to me (when I raised a few problematic points) by the lead attorney:

        “We’re not after the truth here; we just need to convince the jury to side with us.”

    • Ransompw says:

      What control of the ecat do you feel compromised their results on the issue of energy density? Measurement of energy output or energy input?

      It seems to me the paper if read objectively demonstrates a good possibility of a scientific mystery. That mystery is what is the source of the energy being recorded.

      The skeptics can say “Hidden Energy” and the “believers can say “LENR”. But what are the possible hidden sources of energy which the authors failed to recognize?

      • John Milstone says:

        What control of the ecat do you feel compromised their results on the issue of energy density? Measurement of energy output or energy input?

        Mainly because the person who set up and ran the tests has absolutely no credibility.

        If this report was from and about someone who had a history of honesty and credibility, then I think we would all be excited by it. But Rossi has a long history of lying and criminal fraud.

      • Jamiwithnewmailid says:

        My bet would be on input. Much easier to fake – and Rossi can lean back and let them fumble around with IR cams and thermocouples and emissivity all they want. Should be easy, because his ultra secret box controlling the power input is, well, “secret” and mustn’t be measured by the scientists. Convenient, isn’t it? I wonder what they said to that when it was brought up.

        “Hey, Andrea, why can’t we measure this wire here?”

        “OH, IS SECRET MOUSE WAVE ALMOST AS SECRET AS CATALYSOR. I NO TRUST YOU SO YOU DON’T MEASURE”

        “ok, never mind, calm down. Does that somehow have an impact on the overall pow…”

        “NO”

      • JB says:

        What I mean with full control is that they at least choose and control everything that is connected to and goes in to the Cat.

        If they aren’t fooled in any way, you are right it is interesting, but that is quit obvious. The question is have they been fooled or not, but that have been the question all along. What we can say for certain is that they don’t think they have been fooled, but fooled people rarely do. :)

        • Ransompw says:

          I disagree. I think the earlier demonstrations didn’t adequately measure output energy (ie the issue with complete vaporization).

          I don’t think measuring input energy is that difficult and at this point, I am not inclined to conclude they errored in that manner.

          • H D says:

            Given the simplicity of the set-up and the significant excess energy reported, I also think that any foul play will have to involve input energy. And that’ll certainly take more effort.

            Essentially we have a similar conundrum as with the one certified Papp engine test.

          • JB says:

            You are right that the earlier test was tricky with the output, but this setup didn’t involve steam. Even if the input measurement is simple, not having full control gives a risk that you may be fooled (by Rossi that is)

  15. Jamiwithnewmailid says:

    So there really is a report (I admit I thought Rossi was making it up completely) but it’s been written by Levi and Friends. If we’d think that Levi would be able to spot and be willing to report on Rossi’s trickery, we would all be believers from day one (same for Essen, btw.).

    Doesn’t keep the believers from exclaiming that NOTHING will ever convince us “pathoskeps” (meaning the world outside of e-catworld) – not even the fourth and almost exact repetition of the lie we didn’t believe the first, second and third time it was told. And what happens now? They’ll be telling it a fifth time… in the summer. Can’t wait.

    • Ransompw says:

      Sorry, that is just nonsense. You can doubt the 2011 reports because the tests (demonstrations) were poorly performed, lacked controls or were ladden with errors.

      You can attack this latest report based on the same analysis.

      What you can’t do unless you are actually a pathoskeptic is do what you just did and say I choose not to believe this report because I found a problem with the earlier methodology (even though this is a different methodology).

      If this study doesn’t convince you for that reason you are a pathoskeptic and not a scientist.

  16. John Milstone says:

    It’s interesting that these tests still don’t answer the question of why, if the E-Cat is generating more heat than it uses, they won’t or can’t run it in self-sustaining mode.

    • H D says:

      But John, they did say just that, I even pulled the quote out of the paper and put it in my post:

      An interesting aspect of the E-Cat HT2 is certainly its capacity to operate in self-sustaining mode.

      • John Milstone says:

        What they describe is hardly what I would consider “self-sustaining”. They describe a power cycle of 2 minutes on – 4 minutes off. My oven does the same thing.

        They also say:

        During the OFF state, it was possible to observe – by means of the video displays connected to the IR cameras (see below) – that the temperature of the device continued to rise for a limited amount of time.

        My oven does this as well.

        Again, they don’t explain why the device has to be heated up by external means for 2 minutes out of every 6 in order to keep it hot enough to work, when the device is supposedly generating more heat than it uses.

        • John Milstone says:

          To elaborate a bit, notice how each of Rossi’s gadgets seems to have a thermal “inertia” proportional to its mass.

          The small “tea kettle” was never seen to “run” for more than about a half-hour (IIRC). The big version “ran” for 3-4 hours (although Rossi promised for his October 6th test that he would let it run for 12+ hours, that turned out to be a lie).

          And now, this little gadget can only “run” for 4 minutes before it needs more power.

          Every one of the witnessed demos show a device that behaves much more like a thermal mass with a few gimmicks than any sort of “nuclear reactor”.

          As long as these demos involve Rossi-supplied facilities and test equipment, and Rossi-selected observers, there is no reason to take it seriously.

  17. Anon2014 says:

    Two questions:

    1) Was the amount of hydrogen introduced to the device fixed, i.e. a single charge, or is there a bottle that could be supplying additional hydrogen which would be burning in the presence of oxygen in the air?

    2) Does the energy density per kg/or per liter exceed the energy density of exothermic conventional (chemical) metal hydride reactions where it is clear, hydrogen in => heat out.

    I am trying to see if this is something beyond hydrogen being loaded into a metal matrix or being burned in oxygen. If so, I am a lot more convinced than before.

    Your responses please.

    Anon2014

    • Ransompw says:

      The energy density is outside of the Ragone plot of known energy storage by an order of magnitude.

      The hydrogen is part of the loaded “charge’ and is fixed and no longer added in gas form. In other words the device is sealed. There is no hydrogen added after the device is sealed. What hydrogen is in the “charge” is unknown and is probably released within the device as it is heated.

      • Anon2014 says:

        The Rangone plot is not important — it relates the peak power to the energy density per kg. They left out peak power of things like jet and rocket engines on that colorful chart. Doesn’t matter.

        What matters only is one thing: the energy density per kg which is shown variously in experiment one vs. experiment two to be > 681 kWh/kg or ~ 60 MWh/kg (experiment 1 vs 2). The inconsistency is because experiment 1 assumed the whole apparatus was the fuel, while experiment 2 assumed it was only 1 grams (as powder removed by the secretive Mr. Rossi).

        From both pictures, I do not see hydrogen lines being sent into the device to cheat, i.e. provide an on going source of fuel.

        I can’t find the data, but I recollect the energy (mass) density of loading Ni with hydrogen was about 3X that of burning hydrogen in air (ignoring the mass of the oxygen in the air).

        So, on the surface, these tests look like they are providing more energy than either burning the same mass of hydrogen (which could have been stored in a palladium metal hydride at a fairly high mass ratio of 60%). The amount looks to me to be about 10X these exothermic metal-hydrogen “chemical” (electron shell) reactions.

        Where could there be cheating. Certainly in the power supply. Why not simply put a DC amp meter and a DC volt meter to measure the power input. In the mass measurement, particularly after Rossi removes the secret powder.

        Where could there be inaccuracy. In the thermal and convective radiation estimates.

        I discount test 2. I have no idea what was inside and that Rossi was allowed to unload the device in secret invalidates the test.

        Test 1 where the weight of the device is measured is a better test. I still have a hypothesis that it is a palladium hydride storage system of some kind that is simply burning the hydrogen and maybe also burning the palladium in the presence of air.

        • Ransompw says:

          How much Palladium hydride do you think was burned? The whole device? or just a portion of it? Would you mind explaining how they could have failed to notice the device simply burning in the presence of air?

          • Anon2014 says:

            Ransompw,

            The device on the outside is considerably cooler than on the inside. Either way, one can see the discoloration caused by oxidation of the outside of the device. We have no independent confirmation of what was inside the device. We do know that Ni oxidizes in air above 400 C.

          • Ransompw says:

            You missed my point. Obviously, the entire device wasn’t made of Palladium hydride. How much do you think was and how much of the energy could it have explained.

            I think you are grasping for straws.

  18. Jamiwithnewmailid says:

    Rossi is real genius and the e-cat seems to be remarkably tolerant when it comes to what you need and what you don’t need to make it work (apart from electricity, obviously – but we’ve learned that even that is no longer required since there is a gas powered e-cat, too. How on earth he managed to modulate an industrial secret waveform into a gas flame is another miracle not yet accounted for). To quote Ford Prefect: “Oh. It’s a lethal little thing. Looks pretty, talks big, collapses waveforms selectively at will.”

    … from the report:

    “They were fed by a TRIAC power regulator device which interrupted each phase periodically, in order to modulate power input with an industrial trade secret waveform. This procedure, needed to properly activate the E-Cat HT charge, had no bearing whatsoever on the power consumption of the device, which remained constant throughout the test.”

    From JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi
    September 17th, 2012 at 7:02 AM

    DEAR GIO:
    I WANT TO ADD THAT SO FAR THE MEASUREMENTS MADE BY NEW SYSTEMS HAVE CONFIRMED, SUBSTANTIALLY, THE DATA PRESENTED IN THE REPORT OF ZURICH. IN PARTICULAR: WE HAVE ELIMINATED THE INTERNAL CYLINDER, TO MAKE EASIER THE MEASUREMENT OF THE ENERGY, BEING NOW ALL THE ENERGY EMITTED THROUGH THE EXTERNAL CYLINDER SURFACE, AND WE ARE USING A VARIAC INSTEAD OF A TRIAC, TOGETHER WITH CERTIFIED INSTRUMENTATION.
    NEVERTHELESS, MORE MEASUREMENTS ARE CARRIED ON BY THE VALIDATORS TEAM.
    WARM REGARDS,
    A.R.”

  19. GreenWin says:

    Gents though appropriate I am not here to gloat. Simply to inform you that higher authorities have seen fit to summarily shut down the MIT hot fusion program as of today’s news:

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/05/19/fusion-energy-research-mit-shut-down-people-lose-their-jobs/x8CDMwik26faDd9FmwlrTO/story.html

    As they say in the karmic world – what goes around comes around. Had Ballinger et al been honest in their assessment of Pons and Fleischmann – this day of ignominy for MIT and its now thoroughly tarnished reputation would not have arrived.

    Oh, BTW, IGZ-2013 is on the air!!! :) We love you Pretenza!

    • popeye says:

      It’s all part of the big conspiracy. They were getting too close to a solution, and the powers that be hate clean and abundant energy, so they had to shut it down.

      Instead they’re putting more money into ITER, because that has no visible chance of success. They actually increased the spending on fusion research, but only to prop up their favorite constituency; it has nothing to do with any hope of progress, because their main goal is to impede progress.

      • GreenWin says:

        Yep. That big science white collar welfare program that Bob Bussard called “a fraud” gets the cash. But what about the out of work ‘mericans at MIT?? NIF?? PPPL?? Does someone in Congress not love ‘em??

        Don’t miss IGZ-2013 – Blood in the water!!

        • popeye says:

          As argued so persuasively by the cold fusion cabal, they’re happy to fund frauds.

          The fact that they shut MIT down must mean, as it did with cold fusion, that they were getting too close to success.

          The powers-that-be are terrified of clean and abundant energy, and so *now* anyone who says they want to work on hot fusion, has their career destroyed. More people have been fired for working on hot fusion now than for working on cold fusion. Getting shut down is the clearest evidence they must have been on to something.

          That’s also how I know there are aliens among us — well, other than your posts of course.

    • GreenWin says:

      Would someone inform Gary W that instead of shutting down Rossi, he has managed to shut down the MIT hot fusion boondoggle. :(

  20. JNewman says:

    Entertaining times ahead. The various websites of interest seem to be specializing. This one is for believers to declare victory and try to sneer skeptics away. ECW is just berserk, as could be expected. Interestingly, Moletrap is actually looking at the technical results and seeing if they stand up to scrutiny (they don’t). It should be a while before equilibrium is restored. Of course, the believer corps is convinced that a new age has dawned. We will see how that seems in a month or so. Meanwhile, for those in a state of intoxication, do enjoy it while it lasts.

    • Ransompw says:

      Moletrap is fully of intellectual dumbells, it is inconceivable they could objectively look at the report and conclude anything but nonsense. If you think otherwize, enlighten us.

      • John Milstone says:

        I’m sure none of them can hold a candle to your Google-searching skills.

      • oakthicket says:

        The Moletrap crew can be quite dysfunctional at times. They would take that comment as a compliment. In this case though there is more in-depth technical analysis of the eCat report than I’ve seen on any website.

        Ransom doesn’t have the technical knowledge to have a credible opinion on scientific expertise. An example is his mimicking of the Ragone chart comment from the report. He is clueless that the Ragone chart does not apply. Not surprising, since Levi (?) is similarly clueless.

        • JNewman says:

          The fans are quick to adopt cool science buzzwords like Ragone charts and nanotechnology. They seem a little less interested in the Stefan Boltzmann law, which is an extremely precarious and error-laden way to infer energy from temperature measurements. They tend to just figure that you point a thermometer at some weird glowing object and read out watts. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

    • Ransompw says:

      By the way, what equilibrium do you seek, the one you thought existed when there would never be a 3rd party report, when you sneered at anyone who suggested LENR may be real and the world in which you thought LENR was imaginary. If so, good luck, you may see it again, but I wouldn’t necessarily hold my breath.

      • JNewman says:

        No need to hold my breath. I am quite happy to wait and see how all this plays out. Waiting and seeing is the watchword of the enlightened people who see Rossi as mankind’s savior, right?Right now, the only consequence of this report is that people who already believed in Rossi do so with greater confidence. I strongly doubt that anybody has changed their basic view. That, of course, is because anybody who doubts is a “pseudoskeptic”, or so you think. But it’s nice to see you so very happy!

        • Ransompw says:

          I am sure you are wrong on that account also. The only people who won’t take a reasonable look at this report are the unreasonable and believe it or not you are part of a minority.

          • JNewman says:

            You are the authority in what the majority thinks, so I guess I can’t argue with you. Of course, anybody who takes a reasonable look at the report and does not draw the conclusions you do must be biased and unreasonable. Is that it?

            I guess you consider it out of the question that someone can find serious fault with the methodology and conclusions of this paper. If one does not accept it as some sort of vindication of Rossi, then one is simply biased. That is clearly your view.

            Perhaps this is why having you call me unreasonable and biased is so ironic.

          • Ransompw says:

            I didn’t say no one could find fault with the methodology, but as yet, I haven’t read any serious criticism of the methodology. Certainly none on this blog site. I even went to mole trap and that was a laugh.

            My favorite was Maryyugo who admitted she was not experienced with and had no expertise in the methodology and then claimed that what she did know is that it was fraught with problems but not being an expert didn’t know what they were. And that was the best.

            No dear Newman, if you and your ilk really had anything useful to say, we’ve find the General citing more than the references. I am objective and all ears if you come up with anything serious.

    • H D says:

      JNewman, I take issue with the description of this website as being there to “for believers to declare victory and try to sneer skeptics away”. Did you miss my point of not censoring? This site is what you make of it. Only if you take the sneering laying down will this site be about that. At which point I may as well close shop.

      • JNewman says:

        Peace, Quax. I was only commenting on the trends of the comments being posted, not on the intent of the blogger. Your shop is the only free speech site on the web for this stuff. So I intended no knock on you or this place.

  21. Ransompw says:

    Frankly, most of the points made by skeptics on this blog today have been pretty weak.

    Milstone’s only real point is that, Rossi is a fraud, Rossi is a fraud so SOMETHING must be amiss. Well Milstone, Rossi was actually pretty truthful about the independent third party tests, all the way back to November when he said the tests had met with serious problems that needed to be resolved. I think a meltdown is a serious problem from my point of view. A lot of Rossi’s comments now make more sense. and many of your wild speculations make much less.

    Others came on briefly to show their complete lack of any objective approach to the report and claimed the report was same old same old within a hour or so of its release and then disappeared (probably after they read it and couldn’t figure out something else credible to post.)

    What I think seems clear now is this:

    Rossi likely has a LENR device (always did), has trouble with COP and control and has been working on precommercial issues with the reactor for the last two years. Which is pretty much what I concluded long ago. The only thing which remains to be seen is whether Rossi will ever develop what he has into a commercial product. Before this report I would have said I doubt it very much. I am today not so sure.

    • John Milstone says:

      Milstone’s only real point is that, Rossi is a fraud, Rossi is a fraud so SOMETHING must be amiss

      There is certainly some truth to that. If a credible LENR researcher produced this report, I would look at it from a whole different perspective.

      But you imply that “judging” Rossi based on his lifetime of behavior is somehow inappropriate. It’s not.

      Rossi was caught brazenly lying about a number of significant points over the last couple of years. Before that, it certainly appears that he lied to the DOD about his thermoelectric converter, and before that he was convicted and sent to prison for business fraud (and I haven’t been able to find any actual evidence that the fraud convictions were ever overturned).

      You and the other Rossi fans want us to ignore his lifetime history, and consider each bit of “good news” in isolation. That is foolish. I’ve said it before: Even if LENR turns out to be true, Rossi still is a fraud.

      We’ve been through this several times before: Rossi releases some information that looks as though it proves him right, and then careful analysis of what he and others say prove it to be more lies or exaggerations.

      It’s worth reading the exchange between Steven Krivit and Essen HERE. Among the more choice Essen quotes:

      We have had a large number of questions on the flow of water and amount of steam. Unfortunately, time and resources did not allow us to check these things more carefully.

      we concluded that all the water must become steam.

      The steam amount was not measured. It was taken for granted that it all became steam.

      I’m new at steam, unfortunately.

      I must admit I was thinking that I must check that the water is not draining out. I had this vague feeling that the water inlet flow wasn’t that fast, that the steam could be consistent with it, especially after some condensation in the hose. But we should have looked more into that, obviously, but there was not enough time. When we came, the setup was already there. To make any further studies, it was not possible.

      I see no reason to give Levi and Essen any more credibility now than he deserved for their shoddy work in 2011.

      • JNewman says:

        It is remarkable that half a dozen allegedly qualified scientists had access to this miracle device for an extended period of time and THIS is the best they could do to determine if it did something really interesting? I would think that any six posters on this website, selected at random, would have come up with a better experiment than these “indipendent testers” did.

        • Ransompw says:

          Is that the best you can do, an attempt to assissinate the character, integrity and skill of the authors. That is a bushleague tactic. Actually Newman, I thought you were better than that, but alas you must have been pretending to be reasonable.

          • JNewman says:

            You think this is a good experiment to prove anything about this device? If so, then you know things about science that I don’t and I humbly bow to your superior knowledge. Otherwise, me thinks you protesteth too much.

          • JNewman says:

            And Ransom, if I have been pretending to be reasonable, you have been pretending to be rational.

            Try to think like a lawyer instead of a fanboy and tell us in your own words what exactly this report shows evidence for. What was actually witnessed and measured? (Hint: if you use the letters LENR anywhere in your answer, you are making stuff up.)

          • Ransompw says:

            I don’t know that you know anything about science. I am certain you know little about these tests other than your bias.

          • Ransompw says:

            Newman:

            It measured energy in te system in the form of electricity and thermal energy generated which in the active reactor exceeded expected thermal output and clearly exceeded the ratio of input/output vs the dummy.

            The energy generated (assuming no unmeasured power in source) exceeded that which would be generated by a known energy source of equal density. By quite a bit.

            So either the energy generated was mismeasured (unlikely), the energy in was mismeasured (unlikely but not impossible) or the energy source was beyond chemical and likely of nuclear origin.

            That is what it means to me.

          • Ransompw says:

            And by the way, I already stated that this independent test does nothing more than raise the liklihood of a mystery, which is what is generating an unexpected thermal energy above known sources in the tested Hot Cat. I do however think this test clearly establishes the liklihood of this mystery. The cause, the mechinism is unknown.

      • Ransompw says:

        Oh, brother, you don’t think they would be more careful given the grief they took 2 years ago? And this is not Rossi’s report it is 7 scientists report.

        • John Milstone says:

          Oh, brother, you don’t think they would be more careful given the grief they took 2 years ago? And this is not Rossi’s report it is 7 scientists report.

          What grief?!? They have become heros to the “True Believers”. They have certainly received more attention and fame than at any other time in their lives.

          And, this very much is Rossi’s report. Rossi provided the facilities and test equipment, and set the parameters of the testing. He also hand-picked the testers.

    • JB says:

      I don’t know why it would be likely that Rossi has a LENR device, but it realy doesn’t matter. As long as Rossi doesn’t gives us all details so it can be repeated by anyone or that somebody that have had access to the technology show that the product is ready for the market, nobody will know.

  22. John Milstone says:

    Interesting comment from Ed Storms, over on the Vortex (LINK):

    I would have expected a thermocouple would have been placed on the device to check the measured temperature. I would have hoped the device would have been placed in a container from which the total power generated could be measured. These are not difficult or complicated things to do. Why are half measures repeatedly used? Why must we have to debate details that are easy to eliminate as issues?

    Of course, it never occurs to him that maybe it’s because if proper tests were performed, they would have negative results.

    I didn’t notice anything in the report that suggested that the authors had anything to do with the parameters of the tests. They simply observed a situation that had been set up and run by Rossi. There is also the fact that these “testers”, far from being independent, were hand-picked by Rossi.

    • dsm says:

      John

      The current question in my mind is was this report ‘officially’ released or was it ‘leaked’.

      All I can see at the moment is evidence it has been leaked ?. If leaked then we are right back to motives and the way Rossi conducts things.

      DSM

      • Ransompw says:

        DSM:

        It wasn’t leaked. It was presented to arXiv by Essen. It is a pre print and arXiv is a pre-print liabrary run by the Cornell University Library. It is not unusual for papers to appear there before publication. Go to Ecat World and click on the link, it will take you to the pre-print details.

        • H D says:

          The arXiv pre-print is also the first link in my post, no need to go to ecat-world for that.

          • Ransompw says:

            Sorry, I was posting from my phone and wasn’t sure where I saw it. Didn’t mean to suggest you hadn’t been thorough. You did a nice job describing the process. You explained arXiv earlier also, DSM may not have noticed.

            Given how this really did confirm much of what Rossi said about the process since November and how unexpected this confirmation was, the very bitter reaction by the skeptics crowd surprises me. It also aggravated me today, which prompted a few over the top posts. I mean they actually owe Rossi an appology at least on this issue. After all they called him every kind of liar for months associated with this issue. Yet it gives them absolutely no pause. Such is the magnitude of their biased position.

          • John Milstone says:

            After all they called him every kind of liar for months associated with this issue.

            Since Rossi has been every kind of liar for over 2 years, it’s reasonable to assume that he would continue that behavior.

            And, as I pointed out to your earlier rant, my prediction has (so far) been spot-on. Rossi did release a report that appears to be impressive, but fails when scrutinized.

            I now predict (as DSM did on this thread) that soon, in a month or less, the True Believers will be ignoring this report, just as they now ignore:

            Rossi’s lies about paying $500K to UniBo for imaginary testing in 2011.

            Rossi’s lies about having a contract with UniBo for imaginary testing in 2012.

            Rossi’s lies about National Instruments “working closely” with and “developing a controller” for his gadget.

            Rossi’s lies about having a robotic factory in Florida.

            Rossi’s lies about having provided E-Cats to U.L.

            The failure to show a working device to any credible and truly independent organization (NASA, Quantum, Swedish Institute).

            Etc., etc, etc.

  23. GreenWin says:

    Great Day in the neighborhood! IGZ-2013 as promised.

    • General Zaroff says:

      Greenwin, I am pleased to see you here. I tried to reach out to you and your friends over at ECW a week or two ago, but I failed miserably.

      Anyways, once everybody’s erection has worn off and you guys can think clearly rationally …whatever…again, could you please invite a few of the lemmings over here for some fun? I have plenty of stories left to share I just need the right audience.

      • GreenWin says:

        Generale Zarcofagus!

        The inspiration for our wildly successful IGZ-2013 program (now rating huge globally!) I am very sorry to have so little time to hang with the misanthropes here. Between the humorless Doug, Popee, Millstone et al, there is not enough here to warrant more than a brief stop-by to update you curmudgeons on E-Cat commercial progress.

        But please spin a yarn for ole timey sake. I promise to respond in my best pithy manner (check my Lubos Motl flame.) Hope all is well down at the river. Just remember, when G Bush said “all boats rise…” He didn’t mean yours.

        Happy hunting!

        • popeye says:

          GreenWin said on May 24, 2013 at 3:04 pm:

          there is not enough here to warrant more than a brief stop-by to update you curmudgeons on E-Cat commercial progress.

          Fortunately that doesn’t take any time at all. By the way, where are those “water heaters coming from a thousand startups and from DIY kits sold in Pop Mech/Science” that you saw a year ago? And did those “plans from Pirelli HS will prove beyond denial – there is a repeatable anomalous heat effect”, or have we forgotten about Pirelli now?

    • Andy Kumar says:

      Greenwin,

      What happened to IGZ-2012. Time dilation caused by LENR?
      Just kidding. Your enthusiasm for Rossi is admirable.

      -Andy

    • dsm says:

      Greenie

      In 2 months time all will be back to status quo and as Zaroff so elegantly put it, the ‘hard on'(s) & circle jerking will/should have fizzled out.

      Andrea is playing the pipe with another ‘magical’ air, yet again.

      Can you see yourself through someone else’s eyes ?.

      DSM

  24. General Zaroff says:

    OK, I haven’t read the full document yet (and in truth, I have no intention of doing that), but if anyone is interested in a good laugh, may I direct your attention to the references:
    [1] S. Focardi, R. Habel and F. Piantelli, Nuovo Cimento (Brief Notes) 107A (1994), 163.
    [2] S. Focardi et al., Nuovo Cimento 111A (1998), 1233.
    [3] S. Focardi and A. Rossi, internal report, 2010.
    [4] J.M. Coulson and J.F. Richardson, Chemical Engineering, 1999 (sixth edition),
    Butterworth Heinemann.
    [5] A. Bejan, A.D. Kraus, Heat Transfer Handbook, 2003, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
    [6] Optris, Basic principles of non-contact temperature measurement, http://www.optris.com.
    [7] 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.
    [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg
    [9] Nuova Magrini Galileo, Dossier Tecnico n°9, Determinazione della sovratemperatura in apparecchi sottoposti a sovracorrenti cicliche, Merlin Gerin

    I am honestly laughing as I type this….. are these distinguished professors so low on funds that not even one of them owns an optics textbook? 9 references, 2 of which are webpages and 3 involve Focardi. After a quarter century of CF/LENR research, shouldn’t there be a few more notable papers to cite in there?

    This document was never intended for publication in a serious journal. I am going to make the bold prediction that this “paper” gets “published” on JONP.

    Side note: Ransompw, I am glad to see you are back to your enthusiastic old self, just remember that if your erection lasts more than 4 hours you should see a doctor.

    • Ransompw says:

      General:

      Really weak even for you. Which is as expected, since I seriously doubt you are even smart enough to understand the paper. I think I’ll let the real scientific community decide whether to publish. I am sure you mean well but, but the real scientific community is probably looking for input from people familiar with something other than viagra.

  25. Ransompw says:

    Most of the crticism now seems to be that the 7 authors are just pawns, shills or dupes of Rossi. That isn’t even close to a real criticism, is based on nothing and suggests how little the pseudoskeptic community has found wrong with the study. Noticably absent has been Popeye (aka Joshu Cude on other sites). Popeye is thoughtful and careful (unlike other blowhards on this site like the General, Newman, Milstone, Oakthicket etc. who generally have nothing useful to say). Popeye will show up though. It has become his life’s work (debunking cold fusion) and you don’t give up on a life’s work.

    Bringing me to the point of this post. Popeye’s post when it comes will tell you the most about any real criticism of the study. It’s strength or weakness will be quite telling on the subject. Just how creative will he have to get and how much stretching will he have to do to achieve a criticism? Time will tell.

    • Bettingman says:

      Ransompw,
      I have trouble believing anything Rossi is saying. I think he is a con man. I have to admit I was convinced he was lying about the third party test. Well, that turned out to be true. Still I find Rossi very untrustworthy. I can’t help but thinking he has had those investigators fooled somehow. Of course I can’t be sure. I have no evidence for this. But I find myself having a seemingly incurable not believing Rossi sentiment.

      • Ransompw says:

        Rossi may be trying to develop and introduce a disuptive technology. Actually, considering that to be true and not false as you assume, explains a high degree of misleading information. It would be natural, especially if the inventor just couldn’t keep his mouth shut (which would be the preferred approach.) I think given this report and the very real possibility that Rossi actually has a pre-commercial disruptive technology, you should revisit the last two years and think about what you actually know about waht is going on and what you just think you know.

        Obviously, the events surrounding the tests were very similar to the missives Rossi gave out. Maybe some of the other missives are more accurate then you know.

        • John Milstone says:

          very real possibility that Rossi actually has a pre-commercial disruptive technology

          I wonder if the people who bought “franchises” from him, based on his statements that E-Cats would be shipping by May 2012 understand that this is “pre-commercial” in May 2013?

          • Ransompw says:

            I suspect if it turns out to be real and he can bring a product to market (which i still doubt) they will happily consider the delay well worth it. Delays in product introduction are so common anyone purchasing a license to sell a future product has to know that delay is not only possible but expected. And Milstone you really aren’t privy to any of it so what you really know about it is exactly nothing. That’s the problem with all of your comments. They are not based on the facts that count but only things that don’t.

          • John Milstone says:

            anyone purchasing a license to sell a future product has to know that delay is not only possible but expected.

            But they weren’t buying licenses for “future products”. According to Rossi, he’s been selling, and delivering them since November 2011.

            Of course, that is now exposed as a lie.

            You’re right that in the very unlikely event that Rossi actually does deliver a working device to a customer, all will be forgiven. But Rossi has claimed to have already done this several times, but for some reason can’t provide a shred of evidence that he has done so.

          • dsm says:

            RansomPW – you show a *total* and complete ignorance of a professional business process.

            1) YOU DO NOT SELL RESALE AGENCIES FOR A PRODUCT THAT NOT ONLY DOESN’T EXIST, BUT IS NOT ACCEPTED SCIENCE (what product trade shows prepared these resellers ?)

            2) YOU DO NOT CLAIM TO BE SHIPPING A PRODUCT THAT NO ONE HAS PURCHASED IN THE 2 YEARS THE CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE

            3) YOU DO NOT PUBLICLY CLAIM YOU HAVE MADE YOUR 1ST SALE 2 YEARS AFTER THE PRIOR CLAIM ONLY TO THEN MODIFY THIS CLAIM BY REVISING THE ‘CUSTOMER’ TO BEING AN UNNAMED ‘PARTNER’

            4) YOU DO NOT REPEATEDLY LIE IN YOUR PUBLIC STATEMENTS – NOT ABOUT ITS VIABILITY, ‘INDIPENDINT’ TESTS, ITS COMMERCIAL READINESS, AND WHO YOUR ‘PARTNERS’ ARE.

            Sheesh !

            DSM

        • Bettingman says:

          Well, I think it is Rossi’s behavior that leads me to me personal conviction that he is a con man. Even if I assume that he has something. Even then I find his behavior very strange. He could do several things. He could keep quiet and wait until he was ready. He could file a real patent (with some real content). He could just give his knowledge away and be famous (and probably have a secure future through that fame). He could team up with some big corpo or government. But he does none of that. He comes out into the open, does not tell anybody how he does it, does not file a patent with any value… So he is quite vulnerable to thieves and spies. That is strange. And his primary goal is to make water boilers in his own robotic factory? This is just beyond believe. At least beyond mine.

      • Anon2014 says:

        1) What Rossi means by an independent 3rd party test is not what is commonly meant by an independent 3rd party test. I don’t fault Rossi for it, but it is disappointing.

        2) The fact that Rossi is again publishing witness reports is good.

        I am of three hypotheses:

        1) Rossi is a actual fraud/con. I think this unlikely. I think Rossi believes his own work is real and he thinks he needs funds to develop.

        2) Rossi has an device that works somewhat, but is not a breakthrough. It may or may not be LENR/CF. It may be “chemical” and he is mis-reading the results after a hydrogen loadout / controlled burn. But the COP of <3 is underwhelming and he may never be able to commercialize it. We have no way to tell (and perhaps Rossi has no way tell) from his inadequate controlled experiments. However, as an entrepreneur, he is willing to raise publicity and funds with his marginal performance marginal results (what is really happening here — can't tell from the data). I can go into the weaknesses of this demonstration — they exist.

        3) Rossi has something that really does work and is a true breakthrough. I hope for this, but I am waiting for further evidence by true independent third parties with nothing hidden (like loading and unloading the device with fuel, or with black boxes in the experimental setup, or without proper calorimetry).

        I hope it is 3, or even 2, and I wish Rossi good luck as I wait for the story to unfold.

        P.S. Ransompw, I respect your views and I appreciate them as they add to the discussion and are different than mine and others. All sycophants = useless. Best!

        • Ransompw says:

          I agree with all you said except, the part about the weaknesses in the test.

          I would prefer more meat on the bone than simply a conclusion, so go ahead and elaborate, I think those are the real issues.

    • John Milstone says:

      I’ve already posted a critique of Essen’s comments regarding steam and Rossi’s 2011 dog & pony shows here:

      http://wavewatching.net/fringe/the-hot-cat-report/#comment-5075

      Levi has claimed to have seen a “secret” dog & pony show of the E-Cat with hugely successful results, but conveniently lost all data. I’m sure that’s no reason to question his honesty or competence.

      And, since Kullander is mentioned in this report, maybe he will finally release the “detailed isotopic analysis” of the ash from Rossi’s gadget, which he promised to do before Christmas, 2011.

    • JNewman says:

      The subtext of this little snarky diatribe is quite remarkable. Clearly you believe that there could be no legitimate criticism of this masterwork of science literature. Those of us who have commented so far and who have discussed the crude and insufficient methodology and controlled conditions are summarily ignored. According to you, even the still-respected Popeye will only be able to trump up some kind of contrived criticism of the article. In other words, this lame piece of shill work is, in your eyes, the word of god.

      With 40 breathless posts in 24 hours, Ransom, are you honestly unaware of how totally ridiculous you sound? No matter, keep up the string of insults. It is your stock in trade.

      • Ransompw says:

        Newman:

        You haven’t said jack S77T about anything. Everything you have said is conclusory. Go ahead let’s hear your careful and detailed critique of the tests performed. That should be good for a laugh.

        Let me give you a clue, just saying the methodology is crude and the control conditions insufficient doesn’t mean anything. Those are conclusions.

        What about the methodology would cause a significant error in the input or output measures? That is really what counts. Actually the simpler the methods the better. Go ahead what errors were made and by how much would the measures change. Enlighten us with your wise analysis.

        • JNewman says:

          Clamp-on ammeters and spot temperature measurements are not acceptable methods for establishing what is going in in this experiment. Even you must know that but are so anxious to vindicate Rossi that you will let anything slide. But there is no point in really trying to pick this paper apart. For whose benefit? As you would put it, you have already concluded.

          Personally, my only conclusion is that it is an inadequate measurement. Whether what was being measured was the real deal or not is, to be accurate, unknown. We only have Rossi’s dreadful track record to go by on that, which doesn’t help. His band of experts may be competent, but what they did was woefully inadequate. So until there is a genuine and intelligently conducted independent test of this thing, it is anyone’s guess what it really is. Your guess that it is an LENR reactor. My guesses that it is a tube furnace. Some day, we may find out.

          • Ransompw says:

            Newman:

            The spot temperature measurements were used as a control device, not a measuring device. In fact, Storms had mentioned a mild criticism about the tests because he didn’t think they used spot temperture measurements to in effect test the measures they were making. When he found out he hadn’t read closely enough he was happy to see that they had taken that verification step. Maybe in your haste you just didn’t read it closely enough.

            As for the clamp on ammeters, show me what error margin you think exists in that step. The clamps were placed after the control device and I haven’t seen anyone who doubts that the input measure from them is measurably inaccurate.

            Just because they did it at Rossi’s facility doesn’t mean the steps taken weren’t sufficient. If you think Rossi was inputting energy beside the wires going to the device just say so, there is absolutely no proof but then again that is what your criticism is based on. Your imagination.

          • JNewman says:

            Ransom, enough already. You are satisfied and thrilled with the results. Good for you. Go celebrate. I am not here to dissuade you of your beliefs. Cheers.

          • popeye says:

            Clamp on meters don’t detect dc, so any level of error is possible. There is no indication an oscilloscope was used.

          • Frank says:

            Hall effect type clamp meter are able to measure DC also, but – of course – they have to be set to the correct measuring range. Current transformer type clamp on Amp-meters can’t measure DC.
            I think the report doesn’t say which ones were used.
            And see the link in my reply (further down of this thread) for a picture taken from the instrument during the December test.

          • Frank says:

            Checked on the Internet the specification of the PCE-830 instrument. – It is meant for measuring 50 or 60 Hz AC systems, not for DC
            http://www.industrial-needs.com/technical-data/power-anlayser-PCE-830.htm

  26. Jamiwithnewmailid says:

    Lubos Motl has commented on the paper:

    http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html

    He’s basically homing in on the black-body assumption (calculating a COP of roughly 1 himself), the overall style of the paper and the practically non-existent credentials of the authors.

    • JNewman says:

      Too bad the author spends so much time being scornful and belittling. In between the abuse, he also makes complete mincemeat of the paper. But that doesn’t much matter. The paper is for the faithful and they buy it hook, line and sinker.

      • Bettingman says:

        JNewman,
        I do not understand what Lubos Motl is saying about the measurement of the heat radiation, or the conclusion based on those measurements. He is criticising it, that I understand. Can you give it a try?

        • JNewman says:

          The radiated energy from the device under test was calculated (not measured) by use of the Stefan Boltzmann law. This is an equation that relates the radiant energy of a black body to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. A black body is a theoretical object that absorbs all incident radiation which is expressed as the object having emissivity of one. Real objects have emissivities lower than one; e.g., some radiation at some frequencies is reflected.

          In practice, this is a difficult way to accurately measure energy. It requires precise knowledge of the surface area of the object emitting the radiation, precise knowledge of the temperature and precise knowledge of emissivity. Some of this sensitivity can be avoided by careful use of a control sample in an experiment.

          Motl’s blog points out, among other things, that the Levi article assumes an emissivity of one as “a conservative number”, as if using a lower number would increase the energy of the device. This is completely backwards. As was the case in the MFMP results, using Stefan Boltzmann to infer energy is fraught with potential errors and in this case, the authors do not seem to really understand those sources of error. That alone casts doubts on their results.

          • John Milstone says:

            It’s worth noting that Stefan Boltzmann is used primarily for cases when it is impossible to use “better” methods. A good example is estimating the energy produced by a star.

            To use it to measure something sitting right in front of you is suspicious. It’s sort of like trying to measure someone’s weight by measuring how much the carpeting on which they are standing is deflected. Why not just drag out a scale?

          • JNewman says:

            When done “properly”, the carpet sagging method provides much more pleasant results than the scale, especially if the carpet is stiff and dirty.

          • Bettingman says:

            Jnewman, Thank for explaining.

            So the calculation in the report that gives the energy produced by the device is wrong? And probably too high?

          • Ransompw says:

            Newman:
            You are an idiot. And Motil is an even bigger idiot. As it so happens, believe it or not, I actually use thermal imaging equipment. Do you even know how it works?

            The camera takes the infrared image of the object and converts it to a temperature. Guess how it arrives at the temperature? Any clue?

            It converts the image using emissivity. Do you know what emissivity is? Well it happens to be the efficientcy of the surface of an object to radiate energy. Guess which bodies radiate energy the best? Well I will give you a guess, the skin is pretty good and shiny metals are pretty bad. By the way do you have any idea how the camera gets the emissivity of the body it is filming? Right, YOU NEED TO INPUT IT. Guess what happens if you input an emissivity of one (perfect black body) and the object you are filming is a shiny metal? Do you think the camera will overestimate the temperature or underestimate the temperature? You BOZO, it will dramatically UNDERESTIMATE the temperature. If Motil is right and the actual emissivity of this body was much lower than 1., the temperature calculations would be much much lower than the actual temperature. In this case the actual temperature of the reactor would have been much higher.

            Of course they also did spot tests to see if the assumed emissivity was correct as well as placing an actual thermocouple on a spot to determine if the emissivity was reasonable, which it was.

            The big problem with Motil, other than he is biased, is that because he is biased, he makes stuff up without thinking. If the camera has already converted the temperature reading to a black body emissivity, then it already adjusted the temperature. You can’t then use a different emissivity on the Stefan Boltzmann calculation or you would have effectively adjusted twice for the emissivity. You would radically under value the thermal Radiation.

            By the way the reactor was painted pursuant to observation and any paint will cause the emmisivity to be pretty high.

            Finally, the only issue with use of the thermal camera’s is that there is a thing called Metamaterials which can exceed an emissivity of 1. If it was painted with this type of material, it is conceivable that the measure could be inflated, but not much and frankly, from what I know of those materials, I don’t think that criticism is material.

          • JNewman says:

            Since I am a bozo and an idiot, I shouldn’t be arguing with a genius. With your profound knowledge, it is truly a waste that you practice law (although evidently not very often.)

          • 123star says:

            I think that if you declare a lower emissivity in the camera software, the temperature reported by the camera will increase (this is what I think Levi means). So setting the emissivity equal to 1 you get the lowest estimate for the temperature (a “conservative” estimate).

            This has to do with the actual IR camera physics.
            After reading a bit, I realized that a typical IR camera can’t distinguish between different wavelengths (i.e. it can’t do spectrometry), but the pixels inside the camera just measure the total incident radiation within the IR range of sensitivity.
            In other words the camera for every pixel computes an integral of the power spectrum, in the range (lambda_min… lambda_max) in the sensitivity range.
            So a greybody (emissivity <1) at a temperature T will lead to a smaller total incident radiation with respect to a blackbody.
            This is clearly suggested by the SB formula. The total radiation is proportional to emissivity.
            P = (area)*emissivity*sigma*T^4.
            So the camera must compensate for the loss in the incident power by increasing the temperature estimate.

            Note: you can just imagine that the pixel were sensitive to the whole EM spectrum, too.

            The crucial part is the final power calculation, When they continue to use emissivity=1.
            P = (area)*emissivity*sigma*T^4.
            Here setting emissivity=1 leads to an overestimation, as noted by JNewman.
            I think that the potential overestimate of the output power due to setting emissivity equal to 1* in the final power calculation with the SB formula is much more important than the influence of the potential underestimate of the
            temperature measurement with the camera.
            So overall, setting emissivity=1 probably leads to an overestimation of the output power.

            *Some black glossy paints have emissivities as low as 0.10
            http://www.redrok.com/concept.htm

          • Ransompw says:

            Newman:

            You clearly shouldn’t be arguing about something you don’t understand. Come on big shot scientist explain why Motil is right and I am wrong.

          • John Milstone says:

            Bettingman, if you would prefer not to depend on a lawyer to provide your physics education, here is a link to a more reasonable comment by Jones Benne over on Vortex:

            http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg80348.html

            Note that he is a “believer” but not a nut-job.

            I think it’s fair to say that if Rossi is honest, then the report is probably “good enough” to eliminate honest error. But given Rossi’s history of lying and fraud, why would anyone accept the assumption that he’s being honest?

            Since Rossi provided the facilities and the test equipment, as well as defining what tests could and could not be performed, he boxed in the testers so that they could only reach the conclusion he wanted them to reach. Most researchers would not have allowed themselves to be put into such a position, and we see that Rossi is relying on the same small group that he used this way before.

          • General Zaroff says:

            Wow thanks for the physics lesson Professor Ransom. I guess the rest of us just never understood how anything like that worked.

            But in all seriousness, hiring an ethnic hooker who lets you wear night vision goggles while you “study” her black body does not really constitute the sort of experience with thermal imaging technology that is required to conduct a proper physics experiment.

          • Ransompw says:

            General:

            I see you have no answer either other then insults. It really is amazing how a lawyer knows more about these things than you so called scientists. Makes me wonder whether your professed education is all just a farce. In your case General, that is only too obvious.

          • JNewman says:

            Ransom, 123star explained why you are barking up the wrong tree with your expertise in IR cameras. Anyway, you don’t actually want to discuss science. You want to throw sand in people’s faces and call them poopy-heads. So go ahead and knock yourself out. You are truly a wonder to behold.

          • H D says:

            John Milstone, wasn’t aware of “cavity emissivity” paint. Very interesting.

          • LCD says:

            ROTFL

            A forever recorded example of why JNewman shuld never be believed.

            The IR camera was handled right by the testers, exactly how Ransomp pointed out.

            How does it feel to be schooled in science by a lawyer JNewman.

            Dont feel to bad, Lubos made the same mistake and now he wont let anybody post on the thread. By now he’s probably feeling really stupid.

      • H D says:

        Too bad the author spends so much time being scornful and belittling.

        That’s Lubos for you. Seems to be wired into his DNA. Hearsay has is that his personality, whenever his button’s are pushed, was just too abrasive for Harvard.

        But at any rate, for somebody like Lubos to spend any time on this goes to show that this is garnering some attention outside the LENR dark net.

        • LCD says:

          Too bad his ignorance of IR cameras is forever plastered all over the internet.

          First rate Jackass with the insult of Dorigo, who i guess felt so bad at endorsing the experiment that he later recanted even though he was right the first time.

          Folks this is a perfect example of pseudoskepticism.

  27. John Milstone says:

    It really is amazing how a delusional lawyer thinks he knows more about these things than you so called scientists.

    There, fixed it for you!

  28. maryyugo says:

    “I think that if you declare a lower emissivity in the camera software, the temperature reported by the camera will increase”

    The problem with assuming that the emissivity was in error is that they made a calibration run using the same outer tube. That (which they call a “dummy” run) is not a true calibration but it does demonstrate that they can account for the input power.

    One strange thing about that control run is that it’s done at DC while the experimental run is done with the pulsing device turned on. But anyway, if they are mismeasuring the emissivity, their control run would have been way off, would it not?

    Don’t get me wrong. I think Rossi is cheating. I just don’t know how and I am not convinced emissivity is it.

    Maybe focus on the control run. What’s wrong with it?

    Ransom said “You are an idiot. And Motil is an even bigger idiot. “

    Gee, counselor, that is so persuasive. Do you argue that way in court? You must please your clients a lot that way. The judges too!

    “In practice, this is a difficult way to accurately measure energy. It requires precise knowledge of the surface area of the object emitting the radiation, precise knowledge of the temperature and precise knowledge of emissivity. Some of this sensitivity can be avoided by careful use of a control sample in an experiment. “

    That’s the thing though — they did use a control run. He doesn’t address that, does he? Why not? You have to!

    • Ransompw says:

      Maryyugo:

      Rossi didn’t do the tests and if he is cheating, he did it in such a way as to fool the 7 authors who performed the test. Suggesting otherwise is repugnant and I think very insulting to individuals who don’t deserve such acqusations (especially without any proof).

      That to some extent limits the possibilities.

      • John Milstone says:

        Rossi didn’t do the tests and if he is cheating, he did it in such a way as to fool the 7 authors who performed the test.

        Since Rossi supplied the facilities and the test equipment, limited the allowable tests and picked the testers, he did a very good job of boxing in the testers.

        I notice you didn’t [answer] to my earlier post HERE which shows just how incompetent Essen’s earlier efforts to judge Rossi’s previous gadget really was.

        Levi, similarly, supposedly watched a test that would have removed all doubts, but he lost the data and refused to re-do the test.

        And Kullander (who was mentioned in the report) still hasn’t released the “detailed isotopic analysis” of the “ash” from Rossi’s gadget, even though he promised to do so before Christmas 2011.

        Given all that, there is every reason to doubt several of the authors of the report.

      • JNewman says:

        There will be much dissecting of this report over the coming days and weeks As for the competence and/or honesty of the investigators, we have no real basis to judge. If I were to judge entirely on the basis of what specific methodology they employed to do their tests, I would deem them to be rather incompetent if not dishonest in selecting such a flaky approach to the problem. However, we are not privy to the ground rules of their test. They may have had no real choice as to what they could measure and how, so that they simply did the best they could under the circumstances.

        So I see there as two choices of what to believe: either these guys really have no clue as to how to investigate what Rossi’s gadget really does or they were trapped in a situation of Rossi’s making and tried their best. A third idea – that this is how you would investigate a revolutionary new energy source – is not one that anyone with any knowledge would offer unless they are a hopeless Rossi apologist.

        In any case, the report is the report. I find it hard to imagine that anyone who isn’t already a believer will be persuaded by it. But we shall see.

        • Ransompw says:

          Newman:

          I disagree with your assessment. I don’t think you have any basis for saying that thermal imaging is less reliable than calorimetry.

          Find something that supports that opinion. What is your basis? Personally, I think thermal imaging saves the step of converting the energy and thus is ultimately much more reliable. The main gripe I hear is from those that don’t understand it.

          • JNewman says:

            The fundamental problem is that thermal imaging does not measure energy. It measures temperature. You are busy arguing whether it is an accurate measure of temperature. That is not the most important issue.

            The key issue is that in order to come to some conclusion about whether an interesting physical process is going on (how’s that for neutral language?) one would like to accurately know how much energy was being put into the system and how much was coming out. The experiment performed did a poor job of both. A clamp-on ammeter only measures AC current; there could have been any amount of DC current around. The SB analysis used was not a measure of energy; it is a dicey (because of the geometry, inhomogeneities, and methodology) technique based on a temperature measurement. All of it is a roundabout and dubious way to figure out the thing that you really want to measure.

            Is it fraud? Is it wrong? Is it correct? I have no idea. All I know is that it is a lousy way to try to prove something that is controversial at best. As a result, I contend that it serves no purpose except to please those who already were convinced. Whether you find it compelling or even encouraging is really irrelevant. If you think it changes anything for those who weren’t already believers, I think you are mistaken. If you are correct, it will be quite interesting to hear from such people.

      • maryyugo says:

        “Rossi didn’t do the tests and if he is cheating, he did it in such a way as to fool the 7 authors who performed the test.”
        *
        I agree with you about Kullander and Essen. I don’t trust Levi as far as I can throw his chubby body and the rest of the people I don’t know at all.

        And, according to Essen via Krivit (see the link I provided below), most of the actual work was not done by people not well known and/or closely related to Rossi.

        I am quite convinced this is just another clever cheat to follow misplaced thermocouples and dry steam that was wetter than a soaked puppy. At the moment, I don’t have a clue what the trick was. But I am reasonably certain there was one.

        • LCD says:

          Your are reasonably certain but don’t have a clue…hmmm.

          Anywayz MY I detect your starting to soften up a bit.

          “There is still good in you, I can feel it.”

          The IR camera was handled correctly, the crosschecked thermocouple and the calibration with boiling water assured that.

          The emissivity issue could have been devastating if they had handled it the other way but they made the correct conservative estimate and Lubos has officially made a huge blunder.

  29. Ransompw says:

    Newman:

    123Star’s explaination is right. Accept, I don’t think the use of emissivity of 1 for both estimates creates a material error but using an emissivity of one for estimating the temperature using the thermal imaging camera and then and emissivity of less then 1 for the SB formula surely would create material error and it would obviously lower the estimated thermal Radiation.

    What 123Star is saying is that if the emissivity is .3 and that is used for both inputting the emissivity in the thermal camera and calculating the SB formula, you will get a much reduced estimate of thermal energy then if you use 1. for both. I don’t think that is true and if 123star has a cite, I do always love to learn.

    The problem is, they did test the emissivity and I think the notion that it was materially different than 1 is untrue based on the report, so the suggestion is at odds with the data in any event.

    • JNewman says:

      Bravo! An entire post without calling somebody an idiot. This is what we call having a discussion.

    • maryyugo says:

      The real “problem” is that they used a dummy run (control/calibration) which *purports* to prove that the measurement method is accurate… WHATEVER it is and WHATEVER assumptions it makes. That’s what controls and calibrations do!

      Somehow, Rossi bamboozled the dummy run as well as the experimental ones.

      Maybe a clue is in who did what with which and to whom, as narrated by Essen via Krivit.

      Worth reading:

      http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/

      • Ransompw says:

        All I see from Krivit is an unsubstantiated hachet job. The dialogue with Essen is unrevealing, except, suprise it was not Rossi’s equipment as Milstone keeps contending. Rossi was not present during the tests. Rossi didn’t calibrate the equipment. And the tests were paid for by other than Rossi. Seems independent to me. Other than being at Rossi’s facility, I really don’t see an issue. with independence.

        The other two criticism seem to be that it was in essence a black box test, (which Maryyugo once stated was perfectly acceptable) and that instead of calorimetry, which I contend is absolutely frought with a myriad of problems(as evidenced by the problems with the earlier demonstrations and measurements), thermal imaging was used to calculate enregy output. Frankly, I think it is probably just as reliable and maybe more reliable than the typical calorimetry. Especially, for the levels and differences reported.

    • 123star says:

      OK. I thought about this a bit more and I concluded that following my own reasoning about IR cameras’ pixel physics*, the computed power output is independent of the choice of emissivity, as long as you use the same value for the IR camera temperature evaluation and the final output power calculation (!).
      So if what I wrote about emissivity correction is right, the correction of the temperature measured by the camera is:
      T-> T*emissivity^(-1/4)
      But when you plug this back to the SB formula,
      P = area*emissivity*sigma*( T* emissivity ^ (-1/4))^4 = area*sigma*T^4.
      So in the final result emissivity goes away and the result is emissivity independent.
      Thoughts? Mistakes?

      * i.e.
      1)Pixels are just measuring the total incident IR power
      and
      2)The total power (integrated) is direcly proportional to emissivity

      • 123star says:

        I’d appreciate if someone could confirm that the correction used in IR cameras goes indeed by (emissivity)^(-1/4). I’d be happy to be wrong… again :)

        @maryyugo
        I think that Rossi is cheating somehow, too. As I wrote at ecatnews months ago, a trick involving the power supply would be… quite unimaginative, to say the least. I would have expected something more clever. :)

        • John Milstone says:

          a trick involving the power supply would be… quite unimaginative, to say the least. I would have expected something more clever.

          Most magic tricks are simpler than the audience would ever guess.

          Regarding the electric, I haven’t been able to determine whether that metal framework was grounded in some way, and whether anyone bothered to check for unexpected voltage levels between it and the power supply.

          Of course, since the testers appear to trust Rossi, I doubt that they would insult him and risk his wrath by doing so.

          And, as MY mentioned, it would be worth considering whether the “dummy” was gimmicked in some way. It might be easier to fake a too-low reading on that to make the “real” E-Cat seem to be producing more power than it actually was producing.

        • popeye says:

          123star:

          No, according to a document by the manufacturer, it’s not simply ^1/4, because they only measure a part of the spectrum, meaning the effective exponent depends on the wavelength. That’s why, when you use the temperatures in the spreadsheet when e = 0.8 is used, and calculate the power using S_B, you get a different value of the power.

          • 123star says:

            Ok, I see now!
            For the camera pixel the integral of the incident power is also a function of the “maximum and minimum wavelength” so to speak. It’s not simply proportional to T^4. So there’s still some space for some IR thermometry tricks! As you said emissivity can also vary wildly for different wavelengths, especially for metals.

  30. popeye says:

    Yet another unrefereed, sub-par cold fusion claim to add to the pile of unrefereed sub-par cold fusion claims. Only this is is an unrefereed, sub-par cold fusion claim made with a black box that no one else has access to. Pitiful.

    I’m amazed that this has caused such excitement among true believers. It will be amusing if this all comes crashing down like the wet steam claims did. The 2011 demos got Rothwell and Storms and others to say Rossi was the be-all in cold fusion, but a year or so later, Rothwell was back to citing McKubre’s 1994 paper as the best evidence for cold fusion. It all just shows the incredible bias among true believers for any kind of a scrap of good news that they can rally around to feed their euphoria a little longer. And Storms’ support for the 2011 demos served to show him as gullible as the rest of the true believers.

    What has changed with this new report? Before we had Levi, Essen, Kullander, and Focardi writing unrefereed reports published on-line claiming that Rossi has demonstrated a source of energy beyond chemical, and Pettersson giving his verbal support, and Levi reporting a secret experiment that verified the ecat without steam. Now we have Levi, Essen, Pettersson, and a couple of new Swedish professors (Uppsala’s shame!) writing an unrefereed report of a secret experiment published on-line claiming that Rossi has demonstrated a source of energy beyond chemical.

    Ransompw argues that nothing would satisfy skeptics, but such a statement could only be justified if this paper had somehow met the criteria suggested by the skeptics. That has not happened. He says skeptics have been certain no report would get “published”, and while some have suspected that, most (or at least I) have said that if it did, it would be lame. Here’s what I said on April 7:

    … I don’t see [it] as being very *unlikely* [that] “Tests were done by allegedly independent 3rd parties, [and] clear evidence of LENR and COP enough for a commercial product were claimed. ”

    Allegedly independent 3rd parties could simply be some little-known academics. But we already know from the BLP history that statements from such academics mean squat. Especially if the academics appear to be recruited […] [E]ven if the statement is definite, a scientific revolution will need more to go on than trust in a few recruited academics. Individual academics, especially those at or near the end of their careers, with unremarkable reputations, have essentially nothing to lose by being wrong. In fact, if Rossi pays consulting fees, they may have a lot to gain. [It's not, as some have said, P&F again, because no one is paying attention, and so no one will notice if they get it wrong.]

    Skeptics have been asking for independent validation, but reports about a black box from a few (or even a dozen) individuals is not that.

    For exactly the same reason, it is unlikely a prominent journal will publish claims of a new phenomenon that can’t be tested by its audience. So, if a report is published, it will be in a small-time journal, and no matter how detailed, if it’s a black-box test, it still relies on trust.

    So what is needed? The best would be if the details of the reactor were disclosed so others could test the claims, but of course that won’t happen. Next best would be if the reactor were made available on request, so it could be tested by anyone. Also won’t happen. Third best would be a public demonstration involving some experts who are on the record as being skeptical, and which is really transparent. With an energy density a million times higher than dynamite, this should not be difficult. A completely and obviously isolated device that produced unequivocal heat many times its total weight in chemical fuel would do the trick (and should be trivial).

    Failing those, the only sort of validation that would have an impact is one in which the independence is truly transparent, and the consequences of being wrong are significant. This would be the case, for example, if Rossi had an open invitation to major national laboratories to run the test, and one or more openly and voluntarily sent a team for the purpose. Any labs that offer to perform the test and are turned down would be in a position to report that publicly. National labs or even university endorsed teams have a lot more to lose than a few academics acting on their own. This is less than perfect, but it would certainly draw a lot of attention. But I’m pretty sure that’s not gonna happen either. Alas.

    Whatever happens in the next month or two, it will almost certainly have no significant impact on mainstream science, and at most a ripple on the mainstream media. A year from now, LENR and the ecat will be in exactly the same place they are now, which is exactly where they were a year ago, and where they were 2 years ago. There will be an eager internet following expecting something big real soon now, but the rest of the world will remain more or less oblivious.

    So, what has happened falls short of every criteria I considered that would make it significant, and met precisely those criteria I said beforehand would fall short. The authors are little-known academics, acting without the backing of their institutions, and they certainly appear to have been hand-picked, 3 of them being previous supporters of obviously flawed demos. They published in an unrefereed journal, and of course, it’s a black-box test.

    We are asked to accept a revolution in physics based on trust of these few people. Trust that they have not been fooled by Rossi, that they are not complicit in deception, and that they are competent to validate the technology. We have already seen that Levi, Essen, and Pettersson are not competent, and the present paper (about which I’ll say more separately) suggests none of the authors are. If you can think of a similar revolution that was widely accepted based on this sort of charade, please let me know what it was.

    —-

    On the other hand, one wonders if there is any kind of a report that ransompw and other true believers would *not* have gotten behind, as long as the upshot was a thumbs up for cold fusion. He said on the same April 7: “Now if most reasonable scientists have a problem with the methodology, I think it will be clear based on who did the testing and where it is published. And if it is the same old Rossi BS, it won’t mean squat to me either.”

    Well, several of the authors are the usual suspects, and it seems like the same old Rossi BS, and it was published in an unrefereed journal, so why does it mean more than squat to you now? You clearly paid no attention to the content, other than the upshot when you said: “I for one am satisfied that reasonably independent and competent individuals are supporting Rossi’s claim. That I think is the most compelling aspect of this report.” We have no idea about the independence, so it is not an independent validation. That would require a public invitation to allow skeptics to volunteer publicly to test the device using independent facilities. Could you describe a report that you would have considered too weak to take seriously? Clearly the threshold is somewhere between Levi et al publishing on JONP, and Levi et al publishing on arXiv, but for the life of me, I don’t see a significant difference, except that there were witnesses to what he reported in JONP.

    • Ransompw says:

      Popeye:

      The above is silly, either critique the test or not.

      I have no reason to question Essen any more than you. You are biased beyond the pale, so nothing you say about the ethics, qualifications or bias of others makes much differnece to me.

      If it was only Levi doing the test, I might be convinced to consider your point. But four individuals from Uppsala and Essen. Sorry, I don’t by the idea that they are falsifying the data or shilling for Rossi. I certainly don’t buy the idea that they are incompetent anymore than you.

      I don’t think Rossi would let someone like you on his property and if he is picking who to alow to test his device it is his perogative. I am sure he wouldn’t trust someone like you. Would you falsify a study of his device, I hope not, but why should Rossi pick someone dead set aginst the notion of LENR. Sorry, I don’t buy the above. Nice an eloquent, you must have been working on it since the report surfaced, but deviod of anything of substance.

      Please post your critique of the test and try to do better than Motil.

      • John Milstone says:

        Sorry, I don’t by the idea that they are falsifying the data or shilling for Rossi.

        Essen clearly, by his own admission, wasn’t competent to judge the “wet steam” issue with Rossi’s 2011 tests. And yet, he cheerfully proclaimed Rossi’s gadget legitimate.

        Rossi has a handful of willing dupes. He doesn’t need their complicity to feed them bogus data and conclusions and let them regurgitate them. He proved that in 2011.

      • popeye says:

        Ransompw said on May 21, 2013 at 5:14 pm

        I have no reason to question Essen any more than you.

        It’s not about that. Mother Theresa could make those claims, and I would be skeptical. So could Steve Koonin. It’s the nature of scientific claims. If they can’t be checked, especially if they are extraordinary, they are worthless to most people.

        You are biased beyond the pale, so nothing you say about the ethics, qualifications or bias of others makes much differnece to me.

        No one’s forcing you to read my posts. But the bias is really on the believer’s side. There is no report you wouldn’t have embraced, as long as it was written by academics, no matter where it was published, and no matter what was in it, by your own statement, as long as it endorsed your favorite pseudoscience.

        If it was only Levi doing the test, I might be convinced to consider your point. But four individuals from Uppsala and Essen. Sorry, I don’t by the idea that they are falsifying the data or shilling for Rossi. I certainly don’t buy the idea that they are incompetent anymore than you.

        You’re free to believe them based on their reputations. But the world of science needs evidence. And testimony is not evidence. Evidence has to be something that can be checked. This can’t be.

        • Ransompw says:

          The world of science is actually by in large irrelevent. I can’t imagine for example in this case it matters in the least what they think. Science turned its back on this subject long ago. It matters little to science what evidence is presented until they have no choice. If it turns out to be real it will do so in spite of science. At which time science will embrace it belatedly and act like it was always part the program. More the shame.

          • popeye says:

            Ransompw said on May 21, 2013 at 8:45 pm:

            The world of science is actually by in large irrelevent. I can’t imagine for example in this case it matters in the least what they think. Science turned its back on this subject long ago. It matters little to science what evidence is presented until they have no choice. If it turns out to be real it will do so in spite of science. At which time science will embrace it belatedly and act like it was always part the program. More the shame.

            I have no idea what you’re trying to say. Science would not take a claim like this seriously whether or not P&F had happened. It took P&F seriously because they (or at least F) were distinguished, and complete disclosure was expected as soon as their paper was published. No secret proprietary recipes, no black boxes, no boxes off-limits. Whether science is relevant or not, that’s the reason this paper will likely be ignored, and that’s why skeptics don’t simply accept it. And you do seem overly concerned about what skeptics here think about it.

          • JNewman says:

            Popeye, you have to understand that Ransom apparently thinks that LENR is something that will be decided by argumentation as opposed to physical observation. So he is determined to help LENR win. If he can get the half dozen vocal skeptics here to surrender to his endless verbal attacks, then LENR will be victorious. Meanwhile, it will continue to have absolutely no impact on the real world apart from being an effective strategy for conning saps out of their money.

    • H D says:

      Popeye you write:

      They published in an unrefereed journal.

      What journal is that? Or do you count arXiv as some sort of journal?

  31. popeye says:

    A few thoughts about the paper itself, and why it fails to convince me.

    1.
    As already mentioned, it’s a black box test performed by selected scientists in secret. Of course, a black-box test is no impediment to proving the ecat is real, as many of us have argued. But a black-box test must be more than a secret experiment presented in a written report. That’s enough for a completely disclosed experiment, because then *anyone* skilled in the art can check the claims independently, and of course, that’s how most discoveries reach the mainstream. But no one can check this result, and that’s why most prominent journals would reject it as a scientific paper. A black-box experiment must either be openly performed with obvious controls, or must be available to any qualified team for testing. From that point of view, the 2011 demos were better than this, because it was at least semi-open, constraining to some extent what they could get away with. The problem there was that the reported observations themselves (except Levi’s secret experiment) did not support the claims.

    I repeated this point from the previous post, but this above all, is key. Even if the report were impeccable in every way, it would still require trust, and no revolution should rely on the trust of a few men, no matter how respectable. The report is just not enough. In that sense, the rest of the points are superfluous, but they do make the idea of incompetence or Rossi constraints more likely than complicity (which would be accompanied by a more flawless effort).

    2.
    This is clearly not an independent test in the sense that the testers did not appear to choose the protocol or the methods. It was already running when they arrived. That means Rossi picked the protocol, and he was clearly involved because when it came time to inspect the inside, he took it off premises to remove the powder and then brought it back. This is important, because I don’t think serious scientists would do the experiment in the way it was done, as Storms has lamented.

    3.
    As with many cold fusion claims, the biggest weakness is not apparent from blatant errors detectable in the written report, especially when it can’t *in principle* be checked, but from what could be so easily shown if the claims were valid, but isn’t. One example of an openly performed experiment with obvious controls would be a truly isolated, self-sustaining device that heats enough water, or lifts a heavy object (like a truck) to prove that it generates at least a few times its own weight in chemical energy. Given the factor of a million in energy density of nuclear reactions over chemical, this should be rather easy. The amount of energy claimed could heat a 1000L hot tub to boiling (twice in the first run). It should be especially easy to make it self-sustaining in the case of the ecat, where the reaction is initiated by heat, and it is claimed to generate several times more heat (as much as 5 times, in one case). Like combustion, if that were really true, it would self-sustain, and I think most serious scientists would find it difficult to accept such a claim if they have to keep the thing plugged in. The ludicrous suggestion that the on-off cycles represent self-sustaining is one illustration of the incompetence of the authors. Enough has been said about thermal mass to make their comments on the subject look foolish.

    4.
    But no, as in all limitless energy claims, there’s *always* input, and, par for the course, the input power is comically vague. Between the need for 3 phase input, clamp meters (which don’t detect dc bias), industrial trade secret waveform, a power shaping box not available for inspection, and the completely superfluous on/off cycling, it all looks like excuses to slip one past them, and that’s the most likely source of the biggest deception. What kind of power supply that consumes less than 1 kW needs a 3-phase input? Independent scientists would have insisted on more careful scrutiny of the input. Certainly the input line(s) were more than capable of carrying any power output that was claimed. And what if that on/off cycling sat on a dc bias, so the average power going in was much higher. The input to the supply was monitored, but presumably only on one of the phases (in any case, the paper gives no details of the input measurement), so there is clearly room for some deception here.

    If they do have to provide input power to run the ecat, then it should be in an obviously finite way. For example, the batteries in a Chevy volt could supply the power for half of the first run on one charge.

    5.
    IR thermometry and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation? Seriously? No competent independent scientist would agree to validate a claimed revolution in physics by measuring total heat in this way. They’ve spent months on the experiment. How hard could it be to enclose the thing and do proper flow calorimetry on it? It’s gonna have to be done to exploit the heat, unless you only use it as a space heater.

    The question of emissivity is not trivial, especially for metals. In the first experiment, they claim to take unity as a conservative value, and justify this (prove it, they say) by assigning 0.8 and 0.95 and finding the software gives a higher temperature reading. The camera actually measures power directly, and converts to temperature using the supplied emissivity, so when you convert back to power using emissivity, it should cancel. Unfortunately, the power is measured over a very limited part of the spectrum, and so it has to infer the total power by fitting to Planck’s curve, and that depends on emissivity, and therefore, the actual dependence of the final power on the emissivity will depend on the emissivity itself. And even then, the instrument makes a grey body assumption (wavelength independent emissivity), which does not apply to metals. So it is far from clear what the measurements mean if the emissivity were 0.2 or less, as is common for metals, and even some paints. Rossi could well have chosen a paint that erred in his favor for the first test, where the COP is about 5.

    In the second test, they used different paint and made some attempt to determine the emissivity and to check the temperature with a thermocouple, but for some reason, only at temperatures (245C) below the operating temperature (300C). This is better, but it’s still error-prone. And this run got a COP of less than 3, and used trickier input.

    As Storms has said: “These are not difficult or complicated things to do (using calorimetry e.g.). Why are half measures repeatedly used? Why must we have to debate details that are easy to eliminate as issues?” I think the obvious reason is that when full measures are used, the effect disappears, and no one hears about it.

    6.
    Are these independent scientists really too daft to insist on mass measurements that mean something? In the first run, they couldn’t measure the ecat beforehand because it was already running (i.e. Rossi started it!), but they measured another “perfectly similar device” — really it was; Rossi said so. Then they said they learned from the experience, but in the second run they don’t report weighing it beforehand either. In the second run they weigh it after, and then let Rossi make off with it to remove the powder, and use the difference as the mass of the fuel.

    In neither case do we have any idea of the mass of the fuel, other than the fact that it had to fit inside the cylinder. That probably still doesn’t explain the claimed energy with a chemical fuel, but it might take a little heat off any input misrepresentation Rossi slipped by them.

    7.
    The power density claims seem implausible and suggest the authors didn’t really think about them. Nuclear sources do not necessarily produce high power densities, and in fact, the power density in a fission plant is typically lower than in a fossil fuel plant. That’s because the temperature in the core has to be kept below the melting point of the fuel. When you burn coal, there’s no such constraint. A nuclear plant is designed to remove the heat from the core as rapidly as possible, and if I read it right, a 1 GW plant uses about 200t of Uranium, for a power density of 5 kW/kg. That’s 100 time lower than they’re claiming for Ni-H, which has a much lower melting point. The rate of heat removal depends on the temperature difference, so it seems implausible that such a power density is possible without vastly exceeding the melting point of the nickel.

    Furthermore, to suggest it exceeds conceivable chemical power densities is nonsense. The power density of TNT is 10^8 kW/kg, 200 times higher than they claim. This is an explosive release of course, but still.

    The power density is neither here nor there, when it comes to claiming nuclear reactions, and the Ragone plot is silly. It’s all about energy density. But the power density reveals that they have been careless, unless I’ve made some grievous error above.

    8.
    The total energy claimed, if true, certainly suggests a new source beyond known chemical sources. In such cases, long runs can exclude hidden power sources (or at least limit them), but they don’t exclude errors in the power measurement, either input or output. Once you an apparent excess power, any excess energy is just a matter of time, so if this experiment is in error, it almost certainly involves the measurement of power.

    To sum up, like Motl, I don’t think the paper is well-written at all. It’s kind of a stream of consciousness style writing, and a little amateurish. But the worst part is that the experiments are very poorly conceived. That is probably because of constraints imposed by Rossi, but whatever the case, no objective validators would choose IR thermometry to measure excess heat, and they would be far more careful and explicit about the measurement of input power and the device and internal masses.

    So, to my mind, it’s too early to celebrate. If Rossi ever makes ecats publicly available for truly independent testing by anyone who wants to, and it stands up, the world will beat a path to his door. It will be 1989 all over again. But, I doubt that a secret experiment performed by a cadre of true believers on an undisclosed device is going to make much of an impact.

    • 123star says:

      The camera actually measures power directly, and converts to temperature using the supplied emissivity, so when you convert back to power using emissivity, it should cancel.

      Ok you confirmed what I wrote my last (humble) post :)

      Unfortunately, the power is measured over a very limited part of the spectrum, and so it has to infer the total power by fitting to Planck’s curve, and that depends on emissivity, and therefore, the actual dependence of the final power on the emissivity will depend on the emissivity itself.

      Wait… is Planck’s curve for a grey body (at a given temperature T) “just” directly proportional to emissivity, isn’t it*? If so you can pull the emissivity out of the integral (even if it is performed on a limited part of the spectrum; emissivity is constant by definition for a gray body) so it should cancel anyway as in the previous case.
      No?

      Thanks

      *the spectrum is not “shifted” w.r.t. a blackbody at the same temperature T

    • Ransompw says:

      In other words you have nothing. It is so obvious that it reeks from the post you just wrote. Not like the prior demo’s when the steam wasn’t measured. That was a real critique and had value. What you just posted above is nothing more than conclusions. 1-3 nothing but a repeat of your first post. 4. You don’t trust the input measure. Of course the second test didn’t find 3phase input. You don’t know what was wrong with the measures, but won’t agree the measure is correct, how convienet for you. 5. You claim IR Thermonetry is in essence unreliable. Let’s have your source for that opinion. I suggest it by far more reliable than calorimetry. Show me something beside your educated opinion. 6. Mass measure, really when the whole device in the first test was considered even though it still existed at the conclusion of the test and in the second only the alleged powder was removed. What is the point of that nonsense. 7 and 8 have nothing whatever to do with anything really. The energy measured over input clearly shows this to be beyond chemical and that is really the issue.

      I don’t expect that a revolution as you say can ever happen until it happens. I don’t think this paper will make it happen. In fact it would be my opinion that no paper can really make it happen. The only thing which will is a usefull product. However, the only real question raised by the paper is whether Rossi may have one.

      Personally I have thought from the beginning that Rossi had a reactor. Ever since Lewan’s April test. Not withstanding that you and I have debated that in the past, that test demonstrated about the same COP as the March test. So in my opinion, he hasn’t really progressed and I think it is all a matter of control and COP.

      So whether he will ever have a product is open to debate.

      Finally, and I have spent way to much time on this the last few days, as to LENR, the paper being discussed clearly demonstrates a process beyond chemical. You don’t believe it and question the measurments, but and this is the point, you have NO way of demonstrating they are wrong. They are not close, it is not marginal. If the input (no hidden energy or mismeasurments) and output measures are true, there is no doubt you are wrong about LENR. and of course nothing I can say will convince you it exists. So really Popeye, I think you will need the product, because every point you raised could be raised no matter who did the tests and no matter what the results. All you really needed to post was,

      I DON’T BELIEVE IT.

      • JNewman says:

        Congratulations, Ransom. 50 posts since yesterday. If nothing else, one has to say that you really really care.

      • RonB says:

        There’s the science of the whole thing and then there’s just the gut feel based on what “regular people” might discover in the process of looking at the reactor.
        I have a feeling that this group of scientists had more than just a couple hours with the device(s). They were probably on-site long enough to have plenty of time to snoop around the setup. I have a feeling they thought that there would be lots of questions about what they did and saw. Personally I think they did consider that something could be done to fake the test so they most likely had discussions about this and did tests to try to find anything that would be there to trick them. They might not have put all that into the report but to just say that they didn’t do it because they didn’t write it up in the report is just not founded. It’s more rational to believe they did it and didn’t write it up.
        I’m not sure why AR bothers with these tests anyway. What’s the advantage for him doing it and what’s the risk?
        The risk is great and the advantage is very small if any. It well could be that he’s just trying to keep his fans happy and doesn’t really care about those that think he’s a fraud.
        Personally the report has tipped the scales for me in favor of his achievements but like AR himself, I’m waiting for one to be for sale in Home Depot.

      • John Milstone says:

        Not like the prior demo’s when the steam wasn’t measured. That was a real critique and had value.

        That’s not what you or the other “True Believers” said at the time, or have been saying for the last couple of years.

        I guess we should be flattered that you’ve finally come around.

        • Ransompw says:

          Milstone:

          You don’t pay attention. My take on the early tests with steam is that there was some steam in every test. How much of the water was vaporized is at best unclear in all but the 2nd Lewan test in April 2011( jeez has it been 2 years) when probably more than half was vaporized.

          The criticism at that time was justified but exaggerated.

      • popeye says:

        Ransompw said on May 21, 2013 at 5:51 pm:

        In other words you have nothing.

        If by “something” you mean a definitive explanation for the claimed observations of Rossi’s cabal, then you’re right, I have nothing.

        But you’re missing my point. It’s not about me having something, or any other skeptic having something. I never claimed to have something. Those academics claimed to have something, but *they* have nothing but words and pictures on paper. Anyone can put anything they want on paper, but for it to be a meaningful scientific claim, it has to be possible for others to check the validity. These claims cannot be checked, and until they can be, they have nothing.

        Those same authors could publish another paper on arXiv where they claim to drop a small Ni-H rock into a 1000L tank of water at room temperature, and in a short time, the entire tank is boiling, and I could not dispute their claim. I would, as you put it, have nothing. And yet, I would remain skeptical, if only because if they really could do that, it would be so easy to show the world, and remove all doubt.

        Same thing with the hot cat. If Rossi really had what he (or they) claim, why doesn’t it run self-sustained? Or if he can’t do that, why doesn’t he at least do one of his demos, except enclosing the hot cat in an insulated enclosure with water cycling through it from a 1000L tank, and someone to really check the input with a scope and proper meters, or better use batteries. I think it’s because, like his previous demos, such an exercise would expose the absence of an effect.

        Not like the prior demo’s when the steam wasn’t measured. That was a real critique and had value.

        Right, but it took months or a year before people like you accepted it. And those demos were sorta done in public, so the observations were at least somewhat constrained. It was the videos of the weak steam that put several people (like Krivit) over the top. All we have now is the distilled report, which no one else can check.

        What you just posted above is nothing more than conclusions.

        It’s not conclusions at all. I said last month that no such paper could ever be accepted as evidence for cold fusion, even if it were flawless, and I started by reiterating that.

        Secondly, I pointed out that if the claims were real, a definitive demonstration would be possible.

        The rest of the points simply identify poorly conceived experiments, poor methodology, and inconsistencies. The main thing they add is that if the claims are wrong (the default position of any skeptic), then it is more likely incompetence than complicity in fraud to blame.

        1-3 nothing but a repeat of your first post.

        (1) was a repeat, as I said. It is also the central point.

        (2) was about Rossi’s fingerprints on the test, meaning it was not independent. That was not in the first post.

        (3) was about how easy it would be to demonstrate if the claim was valid. Also not in the first post.

        4. You don’t trust the input measure. Of course the second test didn’t find 3phase input. You don’t know what was wrong with the measures, but won’t agree the measure is correct, how convienet for you.

        The second test *did* use 3-phase input to the box, and single-phase out to the ecat. That just complicates matters, and opens possibilities for Rossi to pull a fast one. The on/off cycling opened more, especially since the box was off-limits.

        Of course, I don’t know what was wrong with the measurements. But they hardly described them. Did they have clamp meters on each of the phases? How can we have confidence in that description if no one can go to the lab and try it for themselves? Why wouldn’t he just use a single-phase input? It would be much easier to monitor the power, and it is far more common.

        5. You claim IR Thermometry is in essence unreliable. Let’s have your source for that opinion. I suggest it by far more reliable than calorimetry. Show me something beside your educated opinion.

        Sorry, I’m not going to hunt around for evidence of something that’s obvious to everyone but you. You can try to find contrary evidence if you want. IR thermometry depends on multiple assumptions, measuring of temperature on the entire body (only half was measured in the ext case, and we have no guarantee things are on the axis inside), averaging over time and the surface. In flow calorimetry, you only have to make sure that the enclosure is sufficiently insulated so that the heat only escapes via the water. Of course, you want to avoid phase changes. I did check Wikipedia, and neither the pyrometer page nor the ir thermometer page mentioned calorimetry as an application. Likewise the calorimetry page does not mention pyrometers.

        6. Mass measure, really when the whole device in the first test was considered even though it still existed at the conclusion of the test and in the second only the alleged powder was removed. What is the point of that nonsense.

        In the first test they used a similar device. In the second the alleged powder was removed secretly. So nothing is known. The point is we have no knowledge of what was inside the device beforehand, or any knowledge of the alleged fuel mass, and yet they calculate power density and energy density. It reveals incredibly sloppy technique.

        7 and 8 have nothing whatever to do with anything really.

        7 shows that they haven’t thought about what they’re saying, and that saps confidence in their competence.

        8 was not really an objection. It was just to point out that if there is an error in the power, any apparent energy density can be obtained, depending only on time. In other words the value reported is arbitrary.

        I don’t expect that a revolution as you say can ever happen until it happens.

        What? You’re Yogi Berra now?

        I don’t think this paper will make it happen. In fact it would be my opinion that no paper can really make it happen. The only thing which will is a usefull product. However, the only real question raised by the paper is whether Rossi may have one.

        You’re rambling, and you’re wrong. It does not take a product to convince the world. A proper demo would do, and so would independent tests by recognized labs in response to a public invitation (preferably more than one getting the same result).

        Personally I have thought from the beginning that Rossi had a reactor. Ever since Lewan’s April test. Not withstanding that you and I have debated that in the past, that test demonstrated about the same COP as the March test. So in my opinion, he hasn’t really progressed and I think it is all a matter of control and COP.

        First, the Lewan April test did not demonstrate a COP of 3 unless you make the unjustified assumption of dry steam. Second, any COP of 3 in a thermal-to-thermal device would allow self-sustaining mode, which he has never shown for longer than the thermal inertia allows in either the hot or cold cats.

        as to LENR, the paper being discussed clearly demonstrates a process beyond chemical.

        Wrong. It demonstrates *nothing*. It *claims* a process beyond chemical. It’s a paper, and a paper is not a demonstration. You could say it “demonstrates” something, if it were possible for others to check it. But it’s not.

        You don’t believe it and question the measurments, but and this is the point, you have NO way of demonstrating they are wrong. They are not close, it is not marginal.

        Right. I can’t possibly demonstrate they’re wrong. They *could* demonstrate they’re right, but they haven’t done so. They have only made a claim on paper.

        And a COP of 3 is close compared to the COP of around 10 in January 2011, and that turned out to be wrong.

        If the input (no hidden energy or mismeasurments) and output measures are true, there is no doubt you are wrong about LENR. and of course nothing I can say will convince you it exists.

        That’s a meaningless hypothetical.

        So really Popeye, I think you will need the product, because every point you raised could be raised no matter who did the tests and no matter what the results.

        You really don’t listen. I said in April that a test of this sort would not convince me (or anyone else I expect). And I said what would, and it falls far short of a product. Any demo of an isolated self-sustaining device would suffice, but demos could be designed even if input is essential (why, though?). Or real, independent replications by labs who have something to lose by being wrong, who were not recruited by Rossi, who will do the experiments openly and transparently using their own protocol and their own instruments on their own premises, and who will get the same results as other labs doing the same test.

        But a group of little-known academics, several of whom are usual suspects, performing experiments in secret, and reporting results that are uncheckable simply doesn’t cut it.

    • H D says:

      For suspected foul play I think (4) is the most likely candidate.

  32. dsm says:

    Well

    Tried 3 times to post a Roger Green email – on 3rd go I cut out all the links – but nothing shows ?

    DSM
    (it was all the web site links blocking it)

  33. dsm says:

    Will try a trick – post this & edit it with the email added).
    D
    EDIT:
    May, 2013 newsletter from BREAKTHRU-TECHNOLOGIES.com

    Ecat Technology
    Dear ??????,

    Here is the latest interview with Andrea Rossi- inventor of the E cat

    (PESN interview)

    The industrial 1 MW units are availbale to buy

    Many of you have been emailing our office asking about the domestic units.

    The domestic units will be availbale early 2014. As you can imagine, a lot more goes into producing the domestic units, including extensive safety certifcate requirements and manufacturing setups.

    We will keep you updated on the progress

    The industrial units in Europe have achieved their safety certifcates.

    A 1 MW industrial unit is being shipped to the USA, see pictures below

    Our South East Asia Ecat website has some news on the Ecat: visit here: http://ecatsouthasia.com/news/

    Ecat Technology and Licenses investments update

    We have ‘parcels’ of shares for the exclusive rights to market and distribute the E cat Technology in some remaining countries, starting at $7,500 USD for equity in the company that will own the exclusuve distribution rights

    There is only a small handful of licenses left in the world to purchase.

    Portugal
    Hungary
    Romania
    Ukraine
    Middle East

    starting at $7500 for parcels of shares
    remaining 10% of Portugal is available (sold 20% in last week)
    40% of Hungary, Romania and Middle east available (be quick)

    More info on investment with the E cat exclusive license:

    Email Roger Green, ecoglobalfuels@earthlink.net

    In July we have delegations coming from India, Vietnam, Australia, Japan and Cambodia to visit the E cat factory…in North Italy

    A 1 MW industrial unit on its way to the good old USA

    The concept of LENR “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” aka Cold Fusion
    has been studied for several decades, and has now finally taken its leap into
    reality with the release of the E-Cat Technology (Energy Catalyzer).

    The energy source is nickel and hydrogen and the energy density is a factor
    of 100,000 or more compared to the combustion processes of today’s fossil
    fuels. The energy density is so high that the E-Cat modules require resupplying
    only twice per year. The COP is 6: 1, which is unheard of with
    current technology. LENR conforms to all known science. One barrow of
    nickel placed into the E-cat technology of LENR, is the equivalent energy
    release of a super tanker of fossil fuel!

    This is a game changer. The E-cat produces energy with very low inputs. It
    is much cheaper per megawatt hour that anything else on the market. E-cat
    technology provides a truly clean and green source of energy without
    radioactive byproducts and no carbon emissions. E-cat has already earned
    the reputation of being the ultimate “green” machine
    Industrial 1 MW: Due to its container construction it can be easily
    transported, which makes delivery and installation straightforward. The 1
    MW can be stacked if energy needs require multiple E-cat plants connected
    in parallel. It is ideal for remote locations and requires minimal
    infrastructure costs.

    E-cat outperforms any other technology

    Next stage development:

    We are looking for JV partners to build the first E cat Electrical power station

    The Ecat 1 MW units can easily be transported to the site (by truck as they are in a shipping container). We bolt on Siemens turbines and generators (until a tesla turbine is developed producing even more efficiencies) then connect to the national electrical grid to sell- carbon neutral renewable electricity- creating an ROI for investors

    We are looking for JV partners to invest in the most cutting edge electrical generation

    In the meantime there are investment opportunities to get in on the ground, with the reamining e cat licenses-with a deadline of next 1-2 weeks. Remember most of the world has been purchased, with only a few remaining countries listed above

    regards
    Roger Green
    (removed all his website links)

    Forward this newsletter to a friend. Simply replace the email address with your friend’s, add any comments you like, and hit send.

    • H D says:

      Nice, chain letter solicitation. Taking it to a whole new level.

      • dsm says:

        Don’t you just love the bit about …

        ” We bolt on Siemens turbines and generators (until a tesla turbine is developed producing even more efficiencies) then connect to the national electrical grid to sell- carbon neutral renewable electricity- creating an ROI for investors”

        AND

        “E-cat has already earned the reputation of being the ultimate “green” machine”

        How in hell does Roger sleep at night ? – like a baby I suppose, complete with pacifier & teddy bear :(

        DSM

  34. maryyugo says:

    “How much of the water was vaporized is at best unclear in all but the 2nd Lewan test in April 2011( jeez has it been 2 years) when probably more than half was vaporized.”

    Yes, Ransom. It’s been two years since that particular Rossi-fiasco. Two years during which any real invention of this magnitude would have spread world wide without the slightest doubt. And no doubt either that various details would have been leaked by someone or other. Another reason this has to be a hoax.

    Here’s yet another, courtesy of a friend who is a heat transfer specialist: Nobody sane would design a heat engine which makes huge amounts of power without a cooling system! And here, Rossi hangs the darn thing in ambient air! To highlight how much heat this device makes, it should have been placed in a fluid cooled metal or ceramic jacket. The fluid could be high temperature oil or if necessary, liquid metal. The coolant could be measured for flow rate and delta-T and that would be a way of calculating the precise energy outputted by the device.

    It’s obvious once someone says it. A hoax would hang in ambient air. A real machine would have a cooling system! Obviously none of the testers is conversant with heat transfer and fluid flow physics and engineering. That’s a pity. They should have hired someone.

    • Ransompw says:

      Yeah and a friend of friend of my nephew’s preschool teacher said if Rossi’s Ecat was real of course Maryyugo would believe in it. Just shows what friends know.

  35. spacegoat says:

    Thanks to Popeye for another top class analysis and conclusion. The most serious doubts concern the input power measurement. Considering the time they had, the test team did a lamentable job.

    How long since the claim these gadgets were on the market? 2 years? How long does it take to sell one to a commercial (non-government) customer? Such a customer would immediately reveal the purchase for the publicity value. So when is this wonder gadget ever going to be sold?

    The ecat claims remain claims never subjected to reasonable validation. The saga continues, Rossi still at -2 on Popeye’s credibility index.

    • Frank says:

      The most serious doubts concern the input power measurement.

      I agree!
      Check the display of the el. Power and Harmonics Analyzer on the photo in this report: http://www.borderlands.de/net_pdf/NET0113S13-15.pdf
      This photo was taken during the december test (zoom in and check the date from the wrist-watch).
      Levi ‘determined’ the average power input for this test to be 360W.
      If you look at the display it shows -? 1.07kW, which would come close to the average of 360W if on considers that the el. Power to the resistor is on only 1/3 of the time.
      But if you check the other values, then you see that the voltage between phase 1 and phase 2 is ‘only’ about 230V instead of 400V (common voltage between to phases in Europe), and between phase 3 and phase 1 is almost 0V.
      So, it seems that this instrument meant for measuring the power of a 3 phase system was used for a single phase system (e.g. Phase connected to input L1 and L3 and the neutral connected to L2)
      So the question is: Does the instrument give correct results if used in that way? The displayed negative value for the power (-1.07kW) looks suspicious.
      What’s also strange is that there is such a high reactive power.

      Unfortunately Levi’s report doesn’t tell much how the el. Power was supplied to the e-cat and how the instrument was connected (no schematic drawing)

      And if somebody would ask me to ‘fake’ a hot-cat results, I would most likely try to cheat with the input power by adding DC at one line – and hoping that the tester would not permanently check for DC current in that line.
      I would simply add a bimetallic switch inside the e-cat which only closes that circuit when the hot-cat is on temperature (“ignited” by the standard heating coils) – so I wouldn’t need to be there myself to “ignite” the e-cat, and the DC current will only be on at the time when the e-cat is on high temperature – hopefully nobody checks at the time for DC current anymore.

    • Alexvs says:

      The most serious doubts concern the whole measurement procedure. That is the reason why I qualified the test as weird and unreasonable. Popeye et altri have pointed out the feebleness of tests much better than I could do. See please Maryyugo’s post too.

      • Brad Arnold says:

        Ah, the usual culprits. I laugh at your attempt at rationalizing your previously held opinion. I am endlessly amused by you guys and your postings – keep it up! What will happen when that E-Cat HT (which by any reasonable measure has been shown to be everything Rossi claims it is) hits the market later this year? What excuse will you have then to continue this denialism?? This is better than reading the funny quotes conservative politicians and media sources churn out constantly.

        • Bettingman says:

          Brad,

          Well, in case the e-cat hits the market then it is easy to check whether it works or not. (And how it works). So there would be no room for any doubt.
          However, I doubt that any government would let a device of a nuclear nature hit the market without them having it cleared for safety. And that means looking what is inside. And As Rossi does not let anyone test his device in this regard this will not happen soon. Now we can debate whether does not allow this kind of testing because he his a scammer, but I don’t think this thing will hit the market anytime soon.

          • Brad Arnold says:

            Ah yes, now we see the “skeptic” fallback position: first it was LENR is pathological science, then it was LENR may be real but Rossi is a fraud, then it will be the E-Cat is real but dangerous because it is nuclear. Ok, maybe we’ll have to introduce it into another less ossified market competing with the US, and clean your clock with dramatically lower energy costs. Do you realize how quickly consumers will drop any opposition when they find out their energy costs drop by 9/10ths? Keep up the “skepticism” (pessimism) until you become equated with the flat-earth society types. I will be watching to count the differing rationales you use – the mind can be a very ingenious device to continue denial of reality.

          • Bettingman says:

            Brad,
            I have never claimed that Lenr was a Pathological science. I also have not claimed that the e-cat is dangerous. I am just pointing out (predicting) that a reasonable acting government would want to investigate a novel nuclear device before it would allow it on the (consumer) market. In order for that to happen Rossi would have to give up his device for inspection and it would be thoroughly tested. So why doesn’t he allow these kind of test right now? They are unavoidable. That is a question that has no logical answer. Unless one believes (like I think Ransompw does) that Rossi has “something” but will never be ready for the market.

  36. Findeton says:

    It uses an electrical power system (so basically it’s connected with a chord to the electric network). They say that the feed system is a pulsed one (now I get energy from the electric network, now I don’t, now I do, now I don’t) but Rossi doesn’t allow anyone to measure the power actually consumed by that power regulator: you HAVE TO trust his word when he says he’s just using the power regulator in a pulsed way. The thing is, everything is explained with normal physics if you suppose that the power regulator is actually bridged (feeding constant power to the system, instead of pulsed power). That’s the simplest answer, and using Occam’s razor it must be the real one. Of course if Rossi actually let anyone measure the real consumption of the power regulator we could check if this is in fact the trick he’s using.

    The paper says: “They were fed by a TRIAC power regulator device which interrupted each phase periodically, in order to modulate power input with an **industrial** **trade** **secret** waveform”

    Truth is any EE undergraduate could easily design any power regulator with any waveform he likes, so there’s actually no reason for making this a “trade secret” unless… unless of course you are actually using more energy from the power regulator that you are saying.

    • Bettingman says:

      Ransom, are you reading this? Does it not bother you that the test could have been faked this easily?

      • Brad Arnold says:

        You guys just feed off one another. Classic group think. “So easily faked,” huh? Yeah, that’s the ticket. Thank you, I love you guys. You all really crack me up.

        • Bettingman says:

          Brad,
          If one is not open to influence from others, a discussion has no point. I let my self influence by every argument or information that I think is valid. Of course, this does not hinder me in forming my own opinion.

    • Brad Arnold says:

      “That’s the simplest answer, and using Occam’s razor it must be the real one.” This must be the classic quote of this whole sordid affair of denial, and smear, and distort. Gee, LENR and the Rossi E-Cat must be a fraud, because that is the “simplest answer” and using Occam’s razor it “must be the real one.” Do you guys ever even read what you write?? Try googling “begging the question.” BTW, you guys must all be the same person posting under different names, because that is the simplest answer, and (as we all know) using Occam’s razor that must be the real one.

      • Bettingman says:

        I am not claiming that LENR in general is fraud ( I support the MFMP), but I do think Rossi is a fraud. So you see, there is a lot of difference of opinion here.

        • Brad Arnold says:

          So, you are of a character to slander a person on a suspicion, huh? I think you are a fraud, and you are the alter-ego of a troll who is using different handles to confuse the LENR/E-Cat issue. What is the difference between what you said, and what I said?

          • dsm says:

            Brad

            Andrea Rossi tells lies – very provable ones – repeatedly – are you stating he doesn’t ?

            That would make you the fool IMHO – and that is not slander.

            DSM

          • Alexvs says:

            To confuse the LENR/E-Cat issue Mr. Rossi’s deeds are enough.

          • Brad Arnold says:

            “Andrea Rossi tells lies – very provable ones – repeatedly – are you stating he doesn’t ?

            That would make you the fool IMHO – and that is not slander.”

            The independent third party report verifies that the E-Cat HT is everything Rossi said it was – and what your ilk have continually denied. The attempts to invalidate that report are laughable, and your calling Rossi a fraud are in the same vein. Keep up attacks based upon the three pillars of rhetoric (ethos, logos, and pathos), the independent third party verification report stands on it’s own and your attempts to discredit it only hurt your credibility.

          • Bettingman says:

            Brad, I have a question you might have an answer to: What is the purpose of this particularly third party report? Do you know this? Has Rossi said anything about it? Do you have a idea? Because I have been thinking about it and can’t figure it out. He can’t use this report to put products on the market, a government would want to know what is in the black box. And the test was too short for that. He can’t use it to support his patent application, as I understand his application is too vague (he does not describe what is in the box). He can’t use it too make a deal with someone like NASA or General Electric, they would see the same shortcomming as people here on this forum do and demand further tests. So what would be the purpose?

          • Bettingman says:

            Brad,
            I don’t plead guilty to slander, I am just telling you what I believe. I would be lying when I would say that I would think he is not a fraud. Do you want me to lie? That would be make any discussion pointless.
            I am not also posting under a different name on this forum. Why would I? Admin can confirm this, he has my IP adress, but of course everything can be faked…
            My point was that there are a lot different persons on this forum and not all have the same opinion.

          • JNewman says:

            I am really pleased that Brad Arnold has joined the conversation. I will not indulge in flinging insults, which is the chief tool of trade on his side of the argument. Let’s just say that I find his comments to be quite entertaining and hope to see many more of them.

          • H D says:

            Brad, on this site it is easy to identify posters who try to spoof several identities: The hash tag will stay the same (unless they take some precautions).

          • John Milstone says:

            So, you are of a character to slander a person on a suspicion, huh?

            Rossi lied about paying the University of Bologna $500K to perform independent testing of the E-Cat in 2011. UniBo issued a press release exposing Rossi’s lie.

            Rossi lied about the University of Bologna doing independent testing of the E-Cat in 2012. UniBo issued a second press release exposing Rossi’s lies.

            Rossi lied about National Instruments building a controller for the E-Cat. NI spokesperson Julia Betts sent out multiple emails exposing Rossi’s lie.

            Rossi lied about building a factory in Florida. His statements to Florida officials exposed those lies.

            It’s not a “suspicion”. There is no doubt that Rossi lies profusely. The only question is if he ever tells the truth, and how one could tell.

  37. Alexvs says:

    To confuse the LENR/E-Cat issue Mr. Rossi’s deeds are enough.

  38. spacegoat says:

    Brad Arnold said:
    What will happen when that E-Cat HT (which by any reasonable measure has been shown to be everything Rossi claims it is) hits the market later this year?

    We all celebrate?

    There is no downside to asking for clear evidence.
    The downside to applauding a scam is the aiding and abetting of criminal activities and looking foolish. The ecat has not been validated in any meaningful way and has the hallmarks of a scam, yet you applaud.

    What would it take to convince a reasonable observer that you’ve got a controlled nuclear reaction going on here?

    There are a few ways we could do it:

    1. Allow a thorough examination of the reactants before the reaction takes place, and another of the products after the reaction, and show that nuclear transmutation has in fact taken place.
    2. Start the device operating by whatever means you want, then disconnect all external power to it, and allow it to run, outputting energy for a sufficiently long time in a self-sustaining mode, until it’s put out a sufficient amount of energy to rule out any conventional (i.e., chemical) energy sources.
    3. Place a gamma-ray detector around the device. Given the lack of shielding and the energies involved in nuclear reactions, gamma-rays should be copious and easy to detect.
    4. Accurately monitor the power drawn from all sources to the device at all times, while also monitoring the energy output from the device at all times. If the total energy output is in sufficient excess to the total energy input to rule out any conventional (i.e., chemical) energy sources, that would also be sufficient.

    Rossi disallowed the examination of either the reactants or the products, claiming that it would reveal his secret catalyst. So option 1 wasn’t available.
    Rossi also refused to unplug the machine while it was operating! So option 2 wasn’t available, either
    There was also no attempt made to measure gamma-rays, so option 3 didn’t happen.

    4. Was not done either.

    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/

    • JNewman says:

      Nice article. Of course, the faithful will just cry foul and ignore it.

      • Bettingman says:

        Agreed,
        A well written piece that explains for a non scientist what is wrong with this report.

        • Brad Arnold says:

          The purpose of the third party report from Rossi’s perspective is publicity and hope to his investors/supporters. The key is that Rossi does not have patent protection for his intellectual/technological property. He knows that he has only a few years jump on his competitors, so everything he does is done from that perspective. What you view as lies and deception can be easily explained as a lack of transparency. I am continually amazed at the naivety of people call for Rossi just to give away his intellectual/technological property. BTW, I am not saying that it is 100% Rossi is legit, what I am saying is that it is very likely (over 95% chance), given what has taken place in the past. It is predictable that the “skeptics” would be “skeptical” of this latest vindication of the E-Cat – they see everything through a lens of Rossi being a fraud – it would have to be proven BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT for them to abandon their prejudice. Since that will be accomplished by Rossi successfully going to market with a well developed product, only time will fulfil those “skeptics.”

          People simply don’t understand that “skepticism” is a tool, and not an excuse to be dense. Beyond a shadow of a doubt is a abnormally strong level of proof that essentially provides their prejudice a safe haven.

          • JNewman says:

            On a scale of 1 = no proof at all and 10 = proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, I would give this report a grudging 2 on the basis of not everyone involved being a known Rossi advocate. Frankly, it does not require too much skepticism to see this report as nothing more than a feeble publicity stunt. On the other hand, it takes impressive suspension of disbelief to hang in with Rossi, and you have demonstrated it in spades.

          • H D says:

            The purpose of the third party report from Rossi’s perspective is publicity and hope to his investors/supporters.

            Ever so often somebody writes something here that probably everybody can agree on :-)

            On the other hand, I apparently fall into the naive category when it comes to giving away the invention.

            Given that he would have single handily delivered humanity from the energy and looming climate crisis, I think he’d be handsomely rewarded if he was to fully disclose his technology (and it’ll hold up to scrutiny).

            And if he wants to hang on to IP, that what’s patents are for. After all there are already quite a few LENR patents that have been awarded.

          • Bettingman says:

            HD, I agree.
            He could give it away and become a hero, probably well rewarded. Or he could file for a patent, also be a bit of a hero (but probably richer) . But not doing one or the other is weird, and this points to a scam in my opinion.
            And why would Rossi would want to bolster the hope of his supporters and investors, as Brad suggests. That might seem logic at a first glance, but what is the rationale for that? Why is there a need for that? The most logical reason is that he is trying to get more investors to invest. The fact that he has stated that he is not paying for the report points to that.

          • Bettingman says:

            Brad, (assuming that Rossi has something, which I don’t think) without a patent protection Rossi does not have a few years head start. Reverse engineering will probably only give him 3 months head start. Perhaps 6 months. So there really is no rational for him to not file a real patent. Any moment someone else can find his “secret sauce” and file the patent himself. Rossi can then only use his own invention after paying a licence fee… So the behavior of Rossi is not logical, unless we assume a scam.

          • popeye says:

            Brad Arnold said on May 22, 2013 at 4:35 pm:

            It is predictable that the “skeptics” would be “skeptical” of this latest vindication of the E-Cat – they see everything through a lens of Rossi being a fraud – it would have to be proven BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT for them to abandon their prejudice.

            I don’t know about other skeptics, but for this skeptic, Rossi is but a tiny perturbation in my perception of a claim like this latest paper. An extraordinary claim like cold fusion does require extremely robust evidence before it can be taken seriously. Of course, they don’t actually make any claims about nuclear reactions, but the same can be said for claims of energy density 10 to 1000 times higher than gasoline in a metal hydride. And that paper doesn’t even begin to approach robust evidence. How can something that can’t be checked be considered good evidence? Especially when it the methods are far from optimum, and poorly described.

            Beyond a shadow of a doubt is a abnormally strong level of proof that essentially provides their prejudice a safe haven.

            If you think it is a safe haven, then you admit that proof at that level is not possible. And if you don’t think proof at that level is possible for an energy density a million times that of dynamite in a small-scale operation at ordinary conditions, how can you possibly think it is real?

    • Ransompw says:

      Number 4 may or may not have been done. However, there is no reason it couldn’t be done on the proposed 6 month test contemplated by the Authors, if the scientific community would stop sneering and act like adults instead of children.

      • John Milstone says:

        However, there is no reason it couldn’t be done on the proposed 6 month test contemplated by the Authors

        Standard True Believer delusion #78: A hypothetical possibility is the same thing as a verified fact.

        There was no reason that UniBo couldn’t do independent testing of the E-Cat… except that Rossi refused to allow it.

        There is no reason NASA couldn’t have done an independent test of the E-Cat… except that Rossi refused to allow it.

        There is no reason the National Instruments couldn’t have worked on a controller for the E-Cat… except that Rossi refused to allow it.

        Why would anyone but a Rossi Kool-Aid drinker assume that Rossi will reverse course and start behaving reasonably?

    • jay2013 says:

      Well well, go away for a few days all hell breaks loose and some character named Brad Arnold is chortling derisively at all the proven-to-be wrong skeptics.

      I was going to comment on the so-called experiment by Levi et al., but Popeye and others already have. As has the author of Spacegoat’s very good link. I might have written this quote myself, except I didn’t:

      “I’m done pretending that this is science, or that the “data” presented here is scientifically valid. If this were an undergraduate science experiment, I’d give the kids an F, and have them see me. There’s no valid information contained here, just the assumption of success, the reliance on supplied data, and ballpark estimates that appear to be supplied ‘from the manufacturer.'”

      After some nine (did I count correctly) poorly instrumented and inconclusive demos, a whole bunch of online huckstering, and not much else, I had filed Rossi away as either an incompetent self deluded gentleman, or an incompetent scammer. Most likely the latter, given the numerous lies accompanying the huckstering. I interpreted the original support from the Swedes, Levi, Focardi and a few other seemingly respectable scientists as misguided at best, and I supposed that their subsequent silence meant they had realized they had been conned and had simply slunk away.

      But the latest adds a new wrinkle to the soap opera. It appears that Levi, Essen et al. are doubling down on their original pronouncements. That makes things more interesting. And yet nothing has really changed, the so called new test is as flawed as the preceding demos, and nothing can be concluded unless one takes everything Rossi says at face value. The fact that Levi et al. would sign their names to such a poorly conceived and executed experiment suggests that they are not the sharpest tools in the drawer. They also have a built in bias to prove to the world that they were not duped in the first place. So I can’t treat this new piece of meta data too seriously. Still, it makes for interesting reading.

  39. JNewman says:

    So what we are seeing in action here is half of a peer-review process. When a piece of scientific research is presented to the community, people raise all sorts of challenges and ask all sorts of questions. That is half of the process. The other half is that the authors respond to the questions and challenges by providing clarifications, corrections and, quite often, doing additional measurements in order to satisfy the reviewers. At the end of the process emerges a report that at least stands up to some scientific scrutiny. I suspect that we are unlikely to see the second half of this process take place here. If Rossi holds true to form, this “indipendent third-party report” is take-it-or-leave-it. Ransom, Brad and the rest of the fans will gobble it up. Pretty much anybody with any sense will leave it.

    • Ransompw says:

      newman:

      I posted the following on Ecat News earlier this morning.

      One further point, the authors suggested that they planned a longer term test (six months). If the scientific community was really working correctly, they would propose suggested changes to the test procedures to alleviate concerns but still respect the wishes of the inventor. A week are so into the test of 6 months should give the authors data to add to their paper and satisfy reasonable doubts. Why doesn’t the scientific community take those reasonable steps?

      Isn’t that the proper peer review procedure, not immediately calling the authors incompetent and the inventor a fraud? Or in the case of the ivory tower publications, ignore them so none of the above can ever happen.

      I just have a serious problem with the status of our current scientific community. I seriously question whether the current system still works.

      The problem with your suggestion is that Peer Review to my knowledge hasn’t really started. For that to occur some publication will have to entertain publication and then start the process with the Authors. They can’t be expected to run around the internet and meet every request, some of which may be inconsistent. The problem I see is that the scientific community may very well just ignore the paper for peer review and then if they make changes to answer certain requests others will just say it wasn’t good enough.

      • John Milstone says:

        The problem with your suggestion is that Peer Review to my knowledge hasn’t really started

        That’s because Rossi and his gang haven’t really provided the minimum information necessary to do a peer review.

        No one could replicate the claimed results based on any public information. And, Rossi continues to refuse to allow an independent test.

        A number of problems with the paper have already been identified. Will Rossi allow a test that answers the problems? Based on his behavior so far, it’s very doubtful.

        And, given Rossi’s well-documented lies, it’s ridiculous to give him the curtsey of assuming that he’s honest or trustworthy.

        • John Milstone says:

          That would be “courtesy”, not “cursey”.

        • Ransompw says:

          Milstone:

          That is just ridiculous.

          Ever since this started the skeptics have claimed that a black Box test under reasonable conditions would be acceptable.

          • John Milstone says:

            Ever since this started the skeptics have claimed that a black Box test under reasonable conditions would be acceptable.

            This report only seems reasonable to the “True Believer” fan club.

            The test was conducted in secret, in Rossi’s facilities, and with arbitrary restrictions put there by Rossi. The testers were primarily those people who had already reached a conclusion about Rossi and his gadget.

            As has been explained repeatedly, the ideal situation would be to publish enough information so that anyone competent in the field can reproduce it.

            This report clearly fails at that level.

            The next best situation is a “black box” test. This test was done in Rossi’s facilities, where he could have rigged all sorts of cheat, and since the testers performed only a cursory evaluation of the power going in to the gadget,

            This report clearly fails as a “black box” test as well.

          • Ransompw says:

            Milstone:

            Why are you such a jerk.

            I know your compaints, I suggested that a reasonable person consider asking the authors to modify the next test they plan to do so it answers the concerns of knowledgable experts.(short of having someone else do it).

          • John Milstone says:

            I suggested that a reasonable person consider asking the authors to modify the next test they plan to do so it answers the concerns of knowledgable experts.

            You mean the way Levi repeated the 18-hour test after he “lost” all the data from the first one? (Oh, wait, he refused to do so.)

            You mean the way Essen repeated the steam tests so he could properly measure the amount of steam actually being produced? (Oh, wait, he also refused to do so.)

            Or the way Kullander released the “detailed isotopic analysis” of the supposed “ash” from Rossi’s gadget as promised, before Christmas 2011? (Oh, wait, he didn’t do that either.)

            I have no problem with your suggestion, but past behavior on the part of Rossi and his supporters suggest that any such suggestions will be ignored.

          • Ransompw says:

            My point would be that the skeptics don’t wnat to ask. To do it right, a publication has to put the matter through peer review. My take is the scientific community is failing to answer a question of great importance either to answer the LENR question or expose a scam, by not so doing.

          • John Milstone says:

            My point would be that the skeptics don’t wnat to ask. To do it right, a publication has to put the matter through peer review.

            That’s Rossi’s fault, not the scientific establishment.

            Rossi has consistently avoided allowing any critical analysis of his gadget. If he had allowed the NASA reps (for example) to run their own tests, we would have known 2 years ago whether he was a fraud or not. If he had taken Dick Smith’s million dollars, we would have a good indication that he was something more than a con man.

            You want us to ask? OK, I’ll ask:

            Please, Rossi, Essen, Levi and the others, please bring in at least one competent skeptic in to your next test. Someone who didn’t walk in already believing that Rossi is legitimate (as you do). Please use a credible power-measuring methodology (not something that that uses 4th-power equations which are excessively sensitive to measurement errors), and please use something better than clamp-on ammeters to measure the power in, and please verify that there are no hidden sources of electric power through non-sinusoidal waveforms or DC-biases, and please check that there is no unexpected power transfer through the metal framework.

            Actually, it would be easy to call CERN or NASA, and provide them with all of the required inputs (just electricity, right?), and let them set up a test harness and do a proper test. They won’t steal your “secret”, I promise.

            Of course, if your goal is to continue to convince gullible investors that they should give you money, then you’re doing just fine.

          • John Milstone says:

            Of course, selling working E-Cats to known and credible customers would work as well, but in spite of all of Rossi’s grandiose claims, there is not a shred of evidence that he has done this.

          • dsm says:

            And John (please read this Ransom)

            There is *irrefutable* evidence he has lied repeatedly about selling eCat plants.

            – The 1st ever plant was manufactured for DGT but they declined to take it. This is documented fact.
            – Then Rossi claimed he was selling this same unit to NASA, but that was his imagination at work as NASA denied any intent to buy one.
            – Then he ‘sold’ this unit to unnamed military who won’t admit buying it !
            – Then he claimed sales of 12 more units
            – Then this same unit was proven to be still in Rossi’s factory months later – Rossi claims he was refitting parts
            – Then it was a different unit he sold to the ‘military’
            – Then this original unit was going to another customer
            – Then we find out he has lied again & is merely shuffling the box supposedly from Bondeno to USA but not to a Customer, but a Partner !.

            God forbid that so many otherwise rational people just turn a blind eye to the shell game re 1 MW plants.

            And also how those same people never make any thoughtful or useful comments on the Rossi/Green fund raising.

            DSM

          • John Milstone says:

            – Then we find out he has lied again & is merely shuffling the box supposedly from Bondeno to USA but not to a Customer, but a Partner !.

            I think this is mistaken.

            The “original” shipping container was shipped from Rossi’s garage in Bologna to Rossi’s “partner’s” garage in Ferrara and is the same shipping container seen in the “hot cat” testing photos. So, that shipping container was only shipped about 30 miles, not across the Atlantic. Yet another example of misdirection to try to point to activity in the U.S. without any evidence to support it.

            It’s the only shipping container we’ve ever seen (at least the pictures seem to match).

            And, the “partner”, EFA Srl, is (or was through most of this circus) Rossi’s Italian company. So, it’s really a much more cozy relationship than just “partner”.

            Here is a link to the Way-Back archive, showing the old website for Rossi’s company:

            http://web.archive.org/web/20120105000749/http://leonardocorp1996.com/

            Note that “leonardocorp1996″ now redirects to ecat.com.

          • John Milstone says:

            Oops, I appear to have mixed up EFA srl with EON srl.

            That’s what I get for posting while suffering from insomnia.

            The point about only one shipping container, which was not shipped to the U.S. stands.

          • John Milstone says:

            (sigh!)

            Back in November 2011, ESA srl was Rossi’s company. It was mentioned in the University of Bologna’s first denial:

            http://www.magazine.unibo.it/Magazine/Notizie/2011/11/05/Lecat_lUnivesita_di_Bologna_non_e_coinvolta.htm

            The relevant quote (in English, using Google Translate):

            2) the University of Bologna (Department of Physics) is ready to carry out experiments on the apparatus E-Cat as soon as the contract signed with EFA Srl (Andrea Rossi’s Italian company) will be made active

            So, my first point stands, this is more “cozy” than a traditional “partnership”.

          • popeye says:

            Ransompw said on May 22, 2013 at 11:55 am;

            Ever since this started the skeptics have claimed that a black Box test under reasonable conditions would be acceptable.

            A black box test under reasonable conditions would certainly be acceptable as evidence, but I doubt that it would ever be acceptable for most prominent scientific journals. It might be, under some circumstances, if the black box were freely available to the journal’s audience, so the claims can be replicated. Science should be completely independent of trust. (I’m not saying that trust is not a big part of science — it is; only that it is not enough. Trust and integrity make science work much better and more efficiently, but it has to be possible in principle for anyone skilled in the art to check a claim before it is taken seriously.

            As for the reasonable conditions for a black box test to be acceptable as evidence, they would include an openly transparent public demo, or reasonably free access to the black box.

          • LCD says:

            JM says

            “This report only seems reasonable to the “True Believer” fan club.”

            Wow Ransom why are you wasting your time.

        • H D says:

          Peer review usually only sets in after a paper has been submitted to a proper journal (pre-prints won’t be peer reviewed).

          This process is almost always confidential. So we don’t know if they submitted this anywhere and if there is peer review happening.

          If a paper is rejected usually neither the authors nor the journals advertise the fact.

      • popeye says:

        Ransompw said on May 22, 2013 at 11:32 am:

        If the scientific community was really working correctly, they would propose suggested changes to the test procedures to alleviate concerns but still respect the wishes of the inventor.

        You don’t have a clue about how the scientific community should work correctly. “It” does not read blogs about fringe claims of an inventor looking for investment, and then somehow collectively give him free advice. There’s no mechanism for that.

        Scientific claims are made with full disclosure in peer-reviewed literature, and that allows the scientific community to test the claims, publish replications, or failures to replicate. That’s usually how it works.

        If someone makes claims based on proprietary information that cannot be checked, the scientific community (in my view) has no reason to pay any attention at all. Some scientists do of course, and most in this case are negative, but whether they are made sneeringly or not, negative comments *do* constitute suggestions for how to alleviate concerns. In the end, though, the onus on proving the claims to whomever they want to prove them to is entirely on the claimant.

        And such proof , if the box is to remain black, will require either an openly transparent public demonstration, or random access (within reason) to the black box by independent skeptics.

        A week are so into the test of 6 months should give the authors data to add to their paper and satisfy reasonable doubts.

        It will still require trust. If it can’t be checked independently, it will have little impact.

        Why doesn’t the scientific community take those reasonable steps?

        There are several scientists who have made suggestions (if in the form of criticisms), but the reason it is largely ignored is because it is not checkable, and therefore, the first instinct is disbelief. It’s almost certainly the correct instinct.

        Isn’t that the proper peer review procedure, not immediately calling the authors incompetent and the inventor a fraud?

        Nope. The proper peer review procedure is to submit a fully disclosed paper to a journal. Has that been done?

        I just have a serious problem with the status of our current scientific community. I seriously question whether the current system still works.

        Why? Outside of cold fusion, do you have any metrics indicating that discovery and invention and technological progress have slowed down. I certainly have not observed anything like that. Moore’s law has kept pace (against many justifiable reasons it should begin to saturate), progress in biology (genomics and proteomics) has been on a tear in the last 2 decades, likewise in cosmology with new concepts of dark energy and so on. So, I think this sneering at the current system you so often engage in is just a rationalization for the absence of progress in your favorite fringe science.

  40. JNewman says:

    I am reposting this from the patent thread. I inadvertently put it in the wrong place where it might not get seen:

    I have an exercise for all the internet-educated scientists who pontificate on this site. The famous hot-cat report states: “The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some additives. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils inside the reactor tube.”

    The claim is that most of the heat in the tube comes from a tiny sample of Rossi’s pixie dust and not from the resistor coils. Now, look at the infrared photos provided in the paper. They are kind of like thermal X-rays of the device. See anything wrong?

    • John Milstone says:

      Yup. Rossi must have magic pixie dust that magically distributes itself evenly throughout the inside surface of the tube furnace.

      • JNewman says:

        Pretty disappointing, actually. You would hope that Rossi would at least have the engineering smarts to install some sort of heating element in his tube furnace that would simulate a significant hot spot. I mean, if some minuscule quantity of magic powder is supposed to produce 600 watts, it should look like a supernova in there.

        It really doesn’t matter if the participants are frauds, dupes or bumbling idiots. What matters is that what was presented was nonsense even in the context of its own claims.

        • Ransompw says:

          Newman:

          Each of the test scans look decidedly different. Are you speaking of each.

          Also, your initial quote about the location of the resistor coils is inaccurate. I don’t think they were in the reactor tube.

          So please make your point a little clearer. Also, I don’t think Thermal scanners act exactly like exray machines as you are suggesting.

          • JNewman says:

            Ransom, Levi discusses the appearance of the resistor coils in the images. Of course they are in the tube. They are allegedly there to drive the reaction.

            As for thermal scanners acting exactly like x-ray machines… please! That is not what I said. The images show the distribution of heat in the object. Obviously, you can see some of the internal structure – to wit, the resistance coils within. My point is that if 2/3 of the energy being emitted from within the device is coming from a tiny magic LENR cell, it would show up very plainly in these pictures. And it doesn’t.

            And now I leave it to you to reinvent thermodynamics and explain why that doesn’t happen here.

          • Ransompw says:

            Newman:

            The core is in the middle of the reactor which is 10cm’s in diameter. The reactor core is 3.3 cm’s. in diameter so about 3.4cm’s away from the surface of the reactor.

            The resistors are in the outer portion of the reactor and not in the core.

            Thermal Scanners measure the infrared radiation coming form the surface of the object scanned (not within), they don’t show heat within the object which may be different than the outside temperature.

            The first test in November had two hot spots. Allegedly after that test the reactor material was spread evenly throughout the reactor core to avoid creating hot spots. (who knows)

            The red line on the second scan is a crack in the outside ceramic shell which tells you that the inside temperature is hotter than the outside.

            The last test scan looks a little patchier but that may be from the emissivity dots.

            If you are suggesting that the Thermal scanner should see hotter spots in the reactor core which is almost 3.5cm’s from the surface of the reactor but which don’t translate to the surface, you don’t know what you are talking about. If they translate fine, but if the reactor material is spead evenly probably not.

            And by the way, the core is 33cm’s long the same as the reactor length but only 3.3cm’s in diameter. According to the reports after the first failure the magic pixxy dust as Milstone calls it was spead EVENLY throughout the inside reactor core to avoid the problem. How of course we don’t know and of course. we don’t know if it is true since no one got to view it but it was so reported.

          • JNewman says:

            You can slice and dice it any way you want. The imaging shows at least something about the distribution of heat sources within. If most the the heat was coming from the magic reactor and not the coils, you would see it in the pictures. Wave your arms all you want and that doesn’t change.

          • John Milstone says:

            Ransompw said:

            And by the way, the core is 33cm’s long the same as the reactor length but only 3.3cm’s in diameter.

            You have that wrong, Ransom. From the report:

            The most important element of the E-Cat HT was lodged inside the structure. It consisted of an AISI 310 steel cylinder, 3 mm thick and 33 mm in diameter, housing the powder charges.

            The core is only 3 mm thick (long) and 33 mm in diameter.

            So, the question remains: How did a 3 mm thick disc produce such even heating over a 33 mm long tube?

          • popeye says:

            John Milstone said on May 23, 2013 at 3:30 pm

            The most important element of the E-Cat HT was lodged inside the structure. It consisted of an AISI 310 steel cylinder, 3 mm thick and 33 mm in diameter, housing the powder charges.

            The core is only 3 mm thick (long) and 33 mm in diameter.

            That’s not how I read it. The 3 mm thickness is the thickness of the wall. The radius of the cylinder is 33 mm, and its length is 33 cm, which is stated explicitly in the description for the March run.

          • popeye says:

            sorry, the diameter is 33 mm, the length is 33 cm, and the wall is 3 mm thick. Maybe 3 is the only number key on his typewriter that works…

          • John Milstone says:

            OK, I stand (well, sit) corrected.

  41. Uglow says:

    I thought that the people testing the device measured the power coming from the mains and going into the black box which in turn fed the ecat.

    Do I have that right? If that is correct, then how would Rossi have secretly put more power into the black box / ecat than was measured, unless he had tampered with the mains wiring to send additional ‘hidden’ power into the mains outlet.

    • John Milstone says:

      how would Rossi have secretly put more power into the black box / ecat than was measured, unless he had tampered with the mains wiring to send additional ‘hidden’ power into the mains outlet.

      Yup. Since it was his facilities, it is entirely possible for him to make changes to the wiring in the warehouse.

      My brother runs a machine shop, and he routinely modifies the wiring in the building. Of course, he isn’t trying to con anyone, so he has no reason to make non-standard wiring changes. But if he wanted to do so, he certainly could.

      The same problem occurs with every test that had any sort of public visibility. They all occurred in Rossi’s garage, so it was entirely possible that he had modified the power, or water coming in.

      We don’t know that he did so, but it’s not up to us to figure out exactly how he might be cheating. It’s his job (if he wants to convince anyone beyond his fan club) to prove that he didn’t cheat.

      The obvious way to do that is to bring his gadget to a location provided by an independent and trustworthy organization, and allow them to measure everything going in and coming out. This wouldn’t put his precious “secret ingredient” in any danger of disclosure. But it would eliminate the possibility of fraud through gimmicks in the facility.

      BTW, the original “free-energy” fraudster, John Worrell Keely (LINK), behaved just like Rossi and managed to keep his scam going for over 20 years (until he died). His “laboratory” had all sorts of gimmicks built in to the walls to fake the results he showed. It’s worth reading about Keely to see how similar his behavior was to Rossi’s.

      • John Milstone says:

        To elaborate a bit, the testing that was actually done (as is true of the tests from 2011) were good enough to uncover most honest error. But they were totally inadequate to detect intentional fraud.

        And, given Rossi’s history and behavior, it’s crazy to assume that he’s being honest.

      • John Milstone says:

        Another good example of a “high-tech” con man was Madison Priest. He claimed to have a revolutionary new video compression device that would allow hi-def video to be transmitted over ordinary telephone modems (this was in the early 1990s, before broadband).

        He only demonstrated his gadget in his two labs, which were on opposite sides of a river. It turned out that he had run a video coax line under the river (about 1/2 mile) to connect together the two “labs”. He then ran the coax through the walls and to the electrical outlets, where he had a rigged power strip that carried the video from the demo box through the wall, and under the river.

        In spite of the glaring flaws in his story (it only worked in his lab when he was there to run the gadget), he was still able to con almost $10 million from companies including Intel and General Dynamics.

    • Jamiwithnewmailid says:

      I don’t read it like that. They say: “The instrument was connected directly to the E-Cat HT cables by means of three clamp ammeters, and three probes for voltage measurement.”
      There are other areas in the text which also hint at the measurements being taken from the wires leading to the coils. So there was plenty of opportunity to squeeze lots of energy past the PCE-830.

    • Frank says:

      …unless he had tampered with the mains wiring to send additional ‘hidden’ power into the mains outlet.

      Well, it’s not impossible to send through one of the 3 wires a DC current (backflow e.g. through the grounding), which doesn’t get detected by the clamp on Amp-meter (meant to measure AC).
      Just imagine you would have the minus-pol of a car battery connected to ground, then several batteries looped in order to reach 100V DC, and then the plus-pole of the last battery connected to that wire. Let’s assume that this wire would lead DC current through dedicated heating resistors in the hot-cat, but only when a bimetallic switch inside the hot-cat closes, then you would get a nice effect like the hot-cat reaction only starts at a certain temperature. And you would have the DC flow only at this time, when (hopefully) no one is checking for it anymore.
      That’s just a very simple way how you could cheat, and it could be elaborated better, for instance adding some electronic which check’s for a closed loop (bimetallic switch) before applying the DC voltage.

      The fact that Rossi didn’t hook up the 3 wires on a standard 3phase network can be seen from that picture (taken during the Dec-test):
      http://cobraf.com/showimage.php?image=/forum/immagini/R_123517565_2.jpg

  42. maryyugo says:

    Good call, Newman. That pretty well cooks this set of “tests”. Question is, of course, where the extra power comes from. I am betting that Rossi is screwing around with the input just as he did when he goosed the power while Krivit was observing (bad move, Rossi!):

    http://news.newenergytimes.net/2011/08/05/reviewing-ny-teknik-video-did-rossi-play-with-power-setting/

    • Ransompw says:

      In what way do you think the scan pictures show you something?

    • Ransompw says:

      I’ll ask again, in what way do you think the thermal scans “pretty well cooks this set of tests”.

      I think Newman as usual has no idea what he is talking about and you just jump on any old silly notion to support your agenda.

      So if don’t mind educating a poor dumb lawyer as to what you think they mean it would be appreciated. (Or have you already seen the reason Newman’s point is nonsense and instead of manning up, you just drop it.)

      • JNewman says:

        Ransom, apparently you have made your way through life by having a big mouth and an overbearing, boorish manner. I guess that has served you well in your law career. You are clearly incapable of carrying on an intelligent discussion on any topic without personal attacks and belittlement of your opponent instead of actual arguments. However, in science, intimidation and browbeating are not effective. Your ranting here is simply comic relief, as far as I am concerned.

        • Ransompw says:

          Newman;

          You are right, I shouldn’t be so obnoxious in my posts. Actually, I do appologize. I promised myself yesterday I would tone it down and by God, I am right back at it. Sorry.

          If you want to discuss your point I tried to do it above, I do think you are wrong about it.

          By the way, I saw your point above, I can’t follow it. Why do you think you are going to see non uniform surface heat?

          • JNewman says:

            If you look at the pictures, you clearly see non-uniform surface heat, don’t you? I mean, there are obviously features in the image. The surface of the tube is not a perfect thermal conductor. Heat energy conveyed to it by radiation and/or convection would equilibrate over time but doesn’t because there is continued spatially-inhomogeneous heat flux.

          • Ransompw says:

            Sure, but I don’t think it is inconsistent with what you would expect if the reactant material is evenly spread throughout the reactor core. If anything the first test in November seems to show exactly what you would expect if it were real and the reactant wasn’t spead evenly. So I just think this is not a point which allows you to conclude anything significant.

          • JNewman says:

            I think this whole “third party report” contains nothing from which anything significant can be concluded. And that makes it utterly pointless, apart from providing entertainment on the internet.

          • Ransompw says:

            Well that’s your take. I think the output energy measure is fine. I think the input energy is a problem (not the measures) because extra energy could possibly have been added to the system and not measured. However, that may depend on whether the authors took any steps undocumented in the report. It is certainly possible they did. They were with the device for a week. So I think they should be asked for more detail on that issue. If that is explained I think the tests were adequate to demonstrate excess energy substantially over chemical.

            I also think that nothing will satify a group that has concluded LENR isn’t real and Rossi a fraud. The only thing that will change that discussion is working products that can’t be ignored. Nothing else will. So debating the issue is useless.

          • JNewman says:

            I agree that debating the issue is useless. Of course, that indicates that you are very dedicated – almost fanatically, I might say – to doing something useless. But, what the heck? It’s a free country.

          • Jamiwithnewmailid says:

            I don’t think the distribution of heat means anything either way – except when it comes to Rossi’s claims. According to him, he has to throttle the reaction down by reducing input power in order to prevent thermal runaway. Fair enough – however if certain areas of the e-cat get hotter than others to the extend that they can be observed by a low-res IR camera, then how exactly can he produce a stable reaction? IF there were hot-spots caused by nuclear reactions (which you would expect – there is no such thing as a half reaction or a little reaction – there is only many or few) – wouldn’t the areas around that spot not care whether an actually much cooler heater is switched off a couple of centimeters away and just keep on reacting? And the explanation about “industrial secret waveforms” playing a crucial role beyond heat is just silly. According to what he said last year, he was prepared to smooth it away with a variac and a gas cat couldn’t work like that anyway.

      • maryyugo says:

        See my detailed response below.

  43. BigWillyJohnson says:

    Good Afternoon Ransom,

    From reading above you appear convinced of this demonstration. I am glad that this test has energized this forum, it makes for good reading.

    Are you convinced enough to posit another forcast of commercial readiness, first product or acceptance beyond ecatworld (or other non skeptic sites)?

    Thanks
    BW

    • Ransompw says:

      BigWillyJohnson:

      Am I convinced? Well, let me make the following points.

      1) I had given up on seeing any tests. and on Rossi. So the report was interesting.
      2) Rossi’s various missives about the tests actually turned out to be true. Another surprise, which actually gives me some pause about things we assumed were Rossi lies but which we may not actually have the inside information. So I am a little less likely to conclude on points I have insufficient inside information about.
      3) I have no problem with Thermal Imaging. I think it is a reasonable way to estimate energy output, especially if done with an eye toward being conservative at each data point which is unclear. I think they did that for the most part so I think the output energy is close enough in this case.
      4) Based on points made, I think extra energy could have been imparted to the system, so I think the Authors need to clarify that issue or incorporate changes in the next tests (assuming there will be some as suggested).
      5) The process revealed in the report (Rossi’s work on the ecat) does remind me of R & D work as opposed to scam. If the first reactor did melt down (failed) and then the subsequent ones were redisigned it fits. So I still think the evidence points to Rossi continuing to try and control and improve his process. It doesn’t look scammy to me based on the report, but it could be.
      6) I really have no faith Rossi will achieve a successful product. I still give him a small chance unless he gives up doing it without the help of a competent company with some resources.
      7) The license thing looks scammy.

      So there you have my thoughts for what they are worth.

  44. oakthicket says:

    This so-called, third party validation reminds of another example.

    Blacklight Power trumpeted the third party validation of their bogus hydrinos. Studies were done by Rowan University. They found… wait for it… anomalous heat. The true believers trumpeted it as proof positive that hydrinos exist. A prestigious (lol) university wouldn’t make dumb mistakes, would it? That was years ago. Randy Mills is still selling his shtick to gullibles.

    Groundhog day anyone?

    • John Milstone says:

      It’s worth pointing out (again) that BLP claimed to have a 50KW reactor back in 2008 (the press release was still on their web site last time I looked), but now they are claiming only milliwatts of power.

      One has to wonder why they would abandon such a promising device, if it actually existed.

  45. dsm says:

    Hmmmm,

    This so called ‘3rd party report’ sure has triggered a firestorm. I see lots of heated irrational and rational commentary on the nature of the report and particularly the admonition that a claim as outstanding as the one being made ‘must’ be proven beyond doubt and that once again this has not happened.

    I am seeing good friends of mine get really heated about the opposition to their views on the report. Am finding myself frustrated at the apparent ‘one-sided’ positions some are taking.

    It does seem to me that someone (Andrea Rossi via Roger Green) is robbing the house while we are all on the front lawn mesmerized by this incredible demo & claim & our reactions to it.

    When someone does the kind of fund raising Andrea Rossi is doing via Roger, the red light should be on for anyone who understands business ethics and processes. But, repeatedly this issue gets ignored or glossed over when raised (mostly ignored).

    Then there is the matter of the EPO’s letter of rejection to Andrea Rossi, coinciding with this ‘hot cat’ claim & report – this is yet another red light that should be flashing and sending out an additional (doubled) warning on top of the fund raising antics.

    Then there is the history of outright lying from Andrea Rossi. A third red light flashing even more wildly that the other two.

    I am left with an image of a child watching a parade of the Emperor Rossi in his new invisible clothes. But in this image, the child turns to its parent & says ‘mummy’ why does he have no clothes on and why are those men taking things out of the houses around us while we all watch this funny parade ?

    DSM

    • H D says:

      This report doubled the normal number of views of this blog, yesterday clocked in at 1,026. New record for now. Probably gotta thank all the ecat fans who stopped by :-)

  46. General Zaroff says:

    Hello everybody,

    I kind of stopped keeping track of technical details about the ecat well before ecatnews shut down. But once upon a time, the ecat used to have lead shielding. It used to operate by thermalizing gamma rays in the shield to produce heat. Does anyone remember what happened to the gamma rays or the shielding? Some of the current testers were present at the original tests with the shielding, maybe they know about it? Didn’t Celani claim to have secretly detected them at one demo?

    Maybe one of our more scientifically capable posters like Ransompw or Brad can explain how the ecat went from producing gamma rays to not producing them. I would appreciate it.

    Oh and Ransompw, just so that people don’t think you are a deranged maniac, you might want to limit yourself to 30 posts per calendar day.

    • John Milstone says:

      While we’re dredging up old claims by Rossi, how about the one that the E-Cat was producing energy by fusing Nickel into Copper. Rossi and Focardi wrote a paper which was the cornerstone of Rossi’s “journal”.

      They had the reactions nailed down and everything, and when Rossi provided a sample of the “ash” from an E-Cat that had supposedly been running for about 6 months, it contained just enough Copper to “explain” the amount of energy allegedly produced.

      But, sometime after that, when it became clear that neither the source Nickel nor the resulting Copper showed any signs of nuclear transmutation, Rossi started claiming that it wasn’t the transmutation of Nickel into Copper that produced the energy after all.

      I believe his current theory is “pixie dust”.

      • JNewman says:

        Don’t knock progress. Rossi got rid of the pesky hydrogen supply too. The hydrogen must be mixed in with the nickel and secret sauce. Apparently, you just put the magic stuff in a sealed tube, heat the whole thing up, and voila: tons of energy… As long as you use some kind of mysterious 3-phase current with a proprietary waveform that is produced off in another room. Probably that is where the Wizard of Oz sits on his throne and pulls on huge brass levers. As Ransom tells us, science has failed. We are now in the era of magic.

    • H D says:

      General, you should know better than to try to stop an attorney who’s on a role :-)

      • JKW says:

        Hmm, Quax, it’s very unlike you – two grammar errors in one sentence. Greenwin will be dismayed. He might even stop stopping by, which would be a pity. We need entertainment, and Ransompw might be on the brink of a collapse of his roll. How long can a person go on, even if he is a lawyer.

        • H D says:

          Long, day. But the benefit of running the place is that I can edit my comments for as long as I want to :-)

          • JKW says:

            Long day for me, too. And what worries me – I can hardly see the bottom of the vessel right now. I think I need to switch to the stronger variety.Bigger COP. I guess it translates to higher volumetric or gravimetric energy density, whichever is more important for the judiciary arm. For some reason they measure it in proof %. Which is like twice the thing.

        • GreenWin says:

          Ha Ha – Your funny JK!!

    • Asterix says:

      General, it seems that Paul is back with ECN–at least he’s reporting on the test.

      So far, only a handful of comments but that’s probably because nobody knows that he’s back.

  47. JNewman says:

    With the exception of Krivit and Storms, it appears as if the entire LENR community is doubling down on Rossi based on his “third-party indipendent” report. As a result, if things don’t pan out for Rossi, there will be pretty much no credibility left in the entire entourage. But then again, what does that matter? Despite years of endless propagandizing and shouting to the rooftops, they are still just talking to themselves.

    • General Zaroff says:

      I believe Rossi has done far more harm to the future of LENR research than any skeptic ever could.

      • maryyugo says:

        Exactly. That goes also for Defkalion. And McKubre didn’t help things much by cozying up to Rohner and Papp-machines. And Miley didn’t improve the image by promising hundreds of watts and producing only likely measurement error. Nanospire is pure fantasy (with their idiot tales of radiation injury that was never documented or reported). Brillouin can’t even spell “hydorgen” in their diagrams (remained uncorrected for more than a year). And of course they produced nothing so far. Same for BLP and so on.

        The field kills itself. They definitely can’t make a cup of tea.

  48. Bettingman says:

    DSM, you are forgetting about the hundreds of prototypes in just 3 months time, after which he had supposedly an e-cat in operation that headed his own building. I always find that to be the most amusing piece of detective work were ever able to dig up.

    • John Milstone says:

      Not to mention all the pictures of people huddled in their winter coats while marveling at the E-Cat, and the pictures of the propane space heater parked right next to the shipping container E-Cat.

      As I recall, when the picture of the propane heater appeared, Rossi claimed that the E-Cat was “unsuitable” to heat his garage.

    • Dsm says:

      But, Bettingman, add to that 3 months stunning achievement the damning letter from Piantelli (so decried by RansomPW when I quoted it) that Focardi had been getting him (Piantelli) to solve Rossi’s problems and those solutions were passed back to Rossi without Piantelli’s knowledge.

      Yes Andrea Rossi is a charming honest sincere genuine innovating genius. I think not.

      Cheers DSM

  49. John Milstone says:

    Since Ransom is complaining that no one is making useful suggestions about further testing of the “Hot E-Cat”, I have an idea that would really help prove the E-Cat real:

    Invite the Swedish Standards Institute back to re-test the Hot E-Cat, under the condition that they will publicly release their findings. I would be willing to contribute to paying them to do a public investigation.

    Rossi let them test his gadget before, so he doesn’t have any legitimate reason not to allow them to do so again.

    Of course, I wouldn’t expect Rossi to allow any such thing. Of course, Hydrofusion could release the original results (or ask their potential investors to do so), but I guess it wouldn’t be good “business” for them to nail this down. Far better to just find more, um, friendly testers to run only the tests that Rossi wants them to run.

  50. John Milstone says:

    A thought about the testers…

    Which one of them is an expert on power electronics (and electrics)? Since one obvious way to fake the results is to manipulate the power going in, I would have assumed that at least one of the testers had specific expertise in that area.

    • Bettingman says:

      Yes, especially as a few months earlier another independent party (an investor) pulled out because the input power they measured was bigger then Rossi stated..

  51. Bettingman says:

    Admin, off topic, for your amusement.

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/quantum-linked-photons/?cid=co8219724

    This is getting weirder and weirder..

  52. popeye says:

    Ransompw said on May 22, 2013 at 3:10 pm:

    If that [the input measurement] is explained I think the tests were adequate to demonstrate excess energy substantially over chemical.

    For you and other believers they appear to be adequate already, and therefore they are more than adequate for Rossi’s purposes.

    I doubt they will change any skeptic’s mind, so from that point of view, they are not adequate, whether that criterion is relevant or not.

    In fact, one of the authors (Hoistad) finds the results less adequate that you do when he said: “The result is obviously very dramatic and absolutely must be further verified before any definitive statements can be made. ” You’re already making definitive statements.

    I also think that nothing will satify a group that has concluded LENR isn’t real and Rossi a fraud. The only thing that will change that discussion is working products that can’t be ignored. Nothing else will.

    You keep saying that, and I keep denying it, and many other skeptics have denied it. You don’t address the sorts of things skeptics say would change their attitude — things they’ve been saying for more than a year, and have never happened. You just keep saying it has to be a product. It’s unbelievably stubborn and ostrich-like on your part.

    Surely, any public, long-running, self-sustaining device would change the attitudes of skeptics without being a product.

    But here’s another example that would use the existing ecat as-is, which is clearly not a product.

    Say Rossi invited universities or national labs to test the hot-cat in their labs, but with appropriate security to prevent tampering. And say CERN and MIT and LANL and SRI accepted the invitation. LANL could involve Claytor and Menlove, who have some history of sympathy for cold fusion, and of course SRI would involve uber-advocate McKubre.

    Each of them would be told the range of acceptable input, and be permitted to use whatever means they preferred to measure output heat. If necessary, even the proprietary power supply box could be supplied by Rossi, but the power for the box would be supplied and measured by the testing lab.

    After a month or two, the labs would present their results simultaneously at some sort of coming out event. I doubt skeptics at one place would cheat for fear of being embarrassed by the other 3 groups.

    If all 4 had similar positive excess heat claims, I think the discussion would change among skeptics. Don’t you? Admittedly, it’s not likely to happen, and it actually exceeds the criteria many have asked for, but if you agree, then it shows at least in principle that a product would not be necessary.

    (It would not be difficult to describe a public demo with enough controls to exclude tricks with the existing hot-cat as well, which might be a little more likely to happen.)

    So, when you say only a product will change the discussion, are you saying that you don’t believe that skeptics would be influenced by such events as I’ve described? Or are you saying such events will never happen before a product is introduced?

    Because if it is the latter, then I suppose I agree: I doubt that Rossi will ever provide the sort of evidence that skeptics have been asking for before a product is introduced.

    The only differences between our views then, is that I will remain skeptical without such evidence, while you are not, and I also don’t think a product will ever be introduced, whereas you are at least optimistic that one will be.

    I would say that the insistence that only a product will change skeptics’ minds indicates a rationalization for the absence of any real discovery, because such insistence often accompanies pseudo-scientific claims, and as far as I know, has never been the case for a real scientific discovery — certainly not one of this significance.

  53. Bettingman says:

    http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html

    The article is trying to be balanced, but the commentary sections slaughters Rossi.

  54. maryyugo says:

    “A thought about the testers… Which one of them is an expert on power electronics (and electrics)? Since one obvious way to fake the results is to manipulate the power going in, I would have assumed that at least one of the testers had specific expertise in that area.”

    Indeed. And which one is a heat transfer/fluid flow expert? Because there is certainly no evidence of that sort of expertise.

  55. maryyugo says:

    Ransom wrote:

    ” I have no problem with Thermal Imaging. I think it is a reasonable way to estimate energy output, especially if done with an eye toward being conservative at each data point which is unclear. I think they did that for the most part so I think the output energy is close enough in this case.”

    I have no problem with it either, but that’s because they did their “dummy” run. That demonstrates that the measurement method for *overall* output power is “in the ball park”. Concern then shifts to the input power. Our esteemed scientists failed to check for surreptitious wiring and also failed to test the input from the mains for a DC or high frequency component which the clamp on ammeters would not respond to.

    Worse yet, Ransom. Did you look at the infrared photos in the paper? Figures 3, 7, and 8? (Figures 1 and 2 can be discounted because that device melted shortly after the test started so it may have had a chemical heat source in it).

    Anyway, in those figures, you can’t see where the source of heat is, other than from the electrical heaters! But the experimenters insist that the magic powder which makes all the extra heat was contained in tiny capsules of metal measuring just 3 mm thick (about 1/10 of an inch) and 33 mm (1.3 inches) long! Consider that these supposedly made from twice to six times the heat made by the ENTIRE REST OF THE DEVICE containing the heaters! Why are they not glowing much hotter than the rest of the device in the infrared photos? Any idea why not, Ransom? Hey, anyone can look at those images– it takes no special talent and all you have to know is that white is hottest, red is next, then orange, yellow and so on down to blue. See also the temperature curve they did on figure 3. Absolutely no evidence of extra heat where the magic powder might be (I think but I am not sure they said it was near the ends).

    Explain that for me, Rans’

    • popeye says:

      The paper does say that the power was “distributed evenly along its container cylinder”. If the heat radiates uniformly from the axis of the cylinder, I don’t think you would expect to see any non-uniformity.

      My problem is that for all that heat to come from a small amount of nickel, it would have to be very hot. For one gram, as they claim in the 2nd test, it would have a power density 100 times that of nuclear fuel in a fission reactor. And that would put it well above its melting point. There would clearly have to be much more nickel in there than claimed.

      • JNewman says:

        As I told Ransom yesterday, it would take a remarkable restructuring of thermodynamics to pull off the feat claimed for the hot-cat. The folks at James Randi’s forum have been looking at this issue. Pretty entertaining.

        http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=9239377&postcount=3122

        • popeye says:

          It would actually be pretty easy to verify the origin of the heat. They could have put thermocouples on the reactor cylinder and outside the resistor radius. If the heat was coming from the inner reactor, it would be substantially hotter than the resistors themselves. Thermocouples are available for temperatures up to the melting  point of most metals.

          • JNewman says:

            It would be pretty easy to verify the origin of the heat if the experimenters had access to the device, control of what methods were used, control of what equipment was used, and a genuine interest in figuring out what was really going on. As far as we can tell, they had none of the above.

          • maryyugo says:

            Good idea. Hope someone mentions it to Essen or the others. They’re planning another go at it this summer.

        • Ransompw says:

          Newman:

          Much of it is based on assumptions about the reactor and air gaps and a host of other issues not to mention, they assume the nickel is suppying the heat and not the steel. If you assume this actually works (something I know you find impossible) and given that we don’t know how it works (ie the reaction) or how the energy is thermalized, this kind of mental exercise is useless.

          Popeye’s idea is a very good one, put a thermocouple on the inner core.

          • JNewman says:

            Ransom, the point isn’t whether LENR works or not. It doesn’t matter what is supposed to be going on inside the little reaction chamber. If it has the energy density claimed, then the whole thing should immediately melt down. There is no way it could peacefully thermalize the way that is required for this description to be accurate. If, on the other hand, the excess energy is not coming from the little magic pill but is simply from hidden or otherwise unmeasured current through the heater coils, then it all makes sense. So this is not an argument about whether LENR is possible; it is an argument about whether anything could work like this device is supposed to.

          • H D says:

            Just to reiterate what JNewman is referring to: The laws that govern heat conductivity are independent of the nature of the heat source.

            That’s why for instance something like welding works, you can use the torch on an arbitrarily huge junk of steal because it produces enough heat in a concentrated spot so that the heat cannot escape fast enough into the rest of the material. If the reactor chamber in the hot cat is below a certain threshold that’ll be the case.

            I haven’t done the math to know where this threshold is, would be nice if one of the gentlemen who apparently did the calculation could share it with us.

        • Bettingman says:

          This is quite… damaging…I would say. Nice link!

    • Ransompw says:

      They didn’t say the reactor in the November test melted shortly after the test started, you made that up. Please read more closely.

      • dsm says:

        RansomPW

        Are you trying to imply that you *never* made up claims at ECN ? – do I really have to drag them all out 1 by 1 ?

        Recall the Piantelli letter that I posted & how it named Focardi as seeking expert advice from Piantelli without him being told, & Focardi passing it on to Rossi & how you claimed that Piantelli was posting sour grapes ?

        Recall the who used powdered Ni 1st & patented it & your rebuttal ? You claimed it was Piantelli sour grapes.

        No I bet you don’t. You are a Rossi shill ! – always were and 2 years later remain so. You have been posting flagrant pro Rossi propaganda since late 2011 – & ECN has it all on file.

        I consider you as having a rather short attention span when it is convenient !.

        DSM

        • Bettingman says:

          But DSM,
          Ransompw states that he does not think it likely that Rossi ever will have a commercial product. Doesn’t that disqualify him as an effective Rossi shill?

        • Ransompw says:

          DSM:

          You have absolutely no ability to differentiate opinion, conjecture from fact. You comingle the two as if they were the same. My point in the Piantelli debate was not that Piantelli’s version was sour grapes, but that it could be. You decide what you believe and then substitute that opinion for reality.

          You and Gary Wright deserve each other, neither have a strong grasp of reality.

          You also can’t read, I’ve said the license thing looks scammy, and I wouldn’t trust Green with penny of my money. I also am highly doubtful Rossi will ever deliver a product.

          I just don’t fantasize reality like you.

          • dsm says:

            RansomPW

            I consider my comment about you as a whirling dervish nailed it in 1

            DSM

          • Ransompw says:

            DSM:

            An frankly I don’t think it is worth discussing matters with someone as clueless as you.

          • dsm says:

            RansomPW

            All right – let us call this downward spiral quits. I’ll apologize for calling you a Rossi shill if you can simply say here (and I won’t argue with your reply if it is open) that you have never taken money from a Rossi related company to support Rossi’s promotion of his new energy and or eCat. nor have ever offered to a Rossi related company to do so.

            I really did believe at times that this was the only explanation for your constant pattern of criticizing *any* (IMHO) evidence / research that in particular I presented that in any way put Andrea Rossi or his eCat in a bad light.

            This included the DGT story & relationship – the use of powdered Ni in Piantelli’s patents – The history of Rossi’s claimed ‘Edisonian’ efforts (proven to only have been jul 2007 to Oct 2007) – the fund raising going on behind the scenes (now openly admitted by Roger Green).

            There was *not* a time that I presented IMHO good evidence that you didn’t criticize it even though it has almost all now been proven to be correct. The only theme still not publicly proven is the reason DGT split from Andrea. But most should be able to see that for what it was. Rossi couldn’t deliver as even that can now be proven.

            So let us end this on a good note.

            Cheers

            DSM

    • Anonymous Reader says:

      Yugo,

      “all the extra heat was contained in tiny capsules of metal measuring just 3 mm thick (about 1/10 of an inch) and 33 mm (1.3 inches) long!”

      No, the report says the March device inner tube is 3 CM in diameter and 33 CM long (the December device is 3.3 CM in diameter). The December device inner tube has a wall thickness of 3 mm.

      The rest of it makes no sense to me, particularly the energy density per unit mass in the second report. I think it has to be just wrong. 300 mG is like a small pill worth of powder considering how dense nickel is. They claim the tube was cut open and then they didn’t notice any powder falling out?

      Device 1 averaged 1500 watts of power if you believe the thermal and convective measurements and calculations. The insides of that device were not seen — weight was inferred from a “similar” device. The second device ran at supposedly 500 watts for 5 days. The insides of that device as well as I can tell appeared empty.

      The pictures of the first November device seemed to be brighter at the endcaps. To me that smells like external oxidation or extra heaters. There is no indication that the reaction is occurring towards the bottom of the inner tube — everything looks symmetrical with regard to the vertical axis.

      The second (empty) device I hypothesize that something in it may have burned, perhaps graphite, that would have gone out the device as CO2 gas. There was no attempt to weigh the device before. Maybe boron? Maybe palladium hydride? Maybe a combination of the three. Maybe the iron in the tube itself? Maybe a new kind of exothermic chemical metal hydride combustion where the metal hydride is loaded to densities that exceed palladium. The device was never weighed, so we really don’t know how much fuel by weight could have been crammed into it if there is some new chemical physics that allow very dense loading of fuels into metal hydride crystalline matrices. This all assumes it was not deliberate fraud, which I believe it was not. But I don’t necessarily think they have a new massively practical energy source going from the data presented. Way too opaque. Way to many ways to infer more than it is.

      And what about the robotic factory nonsense.

      I’m hoping that Mr. Rossi has something going here, but I just don’t see enough proof that I would expect. I am skeptical.

      Finally, as long as I am writing, why didn’t Rossi figure out that independent means that someone goes to his lab and sets up the test WITHOUT him that is truly independent, like using Ernst and Young to audit. He just selected his usual batch of friends — no one is going to see independence there.

      So this report is a big let down after reading the headlines. Not independent. Still full of as many open questions as the steam reports. Why not do it all professionally? There must be a business reason. The whole company and the whole communications strategy has just been so unprofessional. He should have sold to real investor who would put a real CEO in place.

      And the Levi paper — it is just so unprofessional in its entire look and feel and the references. Even if they have something that is real, who can tell.

      • H D says:

        An apt summarization.

        • Ransompw says:

          Quax:

          No way this isn’t an improvment over the steam tests. Output energy in those tests was not measured. I think most of the points made about this paper (aside from the possibility of extra input energy) are red herrings (have nothing to do with the conclusions reached).

          • H D says:

            Ransom, the way I see it, if one wants to rule out any foul play then the report can at best offer a marginal improvement. On the other hand if one assumes ethical conduct it’ll be quite significant.

          • JNewman says:

            Quite a few scientist types have weighed in on this report and pronounced it to be highly deficient. On the other hand, it passes the Ransom test, so I guess it must be good. Onward and upward.

          • popeye says:

            The secret 18-hour test was much better than this experiment, except it wasn’t written down. The power was higher, the COP was higher, the calorimetry was better. But you have to trust Levi … just like here.

          • John Milstone says:

            if one wants to rule out any foul play then the report can at best offer a marginal improvement.

            It’s a shame that Rossi’s partner won’t release the report from the Swedish Standards Institute.

            We know that they failed to find any excess energy, and the rumor is that they walked out after only an hour or so, which suggests that they found something that invalidated the entire purpose of the test (i.e. non-standard electrical source or other signs of fraud).

            Releasing the SIS report would resolve the issue.

            But, instead, they found a new set of “friendly” testers who just assumed that everything was on the up-and-up.

        • John Milstone says:

          No way this isn’t an improvment over the steam tests. Output energy in those tests was not measured.

          Output energy in this test wasn’t measured, either.

          In all cases, Rossi demanded that indirect methods be used to estimate the energy production, based on precarious methods.

          It’s not hard to measure energy production. The skeptics (and handful of honest believers) have been repeating it for over 2 years now. But Rossi continues to ignore their simple advice and the “True Believers” continue to think it doesn’t matter.

          • Ransompw says:

            Milstone:

            Just because you think there is a better way to measure energy output, doesn ‘t mean it is the only way. However, in this case you are just flat wrong, the use of thermal scanning is perfectly adequate.

          • John Milstone says:

            However, in this case you are just flat wrong, the use of thermal scanning is perfectly adequate.

            It isn’t when one of the unanswered questions is whether a fraud is being perpetrated.

          • Ransompw says:

            Milstone:

            What does the possibility of fraud have to do with it. The input issue is worth discussing, that is where the fraud could occur, not in the output measure.

            Do you have any technical knowledge at all? Please note that the other skeptics here are not concentrating on that issue, there is a reason.

          • John Milstone says:

            Ransom, you are certainly right that there are several better reasons to doubt this report.

            Using a 4th-power function to estimate the output power is only one of the additional reasons to doubt the competence and credibility of the testers.

  56. maryyugo says:

    @Ransom

    “Allegedly after that test the reactor material was spread evenly throughout the reactor core to avoid creating hot spots. (who knows)”

    I didn’t see that anywhere. I did see this specifically about the December test (not the one that melted down and, I presume, the one from which figure 3 was derived:

    “The most important element of the E-Cat HT was lodged inside the structure. It
    consisted of an AISI 310 steel cylinder, 3 mm thick and 33 mm in diameter, housing the powder charges.”

    Well… now that I look again at the March test, they said this: “As in the case of the previous model, here too the powder charge is contained within a smaller AISI 310 steel cylinder (3 cm in diameter and 33 cm in length), housed within the
    E -Cat HT2 outer cylinder together with the resistor coils, and closed at each
    end by two AISI 316 steel caps.

    So sloppy reporting. Even if so, I’d expect a hot streak from this cylinder. Instead of extra heat at the ends and a higher wall temp nearby, I’d expect it along a stripe. I have to say, the reporting in this paper is so careless that I can’t really say WHAT they are saying. Either they were in a serious hurry or they were not paying attention. Where else were they not paying attention?

    • Ransompw says:

      Maryyugo:

      The reporting isn’t even close to sloppy. And the only one not paying attention seems to be you.

      Paragraph 2 of the report states as follows:

      Besides some minor geometrical differences, in the E-Cat HT used for the November test the charge in the inner cylinder was not evenly distributed, but concentrated in two distinct locations along the central axis. In addition, the primer resistor coils were run at about 1 kW, which might be the cause of the ensuing device failure. For these reasons, a more prudent reactor design was
      chosen for the test held in December and March, by distributing the charge evenly along its container cylinder, and limiting the power input to the reactor to 360 W.

      Did you even bother to read the last sentence of that paragraph of the second page, it was after all right at the beginning of this 29 page document.

      And if anything the Thermal Scan from November supports this precisely showing two hot spots in the Reactor (which you apparantly think is needed to support the December and March Thermal Scans).

      I really don’t know why I have to point out “CLEAR UNEQUIVICAL LANGUAGE IN THE REPORT”, which you want very much to crticize but can’t seem to even read.

  57. John Milstone says:

    Very good point from Robert Lynn, over on the Vortex (LINK):

    The reactor vessel is a sealed metal container, no electrical or magnetic
    signal of any frequency will penetrate it (It is a faraday cage). And all
    of the resistive heating elements are positioned around it, so they do
    nothing but deliver heat to the reactor contents – no special magnetic or
    electrical excitation can pass through the reactor vessel. All of these
    configurational details were revealed to the testers by Rossi.

    So why did Rossi feel the need to prevent detailed analysis of the input
    power to these resistors that are no more than resistive heaters?

    How, exactly, did Rossi get his “secret” frequency signal in to the sealed metal “capsule”? As Robert Lynn points out, it would act as a Faraday cage.

    • JNewman says:

      Arguing about the output energy measurement (which is a lousy one) is really a red herring. The focus really should be on the physical configuration and details (as stated) of the system. For an increasing number of reasons, it simply does not make sense. It does not correlate with any previous conception of what an LENR reactor might look like. It does not jibe with how thermal transport works. The alleged power scheme (as elucidated in the previous post) makes no physical sense. In short, only someone desperate to declare victory for LENR or for Rossi could possibly take this report seriously.

      • Ransompw says:

        So suggest to the Authors that they change their approach to the measurment of input energy for the next test. Don’t just run around and assume something that can’t be proved either way.

        The problem with the skeptics here is that there is a world of room between,

        1) The report of the December and March tests proves LENR and,
        2) The report of the December and March tests prove fraud on the part of Rossi.

        What I keep reading from the crowd here is virtually number 2, which of course is outlandish since there is absolutely no evidence of a hidden power source.

        Why does it bother all of you so much to just say, well that is interesting but we have an issue with the controls over the input energy so if you really want to get our attention, please do this or that on the proposed next tests.

        All of the armchair experts here acting like this test (which on its face and excluding fraud is interesting) supports their unsubstantiated and biased view of LENR is unproductive. You look like close minded fools.

        • John Milstone says:

          All of the armchair experts here acting like this test (which on its face and excluding fraud is interesting) supports their unsubstantiated and biased view of LENR is unproductive. You look like close minded fools.

          It isn’t just here. The vast majority of commentary that I’ve seen everywhere suggests overwhelming belief that this test is worthless.

          The reality is that only the small, fringe group of “True Believers” think this test is significant.

          When you think that everyone except for your small, fringe group “look like closed-minded fools”, you have lost your grasp with reality.

          To ignore all of the lies and distortions over the last 2 1/2 years is foolish.

          If someone with credibility had presented this test, it would be much more interesting. But anything produced by Rossi must be considered fraudulent until it is verified beyond any doubt.

          That’s the price Rossi faces for having acted like a fraud for the last couple of years (not to mention the criminal convictions for fraud over the last couple of decades).

        • Ransompw says:

          Milstone:

          I read easily as much as you do. Ethan Siegel and Motil are the most vocal in their criticism. Both are beyond bizarre and at best fringe characters who clearly do not reflect mainstream science. If that is the kind of person you want to rely on you have no room criticising someone relying on Rothwell for example (he is much more reasonable and credible than those two even with their better science education.)

          You crack me up with your thumb in the wind analysis of the world’s reaction to the report. You have no idea what people think other than the few vocal minorities posting on the web. It is actually comical.

          • John Milstone says:

            Rothwell for example (he is much more reasonable and credible than those two even with their better science education.)

            LOL!

            Only to a wing-nut “True Believer”.

    • Bezel says:

      “How, exactly, did Rossi get his “secret” frequency signal in to the sealed metal “capsule”?”

      Couldn’t the capsule be connected to the input power line? Wouldn’t that transmit the ‘waveform’ to the contents of the capsule?

      • John Milstone says:

        I don’t see how. That’s the point of a Faraday cage.

        Anything inside the sealed tube would be at the same state, regardless of what was changing outside the tube.

        If he had, say, a wire running through an insulated hold in the tube, then he could have done so. But the description of the tube doesn’t include anything like that. Just a metal tube with metal end-caps, completely sealed from the outside world.

    • Eldering_G says:

      It can be done. From Wikipedia: “The Aharonov–Bohm effect, sometimes called the Ehrenberg–Siday–Aharonov–Bohm effect, is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which an electrically charged particle is affected by an electromagnetic field (E, B), despite being confined to a region in which both the magnetic field B and electric field E are zero. The underlying mechanism is the coupling of the electromagnetic potential with the complex phase of a charged particle’s wavefunction, and the Aharonov–Bohm effect is accordingly illustrated by interference experiments.” There are some people who just love these quantum effects :) I don’t suppose it would be of any use in this case (or black box).

  58. oakthicket says:

    The first step in any good reaction test is a proper energy and mass balance.

    This ‘validation’ test doesn’t have that.

    A credible heat release experiment requires calorimetry, period, end of story. There’s been much debate about whether thermal imaging is good enough or not. It’s not. Proper calorimetry is clearly better, so why wasn’t it done? Recall that Rossi had his thermocouple placement trick exposed a couple of years ago. He didn’t want to get caught with that one again. This time he only allowed an indirect, external measurement of temperature instead of direct, internal measurement.

    The lack of proper input energy measurement has been discussed in detail.

    The lack of information on reactants and reaction products is a glaring omission.

    Rossi listens to the skeptics and does a good job adjusting his stage act accordingly.

    * Erroneous thermocouple placement? Don’t allow thermocouples to be used.
    * Bogus spent catalyst analysis? Don’t allow chemical analyses of any kind.
    * Cold fusion claims but no radiation? Change cold fusion claim to simply ‘anomalous heat’.
    * Got caught on camera adjusting power input? Stay away from demonstration. Do this by having the demonstration running before scientists show up and limit what they can measure.
    * Had eCat demonstration failures with previous scientists? Hand pick the scientists and call them ‘independent third party’.

    Folks may recall the video “The Magic of Mr. Rossi”. He’s still at it, and the suckers keep coming.

    • Ransompw says:

      Thicket:

      None of your points have anything to do with the use of Thermal Imaging or why Calorimetry is better under the circumstances..

      You can scream “It’s NOT” as loud as you want. That means exactly squat. The measure of output energy in this test is as good as it needs to be and is very very likely understated by a comfortable margin.

      • oakthicket says:

        Ransom

        You can scream your technical opinions as much as you want but they mean exactly squat. It’s because you’re science-ignorant.

        I think that Rossi intentionally avoided using thermocouple heat measurement.

        • Ransompw says:

          Rossi didn’t do this test.

          • oakthicket says:

            Ransom

            Rossi set it up, or had Levi set it up according to his instructions, he started the eCat and he specified what could and could not be done. There were no thermocouple temperature measurements.

            I kinda suspect you don’t know how a thermocouple is used. Google it quick. For meaningful results the thermocouple is inserted close to the temperature it’s intended to measure. The interesting temperature would have been inside Rossi’s seeeeecret reactor. Furthermore, it would be been interesting to see how the temperature cycles during the heating up and cooling down. But Rossi wouldn’t allow that. Thermal imaging is all he allowed.

            There are hundreds of thermocouples measuring process temperatures where I work. It’s the standard way temperatures are measured.

            We find thermal imaging useful only to find hot spots in electrical equipment, in heaters to evaluate refractory damage or heater tubes, and to assess heat loss due to poor insulation. It’s not used to measure heat flux.

            Using thermal imaging is like the old ‘spit test’ used by operators to see how hot something was. You spit on the pipe or equipment and estimated the temperature by how fast the spit evaporated.

  59. Jamiwithnewmailid says:

    Wild speculation: Rossi has revealed that the input power was supplied as 380V 50Hz, so it definitively didn’t come out of a standard wall socket, which is 220V in Italy. He also claims that the measurements were taken between the controller and the plug and not between the controller and the e-cat, which seems to be contradicted by the description of the December test but is in line with the March test. According to that his secret waveform (which must be really magical since it can trigger a nuclear reaction despite having to go through some barely insulated screw joints and being further dampened by a resistor infinitely more inert than any waveform you can possibly think of) has been exposed to detection at least during the December test but apparently wasn’t allowed to be studied by the testers. To insure that nobody brought up the wave analyzer of the PCE-830, Rossi set up the silly video camera and wristwatch in front of the instrument rather than using the device’s in-built data logger. Rossi does use a TRIAC and looped cables to squeeze more energy into the e-cat than a standard ameter shows. And he got away with it because the people involved weren’t suspicious enough to doubt his industrial secret waveform bullshit and therefore kept their hands off the analyzer. I wonder how they felt about having the capability of data logging via USB on the desk right in front of them and yet being forced to eyeball the input powers and energies from a crude videotape.

    • maryyugo says:

      Rossi’s silly remarks on JONP blow right by the issue of an oscilloscope and a DC-sensitive meter being required to check the mains power. Of course. He probably wouldn’t want that:


      Andrea Rossi
      May 24th, 2013 at 4:56 AM

      To the Readers:
      A friend of mine, Prof. of Electric Measurements , put me a question that I think is important to reproduce here:
      ” The measurement of the electric energy consumed by the resistance could have been affected by the fact that a particular wave has been produced that the instrument of measurement could have not been able to measure”. This question is important. The answer is: the measurement of the electric energy that has been consumed by the resistances has been made BETWEEN THE PLUG OF THE GRID AND THE CONTROL PANEL, NOT BETWEEN THE CONTROL PANEL AND THE RESISTANCES. Therefore the wave of the electricity in the point in which the electric energy consumed has been measured was a full, regular wave od alternate current ( the instrumentation used allowed also to see the wave form). AGAIN:
      THE MEASUREMENT MADE BY THE PCE 830 HAS BEEN TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE GRID OF THE OF THE ENERGY DISTRIBUTOR; AFTER THE MEASUREMENT OF ENERGY , THE ENERGY IS ENVOYED TO THE REGULATION SYSTEM ( ANGLE PHASE TRIAC), THEREFORE THE SOLE ENERGY MEASURED IS 380 VOLTS 3 PHASES 50 Hz !!!
      Obviously the Examiners wanted to measure the energy consumed between the plug of the grid and the control panel exactly for this reason. This can be also found in the Report.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.”

      JONP

    • H D says:

      Jami, standard three-phase power gets you to 380V in Europe. (220 * √3).

      • Jamiwithnewmailid says:

        Your point?

        • Tony2 says:

          Isn’t AR admitting that the incoming power measurement is wrong or at least done incorrectly? There’s a cord out of the wall into a box and wires out of the box to the reactor. The power was measured on the cord coming out of the wall but not the lines going into the reactor? Well that makes no sense whatsoever. The fakery is related to the control box and without monitoring the output of the control box itself there is no way to tell what the duty cycle is or even if there is one. Maybe I’m missing some thing here but this seems like an extraordinarily dumb thing to say.

          Tony2

  60. GreenWin says:

    Wow! With the exception of George Hody it’s just the very same 5-6 guys whining about a science they cannot grasp. Oh well, the blind like their own Company. Quax, the most interesting post I skimmed includes THIS comment:

    …this general mechanism of why skeps still stick to their faith even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. It is a pattern that seems to be wired into inhuman nature. With edits for clarity :).

    Unhappily for the misanthropes here, Sweden’s major Energy R&D group ELFORSK AB has issued a statement of support for the E-Cat HT validation, and stated it will continue to finance E-Cat commercial development. Steam genset on way. Darn! That’s outside the purview of the old curmudgeon priestdom!

    IGZ-2013 is rating HUGE!! But we miss AlPretenza!! And Huizenga!

    • Bettingman says:

      Greenwin, I have looked up this company and they seem to have about 15 to 16 million euro’s in sales per year. Am I Correct? I would think that this a relatively small company. I hope they don’t spend more on Rossi then they can afford too loose…

    • popeye says:

      GreenWin said on May 24, 2013 at 2:39 pm:

      Oh well, the blind like their own Company.

      Which is why sites like ECW limit participation, while all are welcome here.

      Unhappily for the misanthropes here, Sweden’s major Energy R&D group ELFORSK AB has issued a statement of support for the E-Cat HT validation, and stated it will continue to finance E-Cat commercial development.

      For the sake of your ratings, I hope this has better returns than the millions EPRI pumped into McKubre’s operation.

      • GreenWin says:

        Right. Millions for McKubre and hundreds of $Billions for the hot fusionist BOONDOGGLE. Recall??? 60 years, $$240B taxpayer dollars = ZERO useful energy.

        Makes the investment in Mike look like a bargain that will pay off handsomely. Maybe the wizards at EPRI will realize they better get on to LENR before their pink slips arrive. How long did the Iceman Union last, after all??

        • popeye says:

          GreenWin said on May 24, 2013 at 5:45 pm:

          Right. Millions for McKubre and hundreds of $Billions for the hot fusionist BOONDOGGLE.

          You’re right. That’s a much better example, especially considering my audience. I should have said: For the sake of your ratings, I hope the Swedish investment has better returns than the billions that has been pumped into the hot fusion boondoggle. Thanks.

          And just to be explicit, since although I’m sure you’re clever enough to get the point, some of your disciples may be scratching their heads:

          Investment is not necessarily an indication of progress. If it were, then you’d have to admit that hot fusion has progressed, because even though they shut MIT down, the total hot fusion budget increased, and it’s certainly much bigger than the investment in cold fusion.

          It’s better to look at the evidence, and sadly, there’s still none that indicates to smart people that cold fusion even exists.

          • Ransompw says:

            Which probably just means they aren’t very smart. Anyone that thinks hot plasma fusion as currently conceived could ever be a viable energy source is a dimwit. You can’t create a viable energy source that is so complex it would take 100 times the current cost of energy to run and maintain the operation.

            But obviously, those that make the decision, politicians with no concept of science, keep getting bamboozaled by people they actually think are smart.

            Too bad actually, the money could be much better spent, on almost anything else.

          • GreenWin says:

            “…the total hot fusion budget increased,”

            Heh heh, indeed it has. ITER is now 300% over budget and the EU Parliament is about to FIRE the incompetents running the show:

            http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/cont/dv/study_geier/study_geieren.pdf

            Interestingly Dr. Duncan and Dr. Hubler from U Missouri SKINR, NRL, Mike McKubre and ENEA are all meeting early next month at the EU Parliament in Belgium. When will the EU figure out they need to port the ITER funding over to LENR??

            Funny thing about pathoskeps, they never seem to know when to StfU!!

          • popeye says:

            Ransompw said on May 24, 2013 at 6:44 pm:

            Anyone that thinks hot plasma fusion as currently conceived could ever be a viable energy source is a dimwit. You can’t create a viable energy source that is so complex it would take 100 times the current cost of energy to run and maintain the operation.

            That sounds like a pretty closed-minded and unimaginative attitude. I wonder if you’d be so adamant if it didn’t compete with your favorite pseudoscience.

            But obviously, those that make the decision, politicians with no concept of science, keep getting bamboozaled by people they actually think are smart.

            Those are the people who *do* have a concept of science. And when they make the case to the politicians, they probably use a technique that the politicians find a little more persuasive than a simple assertion from a lawyer.

            But whether it’s true or not that all the advocates of hot fusion are dimwits, that still leaves a lot of smart people who think there’s no good evidence that cold fusion even exists.

          • Ransompw says:

            Popeye:

            I was a strong proponent of plasma fusion about 25 years ago and even did a little inprompto lobbying for an increase in funding. But 25 years of little progress and mountains of money later and after following the monstrousity they are building which will be as reliable as any machine with that many things that can and will go wrong and the obvious issues associated with radiation and waste, I learned my lesson. It is a boondoggle pure and simple and now another jobs program for wasted effort.

    • BigWillyJohnson says:

      GreenWin!

      Good to see you posting here. Wish it wasn’t so infrequently.

      Glad to hear IGZ is back on track with this latest bullet proof indipinint report.

      While your here any updates on Terrawatt or Ansaldo Energio secret LENR support? I dont have the same access to the “back channels” as other people and am eager to learn about any developments.

      And don’t listen to any of the meanies here either. Rossi’s record is impeccable, the free energy field is completely legitimate with no frauds, cold fusion has been demonstrated unequivocally many times since 1989 but big farma has suppressed it, the March report is top quality and will definetly be peer reviewed in a top journal (unless big asphault oligarchs shut it down) and its Friday!

      Time to be happy!

      bw

      • GreenWin says:

        Willy! YES, it is time to be happy! What with the E-CatHT validation shaking up the world (even under strict orders not to.) The latest on Ansaldo Energia is Hitachi has entered the picture, now along with Doosan Heavy, Samsung, and Siemens. What is it all these big energy/tech companies want so badly from Ansaldo??

        Don’t know a thing about the TerraWatt outfit except it still seems to be run by a bunch of Intelligence agency escapees. Gotta love those NSA boys :)

        Since we know the E-CatHT will be manufactured in 1MW form factors it is ideally suited for microgrids. And guess what? Microgrids are all the rage now!

        “Ultimately, the transformation to distributed generation and grid management will require regulatory reform as well, so that groups of businesses and residents can create microgrids. In that, too, the utilities will need to be active and supportive participants.”

        http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-05-24/microgrids-a-utility-s-best-friend-or-worst-enemy

        Of course if the utilities do not obey… er, rapidly adapt, they will die. :(

        https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/can-the-utility-industry-survive-the-energy-transition

        SO MUCH disruption! SO MUCH FUN!! Have a great weekend Big Willy!! And Al…

  61. John Milstone says:

    I see that someone on the Vortex suggested that Rossi’s “secret sauce” was magnetic, since Nickel is magnetic.

    Since I quite the Vortex and can’t respond there, I thought I’d mention here that the Curie Point (the temperature where a magnetic material loses its magnetism) of Nickel is about 350 C, so magnetism can’t been a significant effect in the E-Cat when it is at operating temperature.

  62. Ransompw says:

    Thought I would add a post before the holiday weekend (US Memorial Day).

    All of the regular skeptics on this blog must have realized by now (unless they are dense) that they are all in. As with Poker all your cards are on the table and every cent you have has been bet. The bet, Rossi is a fraud.

    There is really no room for anything else. The output energy measured in the tests is reasonable and unless Rossi was cheating so was the input measure. You won’t convince anyone with brains that a large enough honest error was made to account for the results. That means either the 7 Authors are complicit with Rossi to perpertrate a scam or as you are so fond to claim incompetent to see his fraud.

    The problem is that while that might seem like a reasonable conclusion to the oddballs that post on this site (and don’t fret by spending time here I qualify as an odd ball as well), people that live in the real world will never conclude that option without proof. The thing is I also live in the real world and talk and converse with real people. They don’t really warm up that well to the whole fraud thing. It is to public, too in your face, too visable and if true can’t at this point have a very happy ending for those involved.

    My point is the mainstream isn’t really buying it and even though they are willing to consider it as a possibliity they will never conclude it without proof. That is just the way people operate. So you are all out there beyond the norm, not with the mainstream, because unlike the earlier tests where the output wasn’t measured properly and it was possible that even Rossi was deluding himself, we are now beyond that point.

    Just thought I would point that out. Rossi is either a fraud and right now you are alone in concluding it even if it turns out to be true or you are wrong about Rossi and LENR. I think it will be interesting to see how this ends.

    • BigWillyJohnson says:

      Hey Ransom,

      I think your assessment is pretty acurate. I cant speak for anyone else but I really really really hope that Rossi is legitimate and all along I have just been a grumpy skeptic. Know why? Because the only downside is that I was on record saying he is a fraud and LENR probably isnt real, big whoop. The upside is fantastic though!! The future truly would be bright.

      Now when you say “unless Rossi was cheating” i nearly threw up in my mouth. Rossi is the biggest lying person I know of. If I read that he stated 2+2=4 I would doubt it out of principle because of the million previous lies. He is the boy who cried wolf, only instead of the town coming to see two times they have came 400. As you can imagine the only towns people who come running on the 401 are the gullible or atleast have less than average critical thinking.

      What happens if Rossi is shown to be a fraud? Will you rethink your judgment? Would you say to yourself, hmmm, this guy was convicted of fraud and was in free energy that has not produced any energy and is rife with fraudulent individuals, and every demo is tainted and (the biggest one) cold fusion has not been adequately shown at even low levels but some guy from Italy with a rapid prototyped degree in engineering has discovered it, then ramped it up a million fold and now has real LENR but is behaving exactly like a fraud but I believe he has something?

      Happy Memorial Day Ransom
      BW

      • Ransompw says:

        I would think that was always a very real possibility but are you so certain it is as you suspect that you believe no orher outcome is possible. That is really the question. I am not certain either way, so it is easy for me to accept either outcome. There are those on this site that may have a stroke if they are wrong.

        • JNewman says:

          I don’t know about that. Given the frenzy of posts and temper tantrums you have displayed in recent days, I think you are the best candidate to have a stroke over this.

          • Ransompw says:

            Now Newman, you really must not associate with many lawyers. It is in our nature to stir it up. That is what we do, you shouldn’t take it all so seriously.

          • popeye says:

            Ransompw said on May 24, 2013 at 11:50 pm:

            Now Newman, you really must not associate with many lawyers. It is in our nature to stir it up. That is what we do, you shouldn’t take it all so seriously.

            Now Ransom, you probably haven’t associated with many Newmans or sailors. We’re just kidding around too. Right, Newman?

          • JNewman says:

            Newmans are never too serious. As cousin Alfred E says: What, me worry?

        • popeye says:

          Ransompw said on May 24, 2013 at 11:03 pm:

          That is really the question. I am not certain either way, so it is easy for me to accept either outcome. There are those on this site that may have a stroke if they are wrong.

          What a crock. You are as invested in this as anyone on the site, as is clear from the number of posts, and your irascible tone. You tried to edge toward the fence a little while ago, but no one could read your latest flurry of posts and label you uncertain either way. If anyone is susceptible to medical complications as a result of being wrong, it is you. And as it happens, it is almost certainly you that is wrong. Your only saving grace is that Rossi probably has the skill to drag this out for a long time yet, and so if you ever come to realize you were wrong, it will be a gradual journey.

    • H D says:

      You make a compelling argument that the rubicon really has been crossed, i.e. that this test will force the issue one way or another.

      But looking back to the earlier tests, there was more mainstream media reporting (i.e. the largest German news site picked it up back then).

      I see the current level of attention as still below that earlier threshold.

    • popeye says:

      Ransompw said on May 24, 2013 at 7:10 pm:

      All of the regular skeptics on this blog must have realized by now (unless they are dense) that they are all in.

      Bad metaphor, because going all in means there is something to lose. But skeptics would benefit as much as true believers if cold fusion were real.

      I don’t see how this latest report changes things very much. By far, the most likely alternative to cold fusion being real has always been that Rossi is pulling a fast one. That has not changed. It fits his past, and the nature of the lame demos and reports. Tell us something we don’t know….

      But as always, for me it’s not so much about what the consequences are, but simply about the evidence. The evidence did not before, and does not now, come anywhere close to being convincing that cold fusion is real. If it were, I am almost certain, it would be demonstrated in a way that would simply leave no doubt. Almost certainly, it would be self-sustaining, and there would be no chicanery involved with the input, and Rossi would actually use the energy to do something that everyone agrees takes energy, and it would be an easily quantifiable amount of energy.

      This 3rd party report is almost comically far from that kind of a demo. It’s as if he were claiming the first flight, but he refused to let people see the plane to protect his secret, and instead showed them a movie of the altimeter. Skeptics would argue that he just took the altimeter up on a hill, or put it in a decompression chamber, but the true believers would say that’s just ridiculous: you’re all in — either the flight is real or Rossi’s a fraud. But skeptics wonder why doesn’t just let us watch the plane take off.

      The difference here is that cold fusion is a much more unlikely claim than flying ever was, given the existence of birds. And so regardless of how implausible you find Rossi’s tricks or the experimenters’ incompetence or complicity, to me, they are orders of magnitude more plausible than cold fusion.

      That means either the 7 Authors are complicit with Rossi to perpertrate a scam or as you are so fond to claim incompetent to see his fraud.

      Or maybe just one of them (Levi) is complicit. From Essen’s interview, it sounds like the rest of them were pretty much hands off.

      people that live in the real world will never conclude that option [fraud] without proof.

      They won’t worry about who’s cheating who, but they will not conclude that cold fusion is real without proof, and let the chips fall where they may.

      My point is the mainstream isn’t really buying [fraud] and even though they are willing to consider it as a possibliity they will never conclude it without proof.

      Nor will they accept cold fusion without proof.

      So you are all out there beyond the norm, not with the mainstream,

      If the mainstream were accepting this as proof of cold fusion, it would be on the cover of NYT, and not in a Forbes column by someone who thought that report on DGT from Nelson was significant.

      Even one of the authors (Hoistad) of this latest report takes a much more cautious view than you do when he says “The result is obviously very dramatic and absolutely must be further verified before any definitive statements can be made. ” I doubt that he suspects fraud, and yet he’s not ready to make a definitive statement. Maybe we’re not all in after all.

      • Ransompw says:

        Sure you have something to lose. It is way more important for someone like you than the benefits of cold fusion. You would be wrong.

        I also never said the maknstream was accepting this as proof of cold fusion. But they won’t accept either that it is proof of fraud without real proof of fraud which means they will start watching and not ignoring and will likely want to resolve that issue.

        And the evidence here is different very different because the just performed test are proof of LENR absent fraud.

        So don’t kid yourself as you usually do and man up to the stand you are taking.

        • John Milstone says:

          Ransompw said:

          And the evidence here is different very different because the just performed test are proof of LENR absent fraud.

          That’s been true of all of Rossi’s “demos”. You are wrong in suggesting that this test is fundamentally different or better than the earlier steam tests.

          In the steam tests, the “experts” never bothered to properly test the basis for the claims: that all of the water was being vaporized. (And, several of the videos make it clear that this was not true.)

          In this demo, the “experts” never bothered to properly test the electric service being used (this was also true of all of the steam demos). Clamping ammeters on the lines is totally inadequate to detect the more likely forms of fraud, especially when Rossi had good reason to expect just such a half-assed check.

          My guess is that if there are any more tests (Rossi may throw a tantrum and cancel), that these friendly testers won’t bother doing anything better to detect intentional fraud. They should put oscilloscopes on each line (and the framework, to make sure that isn’t being used as a secret electrical pathway), and in-line (not clamp-on) ammeters.

          None of this would endanger any “secret” of Rossi’s. He could use whatever kind of filtering after the test point to prevent his razzle-dazzle modulations from being fed back. But it would accurately measure the actual amount of energy being provided (which has never been done in any previous E-Cat test).

          If the friendly testers don’t do this (after all of the complaints about their current report), then it will be reasonable to conclude that they are conspiring with Rossi. Right now, all we can conclude is that they were sloppy and too trusting of Rossi’s integrity and honesty.

          • Ransompw says:

            Milstone:

            You just don’t get it. In the steam tests output wasn’t adequately tested. Every skeptic basically said there is no evidence Rossi was generating any energy in excess of input (although they had to come up with nonsense to say so about Lewan’s second April 2011 test.

            They really have no credible way of saying that in this test. The energy output to input isn’t marginal, can’t be an artifact and isn’t mismeasurement. It is either Rossi fraud with 7 incompetent testers, Rossi fraud with an accomplice amoung the 7 or fraud with everyone in on it.

            If you can’t appreciate the difference it is only because your mind has never entertained for rven a milisecond that Fraud may not be involved. Which of course is why your bias is so obvious.

  63. oakthicket says:

    There you go with your lawyer BS again Ransom.

    It is extremely unlikely that any of the seven authors are complicit with Rossi in perpetrating the scam. Are you that dumb or are you’re just pulling chains again? The most likely scenario is that the eCat is a one-man scam. You’ve been listening too much to the conspiracy theories of your fellow true believers.

    I agree that it would be interesting to see how it all ends, but chances are that it will go on and on for years just like many other pseudoscience scams. Heck, Steorn is still around and so is Blacklight Power. Goldes is still doddering along. We can hope Rossi ends up like Brady and his Perendev motor, but I hold out little hope.

  64. JNewman says:

    Well, since we are busy drawing lines in the sand, I will make my prediction: the net result of the new Rossi report will be: wait for it….. Nothing. Same old same old. Three months from now and six months from now the same small group of people wasting their time arguing about this nonsense (from either side) will be arguing the same positions. Nothing will change. That is my bet.

    For those who believe that this whole affair is anything more than an obscure freak show, I wish you the best and hope you don’t get any more emotionally invested. But if reality is not important to you, then keep the flame burning and dream of the wonders to come.

    • Ransompw says:

      Newman:

      You really think Rossi has the balls to sell the same container for a third time? :)

      I think I’m am going to disagree, I think we are very slowly moving toward a resolution.

      • JNewman says:

        So you have said for the better part of two years. See what you think six months from now.

      • popeye says:

        Ransompw said on May 24, 2013 at 11:10 pm:

        You really think Rossi has the balls to sell the same container for a third time? 

        You really think he doesn’t? Please. I think you greatly underestimate Rossi.

        I think I’m am going to disagree, I think we are very slowly moving toward a resolution.

        Very slowly, though.

        Remember when you said on September 30, 2011: “Get over it, this is put up or shut up time. The I/O will be measured accurately of that you can be sure. All the scientists invited are going to be aware of the past criticism. We are going to know soon.”

        Or when you said in January 2012 that we’d see a product in that year.

        Or on May 24, 2012 at 3:45 pm: “Could be in the next few months if DGT is truthful (big if I know). Again, based on the news flow my take is that there is currently a race to commercialize but that none of the palyers are ready with such a device at this moment. I do believe LENR is real and the day is coming.”

        Or on May 22, 2012: “In any event, I think the Popeye’s of the world may be approaching a day of awakening.”

        Or on July 24, 2012: “Since the testing is neither expensive (relatively) nor time consuming, I think we are going to be getting serious results fairly soon. If they find that LENR is real, exploitation will certainly begin in earnest and from more than just the Rossi’s of the world.”

        Or on Oct 7, 2011: “That’s the problem Rossi is clipping skeptics off one at a time and there will be some who will never believe until the world finally just ignores them. Except for a longer test and the roll out of an actual product I am no longer one of them. If the report of yesterday is thorough I am satisfied.”

        You really should give Rossi more credit. He knows how to keep this alive. In this most recent case, he’s whipped his internet choir up into such a frenzy, judging by previous frenzy half-lives, he really doesn’t have to do anything for a year or so. Just let the question of the input and the IR thermometry percolate on its own without allowing the resolution he could so easily provide. When the natives begin to get restless again, he’ll have a new configuration instead of trying to redo the old one.

        Or maybe not. I don’t know how it’ll play out, but I’ll be surprised if there’s any resolution any time soon. Uncertainty is Rossi’s lifeline, and he want’s to stay alive as long as possible.

      • John Milstone says:

        Ransomwpw said:

        You really think Rossi has the balls to sell the same container for a third time? :)

        There’s no evidence that he sold it even once.

  65. JKW says:

    Wow, Paul Story is really back again.
    Looks like the bald con man’s cat still has a couple of lives left, albeit they are getting shorter.
    Quax, thanks for this site. Don’t give it up.

  66. spacegoat says:

    There are some important comments on electrical power deception added to the bottom of Krivit’s article: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/

    Apart from the frenzy on E-catworld, a good presentation of global blog frenzy can be found here:
    http://www.scoop.it/t/lenr-revolution-in-process-cold-fusion

    The main story is thus the lamentable state of science education in the world, allowing wishes and dreams to trump necessary scientific evidence.

    I think it is revealing that the paper authors, according to this MFMP link http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/262-preliminary-assessment-of-rossi-s-validation-paper, refuse to present the paper at ICCF18 in July. MFMP add “which would certainly be an extremely welcoming audience for such a report, if the details stand up to further scrutiny.” Could the authors already be backing off? They should talk to Ransompw. :-)

    • Frank says:

       If the friendly testers don’t do this (after all of the complaints about their current report)…

       

      The fact that already last september a swedish group measured different Input power than Rossi, should have alerted this  “friendly testers” to emphasize on the electrical power measurement in oder to rule out any foul play.
      But obviously – from what we see from their report – this wasn’t done.
      Clamp on amp-meters are ‘a joke’ if you want proof without doubts the correct power in. And in the report we find no hints that additional checks (e.g with an oscilloscope) were performed.

      To add a DC bias onto the power outlet from which the e-cat is supplied would be an easy job. I find it also remarkable that Rossi’s power measurement always seems to be done with clamp-on Amp-meters not able to detect DC.
      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R7CaPbhzmUw/TfkipHujfjI/AAAAAAAAFOk/E1a3cEeeArU/s1600/14giugno_0030.jpg

      And remember how Rossi flounders in this video (watch it from 35:00) when he gets asked (what I think) about DC (direct current):
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DtJDFWtFsQ

      As said, there a many ways how AC clamp meters could be deceived, and if the testers didn’t apply additional instruments, then to my understanding this testers were “too friendly” or just don’t have the same expertise in measuring electrical power as the testing company who did the test last september.

      • Jamiwithnewmailid says:

        Unsurprisingly, Jed Rothwell dismisses the possibility of fraud on the power input side out of hand, arguing that:

        “Rossi did not know what kind of meter they intended to bring. He might have gone to a lot of trouble to fool Type A only to see them show up with Type B. His scheme would fall apart.”

        Yeah, well, “they” wouldn’t pick the right one when “they” rely on Giuseppe Levi or Rossi himself to provide the instruments. But why does Rothwell say “would”? The Swedish technical research institute DID show up with a “Type B” ammeter and the scheme DID fall apart… only he refuses to acknowledge that based on some Rossi hand waving.

        http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg80959.html

        • Jamiwithnewmailid says:

          FWIW, the ammeter used last year by Rossi was (surprise surprise) a PCE-830. What a coincidence that the “independent” scientists would pick the exact same instrument. Was it on special offer in the hardware store next to Rossi’s garage? Is it THE top class ammeter on the market? (it isn’t) Or was it already installed and they just decided to use it since that was convenient?

  67. spacegoat says:

    (Awaiting moderation, I know not why)
    In the meantime:
    I think it is revealing that the paper authors, according to this MFMP link http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/262-preliminary-assessment-of-rossi-s-validation-paper, refuse to present the paper at ICCF18 in July. MFMP add “which would certainly be an extremely welcoming audience for such a report, if the details stand up to further scrutiny.” Could the authors already be backing off? They should talk to Ransompw. :-)

  68. John Milstone says:

    So, Rossi is now claiming to have received an anonymous “death threat” from some Web posting:

    http://ecatnews.com/?p=2526

    No doubt, this will make it too dangerous for him to allow any followup testing.

    I’m sure the “True Believers” will eat this up, as it fits in with their delusion of a world-wide conspiracy to suppress LENR at all costs.

    • Bettingman says:

      Of course one should be sorry for people that receive death threats, but I find myself unable to believe anything Rossi is claiming.

      • John Milstone says:

        Yup. No signs of any evidence of this, just another “Rossi Says”.

        Of course, the best way to eliminate that risk would be to publicize the details of how the E-Cat actually works (if it does). Once the secret is out, there’s no longer any reason to threaten Rossi.

        Instead, I suspect this will be the excuse to refuse to allow any further testing, especially now that several good suggestions on how to detect fraud have been produced.

        • Bettingman says:

          yes, why doesn’t he do that?
          We could award him a Nobel prize, some more secondary prizes, make him honorary member of the leading scientific organisations all over the world, offer him a few mio for the rights on the book (and after that the movie or miniseries) “How I saved the human race”. Perhaps the Americans will tour him through New York in a ticked tape parade…
          Death threats are no longer necessary, and he would not have to fear someone would steal his IP etc.
          Of course he could also file a for patent while disclosing and be the richest man on earth, if that is what he is in to.
          Perhaps the Pope will declare him a saint.
          I see only advantages. No down sides. Does anyone see a downside for him to tell us how he is doing it?

  69. RonB says:

    Calorimetry of that steel chamber would seem very irrelevant since there’s just no way in heck that 360W is going to make that steel tube glow red like it shows in the pictures.
    So it would seem that the discussion is on the amount of power going into the control box. (that’s where they measured the 360W).
    It was reported that they used a resistor to check the meter and while I’m not sure if they actually hooked the resistor to the mains but if they did that would discount any DC bias on the AC mains. (which seems crazy to think that somehow someone could put that kind of DC power onto the mains).
    The arguments for making a case of faking this test are IMO very shaky at best.

    • Jamiwithnewmailid says:

      “which seems crazy to think that somehow someone could put that kind of DC power onto the mains”

      Why does it seem crazy? The “mains” in your own lab is just a cable coming out of the wall somewhere and you can manipulate and control it anywhere down the line somewhere in the building as you like.

    • John Milstone says:

      RonB said:

      Calorimetry of that steel chamber would seem very irrelevant since there’s just no way in heck that 360W is going to make that steel tube glow red like it shows in the pictures.

      Given the remarkable claim, it makes sense to measure everything. Mistakes or fraud could take more than one form, as is suspected in Rossi’s earlier steam-based demos (a combination of intentionally misplaced thermocouples and an invalid assumption that all of the water was actually vaporized).

      If Rossi really has what he claims, then any test measures will confirm it. If he’s faking it, only a subset of measures will be “fooled”.

      The fact that he so far has refused to allow complete, proper test measures suggests that it’s a fraud.

      And, if it was business advantage he was looking for, I can’t think of a worse way to achieve it then to blabber all about his gadget all over the Internet. This is no valid reason for him to be publicizing this demo if he is actually working with some “secret” military agency, or some big utility company, or, indeed, any competent investors.

      The only reason to release this demo publicly (as well as the 2011 steam demos) would be to convince random (gullible) investors off the street to give him money.

      If Rossi were “real”, the first anyone would hear of his wonderful invention would be when it was available for purchase. I know that Rossi is <claiming but it’s obvious to anyone with a brain that that is a lie.

      • Ransompw says:

        Milstone:

        I assume it is a waste of time to point out to you that rossi didn’t do these tests, that Rossi didn’t release the report, that the measures did confirm what Rossi claims, that there is no evidence he refused to allow proper measurements.

        I suppose it is also wasted on you that the authors of the report spent a long time testing the device and may or may not have reported every step they took in almost 5 days. And that if you believe they could have missed input energy (which could only be the result of a purposeful fraud, it might be better to ask them about it before you conclude 1) they were Rossi’s agents for the purpose of defrauding people who Rossi wishes to fleece. 2) that the energy in measurement was in error.

        • RonB says:

          John,
          It’s almost freaky how vehement you are about your stance on all of this. It seems suspicious. While I sense popeye hasn’t bought into it I do seem to think he’s trying to keep an open mind to the possibility.
          At some point in the future we might not quite have a product at home depot but the evidence that it’s real is overwhelming. At that point I hope your physics freaks will put your big brains into trying to figure out exactly how it does work.

          • John Milstone says:

            RonB said:

            It’s almost freaky how vehement you are about your stance on all of this. It seems suspicious.

            That’s because I spent a considerable amount of time researching Rossi’s history and behavior. That lead me to research the history and behavior of known technology-based con men.

            Rossi’s history and behavior fits the mold of these other, known, con men perfectly.

            There is also the details of all of Rossi’s “demos” (since none of them were credible or independent “tests”). Rossi’s refusal to allow a test where he doesn’t control the environment (including this most recent one) is a touchstone of a fraud. His refusal to allow reasonable test equipment and procedures is another.

            A good example was the “nothing” demo of October 28, 2011. Rossi had a diesel generator, capable of producing the entire alleged output of the E-Cat, running the entire duration of the test, plus no one known to the public was allowed to see any indication that the E-Cat was doing anything at all, plus trotting out an alleged “expert” who (after 18 months) still has no history or identity, plus his alleged “secret military customer” supposedly allowing him to invite his 20-30 best friends, including an AP reporter to what was supposedly an acceptance test that they were allegedly running (especially since, as we found out months later, the E-Cat wasn’t going anywhere, and Rossi could have invited his friends to see it, and even allow them to actually test it, any time for the next 18 month).

            And, in spite of all that, the “True Believers” wet themselves over what a wonderful “proof” that was that the E-Cat worked.

            We’ll see where we are in a month, or six, or a year or two or five. I’ll bet we are exactly where we’ve been for the last 2+ years: still debating whether Rossi has anything at all or whether he is a con man.

          • RonB says:

            Lol John,
            That just reminded me of an episode of “Big Bang Theory” when Penny would ask Sheldon something and all the other folks in the room would get upset and tell her to not ask Sheldon that!
            Ok.. you think the guys a fraud. I get that.

      • RonB says:

        The only reason to release this demo publicly (as well as the 2011 steam demos) would be to convince random (gullible) investors off the street to give him money.

        You should say “the only reason I can think of”, since you can’t possibly know all the reasons for anybodies behaviour.

        One possible reason is that he wants the public to know he’s working on something that he might believe others would go to extreme measures to silence him.

        • John Milstone says:

          RonB said:

          You should say “the only reason I can think of”, since you can’t possibly know all the reasons for anybodies behaviour.

          I think we would agree that if this is real, then it is the greatest discovery in the last century.

          I think we would agree that it has gone well beyond the possibility of honest error. Either Rossi has the next trillion-dollar industry in his garage, or he’s a fraud.

          Given that, can you seriously believe that Rossi would choose people like Sterling Allan to shill for him?!?

          Can you seriously believe that he would choose as his German distributor a company that has claimed for years to be selling a perpetual motion-based electric generator?!? (TransAltec AG)

          Can you seriously believe that he would decide that the best way to commercialize this trillion-dollar industry is to sell “franchises” to Feng Shui gurus?!?

          But I guess all of that is somehow “reasonable” since Rossi is “mercurial” (to use Jed Rothwell’s favorite excuse).

          • Bettingman says:

            And not to mention: alert every thief that there is some very valuable secret to steal from his workshop before he has patent it. And of course alert the competition of his progress.

    • H D says:

      I thought we were talking Voltage not Wattage?

      • Jamiwithnewmailid says:

        360 Watts (on average) it what the report claims. 380 Volt is what Rossi says the voltage of the power source was (which, to re-iterate that point, means it wasn’t an ordinary wall plug in which the testers could have also plugged their laptops and cell phones – even if it wasn’t tinkered with).

        • H D says:

          Not to nitpick, but if the 380V refers to three phase power then it’s just 220V AC times three with a phase shift, so in a sense you can plug in your laptop if you just pick one of the phase currents.

          It really isn’t particular special to get three phase power, back in Germany I had a plug for it in my basement and that was a pretty ordinary residential property.

          • Jamiwithnewmailid says:

            Yes, but what you didn’t do was wiring up two phases to a “Schuko” so you could alternatively plug in your laptop, right? You had either a special, usually 5-hole plug (got one of those in my house, too – for the stove) or separate wiring all together.

  70. RonB says:

    The report and subsequent discussions put the wattage at 360 or so watts. It doesn’t really matter what the voltage is. I guess my point is that 360W wouldn’t seem like near enough power to make that thing glow red. Just the loss of heat to free air is going to consume a large amount of that heat.
    WRT to laptops and such. I think it’s possible just to use one phase of the AC and run household appliances on it (ie laptops).. right? The fact that they had a neutral wire indicates that they might have done just that.

    • Popeye says:

      In the only run with Swedish supervision, it was only 300c, a long way from glowing.

      In the run that it glows, they claimed 1 kW, but it was only Levi.

    • Jamiwithnewmailid says:

      “The fact that they had a neutral wire indicates that they might have done just that.”

      Hardly a solid base for ruling out trickery. Look – you either think Rossi spent a couple of hours setting this up in a way that would fool whatever “scientists” he invited to this “test” (provided they wouldn’t measure anything he explicitly forbids because they’re somehow part of his “industrial secret”) or you think this guy has somehow made the greatest invention since fire but is too dumb stupid to make more money from it than Roger Green can steal from a bunch of dentist widows in Bunbury.

      • Bettingman says:

        Yes Ron,
        What is the explanation for the behavior of Rossi, assuming that he has made the most important discovery since fire? It is a great puzzlement to me that Rossi supporters think his behavior makes any sense.

        • RonB says:

          What is the explanation for the behavior of Rossi,

          I’m sure there are many. If you’re ever in the same situation as him you might understand better.
          If he has what he says he has, there are lots of reasons for his seemly odd behaviour.

          • John Milstone says:

            RonB said:

            If he has what he says he has, there are lots of reasons for his seemly odd behaviour.

            Yes, but if he is a con man, his behavior isn’t “odd” at all. It’s entirely consistent with the behavior of other, proven con men, going all the way back to John Worrell Keely.

          • John Milstone says:

            A couple of particularly relevant quotes from the link above about the Andrea Rossi of his era:

            The secret was not in the machines; the secret was in the laboratory building itself. Engineer Alexander Scott and Mrs. Moore’s son, Clarence, examined the building, accompanied by press and photographers. False ceilings and floors were ripped up to reveal hidden mechanical belts and linkages to a silent water motor in the basement (two floors below the laboratory). A system of pneumatic switches under the floor boards could be used to turn machinery on and off. A three-ton sphere was found in the basement, thought to be a reservoir for compressed air, but which could have been a discarded piece of one of Keely’s many abandoned projects. The walls, ceilings and even apparently solid beams were found to have hidden pipework. The evidence of fraud on a grand scale was obvious and difficult to dismiss.

            What’s really remarkable is that Mrs. Moore had persuaded a number of apparently respectable scientists to observe Keely’s demonstrations, and some of them affirmed that they were impressed, and even convinced that Keely had made revolutionary scientific discoveries. Why were some so easily duped by Keely’s obvious (though very elaborate) deceptions, which were correctly guessed by more perceptive and skeptical observers? Of course, it must be stated that Keely never allowed anyone to examine his machines, independently test them, or even look inside of them. Even today, scam artists promoting energy machines can find at least a few degree-holding engineers or physicists willing to declare publicly that they found no fraud or deception in the machines and who are convinced that new scientific principles are at work. So much for “expert witnesses”.

            (Originally posted in 2003, long before Rossi became the latest “free-energy” con man.)

          • Bettingman says:

            Well Ron,
            You say that there are many reasons for Rossi’s behavior, but I wasn’t lying when I said I couldn’t think of one. Not a rational one.

    • John Milstone says:

      RonB said:

      It doesn’t really matter what the voltage is.

      That depends on how they are measuring it. They (or their clamp-on ammeters) may be “assuming” a standard voltage to estimate the wattage.

      If the rumors about the failed test are true, they hooked up a normal light bulb, which has an intrinsic resistance, and measured excessive current, which would have required an excessive voltage to achieve.

      It’s a shame that HydroFusion (or their former potential investors) won’t let us know what the SIS found when they tested Rossi’s gadget. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the current Levi report failed to test for whatever the Swedish Standards Institute found (that caused them to pack up and leave).

  71. maryyugo says:

    A mysterious image has appeared via someone’s browser cache at Vortex. They say it was first shown and later deleted (by Rossi?) Anyway it is here– and if it’s the input power, it’s a lot more than 360W, I think:

    http://tinypic.com?ref=dnn8k0

    An EE signing as “Andrew” is raising some very good issues about the inadequacy of the measurement process… on Vortex. He writes that an oscilloscope and/or spectrum analyzer was needed to be placed on the input and apparently, on a pretense of secrecy, Rossi didn’t allow it.

    Meanwhile, supposedly, Gary Wright has obtained freedom of information act info on the DOD fiasco (the thermoelectric devices that probably never existed) and Rossi’s pretense to have worked with U of New Hampshire. I can hardly wait!

    • Ransompw says:

      You just made most of that up.

      • LCD says:

        anyway this is Gary Wright according to DSM

        dsm says:
        tag: $Cscf9B0dVGDc
        May 15, 2013 at 1:06 am
        Well well well,
        Talk about patent scamming !. How’s this for supreme hypocrisy and scamming / extortion attempts over company names.
        I am told that Gary Wright saw Bob Rohner had recently set up a new name to conduct a business to complete his Plasma engine and raise community funding. It appears Gary promptly registered the same names in Iowa, then created web sites, then recently sent a cease & desist order to Bob Rohner to stop using the new business name but that the matter could be settled if Bob coughed up $10,000. !!!.
        Nice one Gary !!!
        Hmmmm, so scammers & extortionists can come in all sorts of guises LOL
        When I get the full info I’ll look to hosting it all
        Gary Wright’s alleged demand …
        ***************************************************
        The timeline is very critical here because your fund raising campaign using my company and dba is a “Flexible Funding campaign” which means that you get your money as soon as it is pledged, not after the campaign is over. Therefore this must be resolved as soon as possible.
        1. Within 48 hours of my sending this email, I must receive a confirmation email back to me at gary@garywright.com.
        This confirmation email must state that you understand the issues that I have raised in this letter, and that you are willing to enter into negotiations to purchase the company RGEnergy LLC, the dba “RGEnergy”, and my four matching domain
        names, RGEnergyLLC.com ‐ RGEnergyLLC.net ‐ RGEnergyLLC.org ‐ and RGEnergyLLC.info.
        2. By Monday, May 13, 2013 at 12:00 midnight, all of the following must happen,
        a. You must send me a $10,000.00 certified cashier’s check via Express Mail Next Day Delivery USPS Mail, with online tracking info, to show your good faith in opening up these negotiations. This $10,000.00 will not be refundable under any circumstances.
        b. You must provide me via email a picture of the certified cashier’s check, and a picture of the USPS receipt showing the tracking number for the Express Mail Next Day Delivery via the USPS.
        c. You must send this $10,000.00 good faith cashier’s check to:
        Gary Wright
        P.O. Box 46466
        Las Vegas, NV 89114
        3. Within one (1) week from the date of my sending this email, we must have completed our negotiations and I must have received the funds we decide upon. All funds must be tendered by a certified cashier’s check, and sent Express
        Mail Next Day Delivery via the USPS.
        4. As soon as I have the cash in hand from both cashier’s checks, I will immediately start the process of transferring the company RGEnergy LLC, the dba “RGEnergy”, and my four matching domain names, RGEnergyLLC.com ‐
        RGEnergyLLC.net ‐ RGEnergyLLC.org ‐ and RGEnergyLLC.info, to you.
        Because of the critical timeline and method of your fund raising campaign. the times above are not negotiable.
        Please contact me as soon as possible as soon after you receive this email. All communication must be by email,
        not by phone, because I must have a written record of all communication concerning this matter.
        Here is your chance to show the world you are not the fraud, liar, or scam artist you claim NOT to be.
        Sincerely,
        Gary Wright
        P.O. Box 46466
        Las Vegas, NV 89114
        gary@gary??????.com
        ******************************************************
        I understand that Bob Rohner had his attorneys suggest a warm place Gary might wish to go to and take up residence.
        This whole new energy theme sure brings us a lot of entertainment and drags some interesting people out of the gutter.
        Enjoy
        DSM

      • maryyugo says:

        See correction below. Looks as if my COPYPASTA trunkated the linkie.

    • John Milstone says:

      maryyugo said:

      Meanwhile, supposedly, Gary Wright has obtained freedom of information act info on the DOD fiasco (the thermoelectric devices that probably never existed) and Rossi’s pretense to have worked with U of New Hampshire. I can hardly wait!

      Ah! That would explain Rossi’s agitated post about having his life threatened by a/the “snake”. Rossi seems to have a gut feeling for “a good offense is the best defense” strategy.

      Unfortunately, the link doesn’t seem to be working at this moment.

    • RonB says:

      I could understand what he doesn’t want a spectrum analyzer anywhere in the vicinity.

      I would still be amazed if 1KW could make that steel tube glow red. I use a torch often in vintage auto restoration and it takes quite a bit of heat to get steel to glow red.

      • maryyugo says:

        “I could understand what he doesn’t want a spectrum analyzer anywhere in the vicinity.”

        Why? It makes no sense. First, the input power goes to a resistive heater. What will a spectrum across a resistive load show that Rossi won’t want revealed (other than extra power not measured by the clamp on ammeters)?

        Secondly, it makes no nevermind anyway. As soon as Rossi delivers a single unit, the new owner can use whatever instruments they want. Despite Rossi’s old fiction about self-destruct devices, the new owner can also take the device apart, X-ray it, spectrum analyze it and molest it in any way he chooses.

        Rossi is simply full of shit. And he makes the shit up as he goes along. It’s always been that way. Just review his old interviews and statements.

        And Defkalion is the same.

        I can hardly wait for Wright’s story on how Rossi bamboozled the DOD out of millions. I don’t think he ever showed them a single working device or that any university ever tested one properly, despite what Rossi and his associates wrote in the extensive report from

        http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/2004Army-ApplicationOfThermoelectricDevices.pdf

        Other than what Rossi said, there is nothing I could find to suggest anyone at U of NH ever tested anything. Maybe Wright will uncover someone there willing to talk.

        • John Milstone says:

          It’s interesting to compare the DOD report with the newspaper articles from the same time period to get a good idea of what Rossi was actually doing during this time.

          The DOD report (pp 5-6) states that in “early” 2000:

          Rossi’s company had UNH perform a successful test of the prototype (although the report has no documentation to support this statement).

          Rossi’s factory burned down, destroying the allegedly working prototype.

          Rossi went to Italy to continue his work.

          The final project report was written 9/2004.

          It’s interesting to note that the DOD report makes no mention of Rossi’s involvement after his trip to Italy.

          Meanwhile, Rossi’s adventure in Italy was just beginning

          2000.06.01: Rossi, a “fugitive from justice”, is arrested on bankruptcy and aggregated fraud charges. In his pocket is an airline return ticket to Boston for June 6. (LINK)

          2000.10.20: Rossi is convicted and sentenced to 8 years in prison. (LINK)

          2004.11.27: Rossi’s convictions for creating toxic waste dumps was overturned (not because he didn’t create the waste dumps, but because doing so wasn’t a crime at the time he created at least $50 million in damages). However, his 2000 conviction for fraud is still alive and well. (LINK).

          So, except for the first few exiting months (with the claims of a working prototype that unfortunately burned up in a fire), Rossi spent the entire duration of this project under an 8-year prison sentence.

          (Sometimes, it’s good to review the old facts and evidence, to help remember why Rossi shouldn’t be trusted.)

        • RonB says:

          Maryyugo, the analyzers I’ve used in the past with are able to look at all RF signals in a room and in a city for that matter. In theory using the analyzer could tell what duty cycle is used on the resistive loads as well as other thing about the waveforms involved even without hooking it up to anything besides a LPA.

          Possibly to his thinking he would allow only those bits of test gear required to get the basic information about the efficiency of the reactor. That, after all was the point of the exercise. Maybe the thought that they might need special gear to see if he was setting up a trick never crossed his mind.

          • maryyugo says:

            Anything Rossi wants to restrict during testing is entirely moot as soon as he sells a single product to a real client. Of course, I don’t think he ever expects to do this so his protestations are, in that sense, consistent.

          • RonB says:

            Maryyugo,
            You’re very right about that. Once a customer is able to get one of them and reverse engineer it then the only advantage that he will have is his head start towards large volume production and even that won’t last very long.
            There are stories about individuals and companies alike that didn’t play their cards right and lost an advantage in some tech that they created and now it’s just a sad story about what “could have been”.

          • Bettingman says:

            So Ron,
            You agree that any buyer can reverse engineer the e-cat. I would say that makes the “exclusive licenses” Rossi is selling worthless. And that makes Rossi’s business case non existent. So how do you explain this behavior? A scam is the only scenario that fits all of this.

          • Jamiwithnewmailid says:

            “his head start towards large volume production”

            Ah yes. The secret factory somewhere in the US and the other one somewhere in Europe, secretly producing millions of e-cats… I remember that. Early 2012, wasn’t it? There must be a huge pile of e-cats somewhere, just waiting to be distributed by the idiots who gave Roger Green their money.

          • RonB says:

            Bettingman,
            With enough lead on the product they really wouldn’t have to worry about competition very much. I imagine they would continue to refine the design and always stay one step ahead of anyone that reverse engineered the previous version. That’s the way that all successful businesses are ran. Whomever might reverse engineer the product could reduce the cost by sacrificing the profit but why would anyone by last years tech when something new and improved is just around the corner.

          • Bettingman says:

            You think that Rossi can stay ahead of the competition after they have reversed engineered his invention (in case it would exist)? Well based on the way his products look, (a lot of tin foil), the shape of his workshop, his time to market (always in the near future), his team (???) how could he ever stay ahead of any serious organisation? I would not bet on it. Ron, level with me. Have you bought a licence from Rossi?

    • John Milstone says:

      The link to Gary Wright’s discussion on his FOI requests re: Rossi’s Thermoelectric gadget:

      http://shutdownrossi.com/rossi-the-military/rossis-thermoelectric-scam/

      Note that this “trip back to Italy” (May, 2000) mentioned here and in the DOD report was the one where Rossi was arrested as a fugitive, tried on bankruptcy fraud, convicted and sentenced to 8 years in prison. The last reference to Rossi in the regional newspaper had him still in prison with an upheld conviction as of 2004.

  72. John Milstone says:

    A new comment from Jed Rothwell on the Vortex made me laugh (LINK):

    Also Rossi is not a “well known promoter.” He is the opposite of a
    promoter. More like a “retarder.” He puts more effort into hiding his
    discovery than promoting it.

    If you ignore:

    The blog site claiming to be a scientific journal (with non-existent referees, no less)

    The thousands (tens-of-thousands?) of posts by Rossi on that blog

    The dozen or so dog & pony shows he allowed to be put on Youtube.

    The numerous interviews with reporters for various fringe free-energy web sites

    The “convention” with all of his “franchisees”

    And all the rest.

    Of course, the only thing he tries to hide are things like technical shortcomings of his demos and the lies he keeps telling about his associations with credible organizations.

    • dsm says:

      Sadly Jed Rothwell exposed his one-track thinking here when he admitted he knew nothing of Rossi’s covert fund raising by selling agency rights to resell eCats. These people investing did so on the strength of Rossi’s claims to have sold several 1 MW plants and on his expression of interest gathering for home ecats that is still running on ecat.com.

      Anyone who thinks it is normal and reasonable for someone to sell ‘resale’ rights for a product they can’t see (to cap it off these people are not permitted by Rossi to sell 1MW plants, he offers no training in how to do it anyway), for which there is no sales education or programs and which has not been validated by science, simply lives in la-la land and has *no* grasp of legitimate business vs money harvesting.

      Jed thus exposed his inability to grasp serious business ethics and practices. And he capped it off with an unbelievable remark that he wasn’t interested in the fund raising activities (as if they offered no clue as to Rossi’s good intentions).

      DSM

      • H D says:

        Willfully ignorant comes to mind. LENR research is in such poor standing it cannot afford to be taken for a ride.

        So even if you think Rossi is straight as an arrow (can hardly make myself writing that), you should be ever vigilant against possible exploitations. Krivit makes so much more sense in this regard. Whatever else one may think of him, when it comes to the possibilities of scam and fraud, his outlook is clearly grounded in reality.

        After all, fraud is a constant presence in all our lives, in our inboxes, whenever we use a credit card, or get cash out of a machine. But in Jed’s mind the LENR universe seems to be shielded from all this.

  73. maryyugo says:

    Ransom wrote:

    “You just made most of that up.”

    And I have been following the Vortex emails this morning.”

    Strange. I had thought reading and comprehension were necessary skills for lawyers. Apparently not. Andrew’s posts and the link to the image I posted are all on Vortex as we speak.

  74. Jamiwithnewmailid says:

    http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/05/26/1232/8502322_qa-with-hanno-essen-regarding-recent-e-cat-test/

    “> 4. Have you tried to test the output of the power supply to exclude that
    > also a DC current is supplied to the device, which clamp amperometers
    > could not detect?

    No, we did not think of that. The power came from a normal wall socket
    and there did not seem to be any reason to suspect that it was
    manipulated in some special way. Now that the point is raised we can
    check this in future tests.”

    Yes, Hanno, absolutely no reason to suspect anything. Rossi is an honest guy. Go back to sleep. Everything is good.

    • MaxS says:

      the interview also confirms that Levi provided the equipment.

      7. Will you test the power supplied to the device with oscilloscope during
      the next test?
      This is a question for Prof. G. Levi who provides the instrumentation.
      It is desirable, I agree; everything can always be done better, but we
      have very limited time and resources unfortunately.

      the energy revolution of the century and the biggest invention of a lifetime, but the examiners have limited time to test properly. Sorry, this is absurd.

      Following statement is remarkable, too:

      Andrea will not part from his device. Tests in Sweden is a possibility. but then he or his coworkers would be present. There are many who wish to steal his e-cats. So the 6 month test will be in Ferrara.

      I wonder how they manage to deliver 1 MW devices to customors when they are so secretive?
      Does this now mean that Rossi and/or his co-workers attended the tests? I would not be totally surprised if it turned out they were the ones who actually operated the “3rd party independant” test.

  75. John Milstone says:

    Bettingman said:

    Prof Levi does not seem to be obsessed with accuracy…

    Someone should remind him not to “lose” all of the data, as he did for the one seemingly credible (if the data hadn’t been “lost”) demo from 2011.

    • Bettingman says:

      with data you mean the video tape of the measurement instrument? Isn’t that an unusual way to record data?

      • MaxS says:

        possibly this camera and the evaluation software is a part of the trick. Now, as we know, this was Rossi/Levi equipment and Rossi’s “technical director” is an IT guy with Ukrainian links, could they have manipulated this to show a wrong energy output?
        Perhaps that is the reason why they tested a prototype hot cat, which is a more sophisticated fake device, and why they did not test the indu-cat (the product they claim to be selling since 2011), and why they did IR measurement and not calorimetry.

  76. RonB says:

    Sometimes the attitudes on the different websites are pretty caustic. I just can’t understand why this is so.
    There’s a possibility (however slim it may be) that this is real and we’re all watching it unfold before our eyes. We’ll be able to tell our grand children that we were there. If the whole thing blows up and turns out to be a big joke then I would tell the children that I had hope in humanity and wanted to believe the best about people despite the appearance of their past. If it turns out real, I sure wouldn’t want to be telling them that I fought it every step of the way and ridiculed all those that supported it in any way, shape, or form.
    What will you tell them? Would you couch the truth to lessen your part the 20+ years of hiding the possibility in mockery?
    I feel things are shaping up for an answer and it won’t be that long (I hope) LOL

    • Bettingman says:

      RonB,

      I will tell them that although I am not a scientist I always supported a lot of credible efforts to improve the world through improving science & technology. I will have some kickstarter projects to back that up and (for instance) my contribution to the MFMP. I will also tell them I did my duty to inform my fellow man about snake oil & conmans.

      • John Milstone says:

        Actually, if Rossi turns out to be legitimate, the people with the most to explain are the LENR researchers.

        Think about it, they spent a quarter of a century and (according to Storms) upwards of a half-billion dollars, and they couldn’t do what an ex-con did in his empty garage over the course of a year or two!

        Of course, if Rossi is a fraud, then only about half of the LENR researchers will look like fools.

        • Bettingman says:

          John, I just have a vision of Saint Rossi as a role model (in the scenario that he did succeed). My kids will tell me, never mind that I will be convicted of fraud dad. Saint Rossi was also convicted, even twice. And look how he turned out…

          • Jamiwithnewmailid says:

            “Saint Rossi as a role model”

            Geeez – thanks. I’ll dream of that tonight. Just imagine – comb-overs becoming fashionable, pathological lying becoming an officially promoted art form and WRITING BROKEN INGLISH IN UPERCAS LATERS is taught at school.

        • RonB says:

          John,
          I don’t totally agree with you here. It’s very possible that during the research that results were seen but were hard to reproduce or the effect was small. Out of fear of being branded like F&P they just kept quiet. The data that went unreported did little to help gain an understanding of the effect. Collective data reporting could help to correlate cause and effect. Papers would have been published that could have help steer the way in research.
          I wasn’t there. I wasn’t involved so all that I write is pure speculation but to me it seems like a possible scenario.

          • John Milstone says:

            RonB said:

            I wasn’t involved so all that I write is pure speculation but to me it seems like a possible scenario.

            OK, fair enough.

            Everything you said may be true. Certainly LENR has been less than credible, but so have Bigfoot, UFOs and telepathy, and all of those also have their devoted fans and supporters.

            It’s worth noting that it isn’t necessary to “prove” full-fledged LENR (and certainly not necessary to sell a commercial product) to change all that. One good, reproducible of a violation of the currently-accepted laws would do.

            The LENR researchers still haven’t produced such a thing. Their positive results always seem to be non-reproducible or so small as to be probable measurement error.

            To an unbiased outside observer, there is no reason to consider LENR any more credible than any other fringe field, such as Bigfoot, UFOs or telepathy. Each of those fields have “experts” supporting them, each has devoted “fans” and each has all sorts of less-than-credible evidence (anecdoteal stories, blurry photos, etc.)

            If 25 years and a half-billion dollars isn’t enough to produce any credible evidence that LENR is real (regardless of whether it’s practical for anything), what is?

            Do you have any criteria which would convince you that LENR is false? If you can’t answer that question reasonably (whether you want to do so here or not), then what you have isn’t science, it’s religion.

    • John Milstone says:

      RonB said:

      What will you tell them? Would you couch the truth to lessen your part the 20+ years of hiding the possibility in mockery?

      Your comment nicely sums up the goofy thinking of the “True Believers”.. That includes “It’s real because I really, really want it to be real”, “Thinking good thoughts will help make it real” and “If you don’t believe, you’ll kill it (just like fairies)”.

      The reason LENR isn’t taken seriously is because the researchers working on it have utterly failed to make there case. It has nothing to do with what “True Believers” (or skeptics) post on blogs.

      To think that your “good wishes” or posting on fan blogs actually has any sort of effect on whether LENR is taken seriously is seriously arrogant and delusional.

  77. maryyugo says:

    It seems Rossi’s secret has been revealed by Alsetalokin and posted on Vortex by Cude. It’s CHEESE POWER!

    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg81350.html

  78. dsm says:

    Well well

    Once again (deja-vu) Andrea Rossi says he no longer controls the eCat anymore LOL – do you recall he said this early last year too (but then he controlled everything subsequently – invented the ‘hotCat’).

    What would it mean to all the people who paid for resale rights to Rossi’s eCat ? – does it mean Rossi will buy them from his ‘new owner’ and fulfill his ‘contracts’ to ‘his’ resellers LOL. Do they know what cat they have rights to is it it only the cheese fed to the mouse-cat.

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/rossi-no-longer-controls-e-cat-business/

    What caps off this ‘claim’ is how all our usual ‘friends’ at ECW are all running the business for Andrea Rossi and his new owner/partner. Wow, fancy getting so much free expertise from a blog site LOL.

    This story is simply stunning in its reach. Andrea Rossi once again shows he is the master of manipulation & his fans simply love it.

    DSM

  79. Frank says:

    Questions for the ‘independent 3rd party’ tester. – I’m curious if / how they will answer:
    http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/27/scientific-ethics-of-e-cat-promoters-questioned/#more-8818

    • H D says:

      It is not uncommon for academics to test a company’s device. But usually that is when this device is entering the market, i.e. you may have to buy it to replicate the tests, but you’ll be able to have your own go at it.

      This is what just happened in the Quantum Computing area, yet even there you still find enough academics crying foul, (and this is after already some papers classifying the device were published in Nature).

      • John Milstone says:

        H D said:

        It is not uncommon for academics to test a company’s device.

        Yes, and Rossi has lied about this happening multiple times (UniBo, Uppsala, and quite possibly, back in 2000 when he was producing non-functional thermoelectric converters).

        It’s important to distinguish between scientists and engineers engaged in actual research and those who are acting as “professional experts”.

        A “professional expert”, in exchange for getting paid, will use his knowledge and experience to, as much as possible, support whatever conclusion his benefactor wishes to convey. In particular, the “professional expert” won’t suggest additional tests that might undermine the conclusion he has been paid to validate.

        We’ve seen this numerous times in the Rossi saga. Throughout 2011, people, including Essen and Levi, have been careful to not question the unsupported assumptions Rossi provided. They have always couched their statements in conditionals (i.e. “If Rossi is honest, then this demonstration shows excess energy.”). They never demanded additional testing to remove such doubts. They allowed themselves to be used by Rossi to add perceived credibility where it didn’t exist.

        That’s what a “professional expert” does.

        Compare that to what we’ve heard of Rossi’s meeting with the Swedish Standards Institute (this is true for Rossi’s disastrous meeting with NASA as well). Their job was to uncover whether or not Rossi was committing fraud. HydroFusion’s potential investors were paying SIS to find out the truth, not to support a particular conclusion. And, according to everything we’ve heard, they did just that.

        If Rossi and his friends want to restore some credibility to this seriously flawed report, they could just ask the HydroFusion investors to release the SIS report, so we can see what they found, and whether the current tests even attempted to eliminate whatever they found wrong.

        I’m betting that the SIS found exactly what we all suspect: A gimmicked power input which provided power to the device even when it appeared to be “off”. The videos listed above show how easy it is (no need for high-frequencies or anything fancy, just a few hidden wires and perhaps some hidden diodes). And, as soon as they discovered that Rossi was intentionally “cheating”, there was no reason for them to test the rest of the system.

    • Ransompw says:

      Guglielmi’s letter is an embarassment. Where should I begin. Twenty-four years ago the scientific community turned its back on its ethical duty to invesigate nature. For 24 years the community of science has refused to publish papers on cold fusion, refused to attempt replications (after a very brief attempt in 1989) and in general to investigate what this individual just acknowledged may alter the history of mankind.
      He asks who might benefit from the efforts of these gentlemen by investgating a discovery that may alter the history of mankind. Well how about Mankind? The actions of these courageous gentlemen may set right a wrong perpetrated on mankind by science. I think he should tell us instead how he will live with himself (if LENR turns out to be true) for even considering not investigating something that if true would alter the history of mankind.
      Rossi could turn out to be a fraud and these gentlemen may unwittingly help him but Mankind deserves a real answer concerning LENR and since science has turned its back on mankind and its ethical duty to investigate this potentially world altering issue, I for one applaud Essen and associates for attempting to right this wrong. I also condemn Guglielmi for using the issue of ethics to divert attention from a more eggregious ethical violation.

      • dsm says:

        RansonPW

        It surely can’t be as embarrassing as your flood of pro Rossi posts & you now legendary insulting of anyone & everyone who disagrees with you.

        Just accept that we all have different POVs as mine is that Guglielmi has the courage to raise the ethics question in regard to these scientists bolstering a man taking money from investors who are too naive to see what he is doing.

        It is so clear to anyone who uses sound logic, that the report is not ‘indipendent’. It is cheeky for people to keep claiming so.

        As I suggested in ECN – go have a break before you have a breakdown because I feel I am seeing the warning signs coming out of you. It is all becoming to personal and too serious. It can happen to any of us.

        Cheers

        DSM

      • John Milstone says:

        Ransompw said:

        For 24 years the community of science has refused to publish papers on cold fusion,

        But when you’re trying to argue how LENR is proven you point to the 10’s of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in Jed Rothwell’s collection. Which is it?

        Ransompw said:

        if LENR turns out to be true

        Again, you’ve stated numerous times that this was already proven. If you can’t even keep your position straight, why should anyone listen to your puffery?

        Ransompw said:

        Mankind deserves a real answer concerning LENR and since science has turned its back on mankind

        My, how pompous. According to Storm, Mankind has spent $500 Million and a quarter of a century on LENR, and yet you still have to say “if it exists” when discussing it.

        You sound as though you’re getting panicky, Ransom. I guess that’s what happens when you reach your conclusions first (that LENR is real), and then try to cherry-pick the tests to support your theory.

        Rossi is, ultimately, going to expose most of the LENR “community” as fools and liars.

  80. dsm says:

    Not sure if this link has been mentioned here yet – but it is a commentary by Prof Peter Ekström. He is known to be skeptical and was the inspiration for Dick Smith posting his $1 million reward if anyone proved they could produce more than 10kw from a LENR reactor.

    And to Paul Story’s credit he has featured it at eCatNews (I was beginning to worry that he had decided to go all pro Rossi)

    http://ecatnews.com/?p=2545

    Ekström’s document link …
    http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf

    DSM

  81. spacegoat says:

    Prof. Essén authorizes publication of the following:

    In the interview I answered that there was no direct measurement of dc (since the clamps could not detect such). This was a bit hasty. In future I will not answer such technical questions without conferring with all coauthors. After analyzing what we checked and measured (which were many more variables that those from the clamps) we can definitely exclude DC-current. (This is what comes from being nice to journalists.)
    http://tinyurl.com/pwnw3fu
    (cassandralegacy.blogspot)

    “We can definitely exclude DC-current.”

    What electrical subterfuge remains? A/C frequencies beyond the sensitivity of the meter?

    Are we inching closer to a conclusion “there may be an interesting effect”?

    • John Milstone says:

      Other comments by Essen regarding the 2011 E-Cat demos, which suggest he is incompent and/or gullible (LINK):

      We have had a large number of questions on the flow of water and amount of steam. Unfortunately, time and resources did not allow us to check these things more carefully.

      Essén: So where did it [the steam and/or water] go then?
      Krivit: Probably down the hose into the drain.
      Essén: Down the drain? There was no drain.
      Krivit: Where was the hose going when you saw it?
      Essén: In the room next to the E-Cat, going into a hole in the wall.

      Essén: But the reason I don’t find the steam stuff so interesting is that [Giuseppe Levi of the University of Bologna] did his experiment, although he has not written a good report about it, and there was no steam generation – just the heating of water – and it was all consistent with our findings, which makes the whole steam issue uninteresting to me.
      Krivit: Do you have confidence in Levi’s sub-boiling experiment just on his word alone, or have you seen any data?
      Essén: The data are few, but mainly, the report is oral.

      Essén: The steam amount was not measured. It was taken for granted that it all became steam.

      Essén: No, I can’t recall that. I’m new at steam, unfortunately.

      Essén: No, I must admit I was thinking that I must check that the water is not draining out. I had this vague feeling that the water inlet flow wasn’t that fast, that the steam could be consistent with it, especially after some condensation in the hose. But we should have looked more into that, obviously, but there was not enough time. When we came, the setup was already there. To make any further studies, it was not possible.

      It appears (both then and now) that Essen is just going along with whatever Rossi and Levi tell him.

      Hardly a ringing endorsement for competence and critical observing and thinking skills.

      • Andy Kumar says:

        “Hardly a ringing endorsement for competence and critical observing and thinking skills”

        That is why he was included in the testing team! I don’t presume to question his competence but he is certainly willing to go along with the charade. I am wondering why the other Swede (Kullander?) did not put his name on the report.

        -Andy

    • maryyugo says:

      ““We can definitely exclude DC-current.”

      What electrical subterfuge remains? A/C frequencies beyond the sensitivity of the meter?

      Are we inching closer to a conclusion “there may be an interesting effect”?”

      We might be a bit closer if Essen would bother to tell us how he knows he can exclude DC current. Then, he would also need to do the same for higher frequency current. The clamp on ammeters and the power meter are designed for 50 – 60Hz operation and do not function much beyond those frequencies. So how does he know Rossi didn’t mess with the power inside/behind the wall socket?

  82. John Milstone says:

    From Krivit’s recent interview with Essen (LINK):

    SBK: Do you have full knowledge of how to perform and operate the experiment?
    HE: No, but I am sure that I could repeat it with some effort.

    So, he could “repeat” the experiment? I suppose that means he knows which button on the “secret” controller box to push to make it glow.

    Let’s put him in a room, and let him order whatever materials, tools and supplies he needs to replicate Rossi’s setup, and watch him repeat it (if he can).

  83. John Milstone says:

    I think Joshua Cude is taking a terrible risk by posting the links to the cheese-powered lightbulb videos!

    There’s no telling how many “True Believers” will decide that cheese really can produce significant amounts of electrical power! He may have just started yet another fringe belief on the Vortex!

  84. maryyugo says:

    @Milstone

    In fairness to Essen, I think he’s saying that although he didn’t design the experiment or specify the instruments (Levi did), that he could repeat the design and the experiment by himself with a bit of study. He doesn’t mean he could make an ecat. The statement does, however, indicate that Essen had no control over the instruments and no significant input into the measurements themselves. He’s definitely no longer a very sharp tool as became evidence when he allowed Rossi to run his steam demos and heat exchanger demos in 2011 without requiring ANY proper blanks or calibration runs.

    To their credit, they tried to do a “dummy” run this time but unfortunately, it was not comparable to an experimental run so it only obfuscated things more. These people are certainly not competent or critical enough to test the ecat. Which, I am sure, is exactly why Rossi chose them.

    • John Milstone says:

      maryyugo said:

      To their credit, they tried to do a “dummy” run this time but unfortunately, it was not comparable to an experimental run so it only obfuscated things more.

      I find it very interesting that the claims of excess energy seem to be based on heat measured while the controller was allegedly in the “off” state, which just happens to be a state they disregarded during the “control” (dummy) run.

      I also find it very interesting that Levi seems to be running things here, especially since he “lost” the data from what was allegedly the best demonstration of the 2011 E-Cat.

      Levi does seem to always be around when there is sloppy lab work and questionable tests to be done.

  85. Ransompw says:

    Just curious since the skeptic community always cites prior scams and there similarity to the Rossi drama as evidence for scam, how many of the prior examples they know had 7 scientists test the device and demonstrate that it works (with the only explanation for the results that somehow there must be fraud occurring.) Please take your time. I am not suggesting there aren’t any but you all are better historians.

    • Asterix says:

      Ransom, I don’t know.

      But was any one of the group qualified to perform accurate metrology (in particular, calorimetry)? I find it odd that the camera used to perform their measurements has its calibrated range outside of the 800C measured.

      It just makes me wonder what quality can be inferred from the measurements taken. Standard flow calorimetry would not have been impossible–and would be far more convincing.

    • Bettingman says:

      Ransompw, for the record, we are talking here about a test that was performed on a device allegedly invented by a man that has been convicted for fraud twice, and has been caught cheating multiple times while similar devices?

    • oakthicket says:

      Blacklight Power comes to mind. Tests and testimonials by numerous scientists happened over the years. This included a number of professors at Rowan University who tested ‘hydrino’ reactions in the Lab. They weren’t independent, but had a lot more latitude than Rossi’s investigators.

      Steorn had several but not 7 at one time. At one point there were three that were affectionately called the ‘three blind mice’.

    • JNewman says:

      If your standard of judgement for what could be the greatest invention in modern history is simply that it hasn’t been proven to be a fraud, then you have something to hold on to. For most people, something that momentous requires a more stringent criterion. But if it makes you feel good, believe in it.

      • Ransompw says:

        What are talking about? We have a report that requires you to assume unproven fraud to ignore it.

        Of course you seem to have little trouble doing it. Makes one wonder what scientific paper you could ever accept. Unproven fraud can always be assumed.

        • JNewman says:

          As usual, you are ignoring the essential facts and focusing on the legalistic minutiae. The point is that the report contains unconvincing, inappropriate and suspicious methodologies to attempt to demonstrate something that would be remarkable if it were true. There is no good reason that the measurements could not have been done in convincing, appropriate and transparent ways. They weren’t. Your viewpoint is that there is no proof of fraud, so the report is a good one. That is a laughable position to take. My position is that it doesn’t matter if there is fraud afoot. What matters is that the report doesn’t prove a damned thing.

          • Ransompw says:

            It doesn’t contain unconvincing, inappropriate and suspicious methodology. It contains a very simple method of measuring the energy output.

            The measurements were done in a convincing appropriate and transparent manner. The proof of this is all you can cite in an attempt to reject the findings is a spurious contention that some fraud must have been committed. Fraud for which you have no proof.

            You are so pathetic you can’t even admit the truth.

          • JNewman says:

            Since I am not inclined to accept your version of the “truth”, I guess I will have to live with being pathetic. I think I can do that.

          • Frank says:

            Well, it seems that also ecn accepts only one point of view anymore. – I wanted to post this comment…

            If he wants to convince sceptics ( and I admit that I’m a sceptic – and I don’t feel bad about that ) that foul-play with the power supply was impossible, then he [Hanno Essen] suppose to explain what measurement were done in order to rule out DC supply to the hot-cat.

            … as a reply to Deleo77, but the comment was deleted.

          • H D says:

            Frank, hope this was just a comment glitch on ECN.

            Would be very disappointed if Paul was to go down that road. Always admired his even handedness.

          • dsm says:

            Frank

            I can see you post at ECN – lets give Paul the benefit of the doubt

            Cheers

            DSM

          • popeye says:

            Ransompw said on May 28, 2013 at 9:31 pm:

            It doesn’t contain unconvincing, inappropriate and suspicious methodology.

            Yes it does. That’s just about all it contains. The monitoring of the input was comically inadequate, if there is any possibility of deception, the blank run used a different power regimen, the mass measurements were completely meaningless, the claims of power density 100 times that of nuclear fuel without cooling and without melting are totally implausible, the lack of calorimetry is completely inexplicable. This is far below ordinary scientific standards, particularly for a claim like this

            It contains a very simple method of measuring the energy output.

            I disagree. It’s complicated and requires extensive post-processing, and is error prone, which is why it has generated so much controversy.

            A very simple method would have been to buy a tube furnace with insulation and cooling lines and to used flow calorimetry.

            The measurements were done in a convincing appropriate and transparent manner.

            Only true believers are convinced, so they’re not convincing. Pyrometers are almost never used for calorimetry, so not appropriate. The experiment was running when they came in, a close associate was in charge, they were performed in private, cannot be checked, and therefore depend on trust, and therefore are not transparent.

            Zero for three.

            Fraud for which you have no proof.

            I have no proof that the cheese video used a trick either, but that doesn’t mean I’m not almost certain that one was.

        • popeye says:

          Ransompw said on May 28, 2013 at 8:41 pm

          What are talking about? We have a report that requires you to assume unproven fraud to ignore it.

          We have a report that requires you to trust a bunch of mostly hands-off academics (who sound like doofuses in their interviews) and one close associate of someone with a controversial history relating to energy fraud, in order to accept a major scientific revolution.

          Of course you seem to have little trouble doing it. Makes one wonder what scientific paper you could ever accept. Unproven fraud can always be assumed.

          No, it can’t. At least not for long. Have you not been conscious the last few days. When Muller and Bednorz claimed HTSC, they disclosed the information to reproduce it, and people all over the world did so. It’s pretty hard to claim fraud in that case.

          In this case, the claim is not testable. And it’s demonstrated in a way one would only choose if one were trying to pull a fast one.

          That’s a difference.

  86. oakthicket says:

    There are many more examples of pathological science which were supported by more than 7 scientists. Fraud was sometimes involved, but mostly it was simply bad science.

    Examples include

    * N-rays
    * Mitogenetic rays
    * Water dowsing
    * Homeopathy
    * Poly water
    * Martian canals

    Regardless of whether there’s fraud or not, large numbers of scientists can be fooled or will fool themselves.

    Note: I intentionally left out cold fusion/LENR because that topic doesn’t much interest me and it has been hacked to death.

  87. RonB says:

    Poor Popeye. I hate to see him abused like that on vortex but at least he’s got the balls to go over there and try to make his case, I admire him for that.

    • John Milstone says:

      Yes, it’s quite a surprise that they haven’t banned him so far.

      That’s what the “True Believer” fan sites usually do with anyone who rubs their noses in uncomfortable facts.

      • RonB says:

        Well, that’s not my take on what’s going down over there.

        • John Milstone says:

          RonB said:

          but at least he’s got the balls to go over there and try to make his case

          Keep in mind that a number of the “skeptics” (including several who post here) were banned.

          Meanwhile, Rothwell and others are making fools of themselves, with statements such as “Rossi hates publicity” and “the power code is part of the trade secret” and “the cheese video is totally irrelevant” (even though it shows the exact method the testers used to validate their claims of no power).

          Not to mention some of the “meta” problems with the demo:

          Why does a device, that supposedly puts out much more thermal power than it (supposedly) gets from external heaters, need the external heaters?

          The amount of energy supposedly produced by the demo far exceeds even the available nuclear energy of the couple of grams of powder Rossi claimed to have removed from the magic tube. He must have transmuted the hell out of that poor Nickel.

          I notice that, in the end, the True Believers have to just take it on faith that Rossi isn’t faking it. Given Rossi’s background, that’s a precarious position to be in.

  88. RonB says:

    No where in this 3rd party report do they claim that it’s cold fusion of any form of nuclear reaction. They only claim AH.

    • John Milstone says:

      RonB said:

      No where in this 3rd party report do they claim that it’s cold fusion of any form of nuclear reaction.

      Of course, that’s what Rossi and Focardi used to claim, until someone actually analyzed the “ash” from an E-Cat and found no signs of nuclear reactions.

      Just as Rossi had to give up his claims of working with UniBo and National Instruments when the true facts were revealed, he had to give up his claims of Ni -> Cu transmutation when the true facts (i.e. no nuclear products) were revealed.

      But the more rabid True Believers just parrot whatever excuse Rossi gives them. It really is funny.

  89. BigWillyJohnson says:

    Tale of intrigue? Who is Gary Wright? He is trying to extort Papp Rohner!

    Dun dun dun!

    http://revolution-green.com/who-is-gary-wright/

    • dsm says:

      What else to say but :)

      D

      • JNewman says:

        Never mind Gary Wright. That’s some website. A whole other nest of whackjobs. “Gary’s machinations are colored and flavored to appeal to pharisaical agitators.” Hoo boy!

        • dsm says:

          JNewman

          I only read the stuff about Gary Wright and that was a pretty good account & very honest & accurate summary. I didn’t stray from that issue. Who ever wrote it had all the correspondence on easy view.

          If any of us looking at any website, does stray from the matter at hand, there is always the chance of coming across some weird stuff. So, the heart of any analysis is to primarily stick to what is in front of you. Else, waste good blog space debating irrelevant tangential information. I.E is the President of America really a whacko because his brother is a fruitcake (like for Jimmy Carter). It is simply a waste of good debating points and logic to go chasing irrelevant lines and trying to claim they are relevant to the point.

          DSM

        • BigWillyJohnson says:

          Why do we not like Gary Wright now?

          I know his website was hard to read but other than that whats the beef?

          Is he to mean to people?

          • H D says:

            There’s was a big tempest in the teapot when he wrote that DSM gave him some info and he said he did not.

            Later Garry paddled back and wrote he meant a different guy with the same name (DSM name isn’t all that common, when specifying Australia he comes right up in LinkedIn).

            Then there is also the questionable tactics in trying to extort money from the less crazy Rohner brother. Pretty questionable ethics the way he goes about it – I don’t believe in fighting fire with fire.

            So, I’d say there are plenty of reasons to be wary of Gary in addition to his off the wall web design.

          • JNewman says:

            Gary Wright appears to be an out-of-control, unscrupulous nutcase, but he also seems to be right about almost everything.

  90. Hello there! Do you know if they make any plugins to
    assist with Search Engine Optimization? I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good results.
    If you know of any please share. Thank you!

  91. JNewman says:

    Visited ECN for the first time in a while. Pretty interesting. I only read Paul’s latest post without looking at the comments. The gist of it is that here we are more than 2 years into the Rossi saga and we now have a test report that is admittedly flawed but – and this is the important part – it can’t be summarily and unequivocally rejected off the bat. And that is cause for optimism. Yikes! Such standards!

    • H D says:

      Hope flows internal. Certainly understand where Paul is coming form. I caught myself getting a bit excited when first looking at this report, thinking ‘wouldn’t it be just marvellous if this was for real’.

      Then again, I long ago internalized the age old wisdom that if something looks too good …

      • JNewman says:

        I suppose the thing has served its purpose. Most certainly it has not persuaded anyone who was not already a believer but it definitely has reinvigorated the crew that was starting to see their hopes fade. If nothing else, it should get them through another year of pleasant dreams.

  92. GreenWin says:

    A BIG IGZ-2013 Thanks to our friend DSM for the expose of extortionist Gary Wright:

    “Here is your chance to show the world you are not the fraud, liar, or scam artist you claim NOT to be.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Wright
    P.O. Box 46466
    Las Vegas, NV 89114″

    I haven’t laughed so hard at a Rossi skeptic since Al Pretenza retired!! Thank you DSM for this priceless bit of hilarity! But there’s always a downside. With Gary heading to the Big House in handcuffs, we’ve lost a prime contestant for the IGZ-2013 shark swim. :(

  93. Jamiwithnewmailid says:

    I’d say people on vortex are losing their marbles if I thought they still had some. After realizing that the power density of “the powder” would lead to temperatures of somewhat well over 2,000 C if it really was the source of the supposed excess heat (and would therefore have melted), they’re not jumping to the evil conclusion that this smells fishy – no – they’re now speculating wildly about how Rossi made Nickel powder resistant to such temperatures. This reminds me of a UFO sighting that happened in my hometown a couple of years ago. The guy filed a report saying he saw a brightly lit UFO generating a lot of noise on a field some three miles from his house. It was pointed out to him that there was a rock concert including a laser show that night at the time and place he’d described. Didn’t keep him from opening a blog in which he speculated that it really was a UFO and they had some strange technology on board that kept all the concert visitors from seeing it landing right on top of them… or that they were all aliens themselves.

    • maryyugo says:

      Right. Jed Rothwell wrote a number of bizarre posts. In one, he claims he knows of private independent tests that support Rossi’s claims but, of course, they’re “confidential”. Like Rossi’s non-existent customers. And his non-existent million ecat automated robotic factories.

      And then he writes:

      “There have already been several successful tests by different groups. You
      have no evidence for thinking he is a crook or deluded. There is no way he
      or Levi could cash on on a fake experiment, so you have no reason to think
      he is crooked. The others all agree the effect is real, so they would all
      have to be deluded. That is unlikely.”

      No way they could cash in? Like Steorn didn’t cash in? Like Madoff didn’t cash in? BTW, the rest of the experimenters, apart from Levi and Essen don’t “agree that the effect is real”. They are leaving the question open, as gullible as their statements are.

    • John Milstone says:

      My jaw literally dropped when Rothwell stated that he found it perfectly reasonable that the power cable would be part of Rossi’s “Trade Secrets”.

      Also, notice how carefully everyone is avoiding the subject of the test by the Swedish Standards Institute? They tested this same device, and HydroFusion admitted that they found no signs of excess energy.

      Rossi screwed up (IMHO) by talking about it, when he stated that they couldn’t even measure the power used by a standard light bulb. This tells us that the SIS found problems with the electric power going in to the device (exactly what appears to have been the “gimmick” of these tests).

      If Rossi and HyrdoFusion want to convince anyone that the power wasn’t “rigged”, then they should (or ask the scared-off investors) to release the SIS report.

      But we all know they won’t do that.

    • JNewman says:

      I’ve been asking about the little supernova inside the hot-cat since the report came out. Still can’t figure out why there is no sign of it. Rossi’s thermal management skills are sufficient to make him the wealthiest man on earth without any need for LENR or whatever anomalous thing he is supposed to have in his gadget. He is missing his calling.

    • Bettingman says:

      Jami, When you point that out to believers they respond with: sure, that is why the first test ended with a meltdown.” They have completely lost it.

  94. GreenWin says:

    WOW! With uber-Rossi skeptic Gary Wright revealed to be psychopathic extortionist and Josh Cude/Popee/Kemo/Hoady reeling from the hidden power cable theory collapse…this place looks a mess fellas. But cheer up. GreenWin is here to bring good tidings!

    “Nature just wants to break you,” says John Edwards, NIF’s associate director of fusion. Now he and other officials fear that the difficulty of shrinking a little ball of hydrogen could derail their laser fusion dream. Their new goal is just to figure out if laser ignition is achievable at NIF or at any future facility.”

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/349381/description/Ignition_Failed

    Hmm… other scientists seem not to have these problems. Why?? Cause they’re the visionaries who took a different approach to fusion. We are sending invites to the 70 physicists, technicians, engineers and support personal who have been terminated at MIT’s PSFC hot fusion program. IF these people accept the IGZ-2013 shark swim challenge there may be untold fame and fortune to be had.

    Willy, what say you?? If you swim in the morning the sharks are still sleepy. We’ve been told Generale Zarcofagus has mail-order brides stashed somewhere on the island!!

    Thanks for the H U G E ratings boys!! All the best! (yeah even you Pretenza)

    • JNewman says:

      You remind me of my late Uncle Dave. Of course, in his case, it was Alzheimer’s.

    • BigWillyJohnson says:

      Bahahahhahahah!

      Nice!

      Your throwing your old chum Willy to the sharks? Thanks for the update. This show is always good to look forward to. Like Rossi’s next cold fusion devices. They are always sufficiently in the future to keep a warm halo ahead of me.

      Here is what I never can grasp with this hot fusion logic.

      Ok,

      Hot fusion is bad so it is ok that cold fusion also bad?

      Hot fusion is bad and so is cold fusion?

      Can i use how bad hot fusion is to counter my urine reactor’s critics? I will call it the fusion urine reactor. And use hot fusion’s poor track record and spending to tell people to STEP off!

      • GreenWin says:

        Willy here’s how to use hot fusion’s massive FAIL to highlight your urine reactor triumph… (provided you built one)

        Step 1, get Popee to provide the fuel, he’s full of it.
        Step 2, gather your critics’ most brutal complaints about broken timelines, delivery promises, failed tests.
        Step 3, determine how much of the people’s money your reactor has pissed away.
        Step 4, compare Step 2 and 3 to the 62 year record of hot fusion promises, timelines, failed tests and $240 billion tax dollars pissed away.
        Step 5, ROFL!!! Offer critics a spot on IGZ-2013!!

        It’s FUN and EASY!

      • BigWillyJohnson says:

        Excellent step by step. Exactly what I needed.

        It is nice having hot fusion around aint it? As long as our free energy devices have not been around for 62 years or spent 256 billion than people arent allowed to complain about them.

        Sterling Alan’s free energy devices, which have all been a failure so far, have not taken this long so we cant say that they are fake or stupid.

        BW

        • GreenWin says:

          Ah Willy, you complicate the very simple. I will explain, but first, one correction. I wrote $240 billion tax dollars – 256 is better suited to your coding discussions.

          Here’s the deal; anyone can complain about anything, Popee is a great example; he’ll whine about a type font! But when Josh/Popee/Kemo/Hody pout about the international verification of Rossi-Focardi Effect, costing taxpayers nothing; AND ignore the 62 year string of fraud-ridden hot fusion failures… Willy, it begins to sound like the whiners got their heads up their analpore. Making it very difficult for Pop to pee. :)

          • BigWillyJohnson says:

            Im still confused.

            What does hot fusion have to do with cold fusion except that they share the word “fusion”?

            I dont like your explanation because that means that my fusion urine reactor, (its a total fraud bro. Im getting some one to sell licenses for it and I will just keep up revving it without delivering) can be criticized by urine haters and hot fusion haters alike.

            I think we need a new red herring to keep the unwashed masses at bay. How bout muon catalyzed fusion?

            Man what a crock! 80 years and not one usefull watt of energy! Nevermind Rossi’s crap demos and my stupid urine reactor. Muon catalyzed fusioneers are the bad guys

        • GreenWin says:

          “Excellent step by step. Exactly what I needed.”
          Yore welcome Willy. Happy to enlighten!

    • JKW says:

      And the buoys will be lighted by Terawatt’s magnetic motors, right Greenie?

  95. maryyugo says:

    Gibbs has a new article. He’s on the fence but I don’t think he’s been following the technical details (and all the previous Rossi scams and frauds) like we have.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/30/rossis-a-fraud-no-hes-not-yes-he-is-no-he-isnt/

    And moletrap has a technical issue and I don’t remember psctru’s email address. Ah well, he probably knows and is trying to fix it.

    • Jamiwithnewmailid says:

      I love Gibbs’ subtle distinctions between things being ‘plausible’ and ‘believable’. Maybe somebody more skilled in English than myself can explain it to me.

      Anyway – when it comes to plausibility of fraud, deception and incompetence (or at least naivete) , what I miss most in all the publications so far, and most of all in the report itself, is how the supposed wonder fits with the little data we have. Let’s assume the e-cat is either real or just a power supply beefed up by some trick not immediately noticeable. Does the data we have support one or the other? Is the output power curve consistent with an electric heater or with an unknown, possibly nuclear reaction? Is the complete absence of anomalous radiation? Can the power have come from a few grams of Nickel and what temperature would those few grams have to have when the thing is running? Is the reduction in output power when the input power is reduced consistent with a self sustaining reaction of whatever nature or with an electric heater switched to lower power? Is an indicated power factor of .48 and a low reading on one of three phases of a power analyzer consistent with a standard 3phase measurement or something badly wrong with the setup? Is the decision to run a dummy test on a completely different power cycle than the real test it is supposed to support sound scientific experimentation or something entirely different?
      And the same questions should be asked about soft data like: What are the odds that supposedly independent testers would chose the exact same equipment used by the inventor himself when given the choice?

      What probably emerges at the end, given the magnitude of the claim, is that the entire thing is totally implausible – even impossible (but apparently that doesn’t keep a lot of people from finding it perfectly believable).

      • JNewman says:

        People who want to believe this thing focus all their attention on motivation (could these “eminent scientists” all be frauds, delusional, fooled, etc.) and none on the sheer ridiculousness of what is being reported. Frankly, it doesn’t matter how or why these folks produced this document, the main thing is that it makes no sense regardless of what you believe about LENR. It does, however, expose people like Rothwell for what they are: LENR zealots who long ago set aside their critical faculties in favor of promoting the cause.

  96. maryyugo says:

    Gary Wright has a new article on Rossi’s latest obvious lies and prevarications involving his lame patents.

    In addition, the believers tend to forget all the other contradictions and stupidities. What happened to the lead that “thermalizes” the gammas? Where is it in the hot cat? For that matter where is it in any OTHER ecat? Why not show the gammas by putting a small hole in the lead to let them out?

    Here is Gary’s article.

    http://shutdownrossi.com/technology-patents-and-ip/comparing-rossis-latest-epo-patent-filing-with-the-rossileviessen-report/

    He’s difficult to read but worth it. I can hardly wait until he releases his FOIA information on the Rossi thermoelectrics DOD contract. That was an obvious case of Rossi lying through his teeth to get the contract and making off with all the money without producing a working anything. What a crook! Go Gary!

    • Bettingman says:

      The stupidity of the Rossi believer is off my scale. How can anyone believe this person? I just can’t get my head around it. Remember, all these people also have voting rights. That is a scary thought. Would they elect Rossi in a position of power in case he would run? Luckily they are not a majority….

    • dsm says:

      Hmmm

      I wonder where Gary Wright (whatever he is) gets his inspiration for his material it is all pretty good stuff. But it all seems so damned & remarkably familiar (certainly to me).

      And why is the Mary Yugo avatar promoting Gary so positively when anyone with a modicum of intellect knows what he really is and I never mentioned the words ‘blatant plagiarist’ !.

      Ahh well – that is what blogs are often about – strange people with strange alliances.

      D

      • maryyugo says:

        Who is Gary plagiarizing? Seems to me he is forging forward with good work– particularly the long overdue FOIA request for what really happened to that idiotic DOD project that donated $2 million tax payer dollars to Rossi’s capacious pockets.

  97. Jamiwithnewmailid says:

    More scary stuff from vortex. Having decided that Rossi has got a working machine and fruitlessly trying to wrestle the various impossibilities this implies (not really scientific impossibilities, but rather vanilla kind of practical impossibilities) into some kind of a “he must have found a way to permanently conserve Nickel in a plasma state at low temperatures” context, Ed Storms is now bringing his own theory to the front.

    “… As you know, I believe small gaps are required that are created by stress relief. …

    … Rossi demonstrated that the gap is stable well above 800° C, which is an important revelation and essential to eventual application of the method. …”

    I’m not joking – he really wrote that: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg81830.html

  98. Jamiwithnewmailid says:

    Rossi finally clearing it all up:

    “For example: they wanted a wood plan to put on all the electric and electronic devices, they wanted to use their own cables of their own measurement devices, they wanted to lift and seat themselves any conponent to be sure no other cables or any kind of contact was there”

    I find it interesting that “they” wanted all that and it, coincidentally, matched exactly the stuff that was already there from the “Penon” test… the “wood plan”, the analyzer, the camera, the cables… I bet if you confront Essen with that remark, he’ll say that Levi was in charge of setting it all up, that he had nothing to do with it himself and doesn’t see what could possibly be wrong about that.

  99. BigWillyJohnson says:

    Guys with PhDs working through Rossi’s Lie word problems.

    Great use of your doctorate degree bro!

    Man i would love to make a good Rossi meme but the only people who would get it would be my fellow trolls on cold fusion fringe sites, (a paltry 30 people globally)

    • GreenWin says:

      Fellas (including Mary) all the snarling and gnashing of teeth here will not change the results of the Essen-Levi validation. Get used to it and do what Willy suggests; dream up a new red herring. Like what will be the pathoskep line when the first E-Cat genset is demonstrated?? And how do we explain the utility industry panic over Distributed Energy Resources??

      For fusionistas, what can we do to preserve the last hope for fusion?? What will happen to the staff at ITER when it becomes clear their dream has ended the same way it did at NIF??

      Andy, thanks for the note. Gloating over a huge ratings success is not humble. Apologies… But pathosceps are the best SHARK bait around. :)

      • Bettingman says:

        Greenwin, do you know when the first customers will be able to demonstrate the e-cat? I can’t wait to see that.

      • RonB says:

        Green, That reminds me of the old joke about the father shark teaching the son shark how to feed. They come upon a ship wreck with dozens of people floating in the water and the son shark exclaims.. “Woohoo, Dinner is served”…. the father shark says.. “no no, we have to swim circles around them first”, when the young shark asks why the father shark replies “well if we scare the shit of them first, they taste better”.. :p

        • Jamiwithnewmailid says:

          Yeah, Rossi will get us in the end. Very soon, he will name his partner and it’s going to be a BIG name (maybe GE or Bosch). They’ll allow visits to the customer installations and it’ll be hundreds all over the world, happily generating whole Terawatts of excess heat and powering entire countries. Rossi will get at least one Nobel, Roger Green funds his own Feng Shui church, Adolf Schneider finally has enough money to build a magnet motor and GreenWin is put in charge of hunting down and prosecuting the handful of nasty idiots who can’t believe that Levi and Essen aren’t reincarnations of Don Quijote and Sancho Pansa but of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson. It’s inevitable. Hang on, guys. Have faith. You’ll be proven right. Soon.

          • Bettingman says:

            Yes Jami,

            you are correct this is all 100% unavoidable. The only question that remains is when each of the milestones you describe will come about. I am sure Greenwin can make an accurate assessment.

          • GreenWin says:

            Jami – this is wonderful! You hit the nail on the head and the only misfortune is the nail was not an orbitoclast for Popee’s relief.

            On the creative side you seem a bit conflicted – your double negative indicates nasty idiots believing in both Quijote/Pansa AND Holmes/Watson. Nevertheless, two deserving icons for you nasties. Soon, is here. Thanks for your service!

        • GreenWin says:

          LOL. THX Ron.

      • maryyugo says:

        “Like what will be the pathoskep line when the first E-Cat genset is demonstrated??”

        I don’t suppose you’d want to wait until Rossi reveals his first customer before crowing nonsense like that, do you?

        • JNewman says:

          GW is a master at gloating without justification. I guess it makes him happy.

        • GreenWin says:

          Mary, you and J have got to work on your sense of humor. Self-righteous rage is no way to live life! Have a lovely weekend!

          • JNewman says:

            Self-righteous rage? Not even remotely. Why would I be enraged by silliness and/or stupidity? I realize that your material is intended to be funny. Unfortunately, I suspect that you are the only one who gets the jokes. The rest of us just search in vain for the point of it all. But you too have a good weekend.

      • Anonymous Reader says:

        “Like what will be the pathoskep line when the first E-Cat genset is demonstrated?? And how do we explain the utility industry panic over Distributed Energy Resources??”

        Oh I hope this happens. But it hasn’t. So I sit and wait. I am hopeful but doubtful. It would be the greatest news since perhaps the Green Revolution.

        • H D says:

          See, that’s what Greenwin (pretends?) to not understand.

          Don’t think there’s anybody here who wouldn’t be delighted if our Italian oddity was actually able to deliver.

          Who wouldn’t like almost free energy and new physics to explore? Alas the reality of this remains remote.

          • JNewman says:

            It is really interesting that some of the well-known LENR researchers express cautious support for Rossi and his shenanigans. If Rossi has the goods, then these PhD scientists have been toiling for decades getting ephemeral milliwatts while the convicted energy-scammer solves the whole problem in his garage. If Rossi is for real (and the likelihood of that is very small indeed), then more than skeptics will look foolish.

          • Bettingman says:

            I think the paradox here is: in case Rossi is for real that will prove that Rossi himself is a fool. What idiot (I am sorry for the insult but I think the label is appropriate) behaves like this in case you have something this revolutionary…

          • JNewman says:

            Rossi’s behavior is the most compelling argument that he has nothing. If the ecat were real, it would be worth untold billions of dollars and the only strategic question he would face is which strategy would gain him the largest number of billions. Instead, he makes deals with weird little companies that specialize in perpetual motion machines and feng shui and sells regional licenses for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Only the most delusional supporter sees that as anything other than a huge red flag.

            We only have Rossi’s behavior to judge by and that behavior is not that of a scientist, it is not that of an engineer, it is not that of an entrepreneur, it is not that of a businessman, and it is not that of an “Edisonian”. It is the behavior of a scam artist and nothing more.

          • RonB says:

            If Rossi is for real (and the likelihood of that is very small indeed), then more than skeptics will look foolish.
            That’s a fact indeed.

          • John Milstone says:

            As opposed to the Rossi “True Believers” who have been looking foolish for years (no “if”), and will continue to look foolish for as long as they chase this scam.

          • Ransompw says:

            Quax:

            I think you are naive if you believe everyone will be happy to see LENR products. If real it will likely be the most disruptive technology imaginable. Lots of people will lose lots of money, many highly paid people will lose jobs and many people in positions of power will lose power.

            Further, for those in the above categories what’s the hurry. For them the revolution can start later after they have made their money etc.

            I am not suggesting that is what motivates the pseudoskeptics that populate this blog. Most here are just oddballs, outside mainstream thought. I do think the collection of skeptics here think their views are mainstream, normal which is the funniest part of their posts.

            But you can be sure there are plenty mainstreamers with strong reasons to hope the extreme view of your skeptic crowd turns out to be right or if they are wrong it takes a long time before it is implemented.

          • JNewman says:

            It is absolutely wonderful that Ransom describes anyone outside of the small community of LENR fanboys as “pseudoskeptics” and oddballs who are outside of mainstream thought. It is hard to imagine a more delusional thought. Actually, anybody who uses the term “pseudoskeptic” to describe someone who doubts the reality of cold fusion (LENR or the nom du jour) is really too far gone to engage in sensible discussion of the subject. It is pretty much a definitive indicator, in fact. Not all cold fusion believers see those who don’t adhere to their beliefs in that light, but those that do are special indeed. Ransom, for example, is willing to admit (on one of his better days) that the jury is still out on the existence of the phenomenon. Nevertheless, he equates those who disparage the weak evidence for it as pseudoskeptics. Examples of pseudoskeptics are Holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and moon landing deniers. Equating disbelief in cold fusion with those kinds of thinking demonstrates an almost staggering divergence from mainstream thought, or at least an infinitesimal grip on reality.

          • H D says:

            Ransom, touche – mostly thought about the motley bunch here.

            I believe that even the most prolific like here on this blog would be excited if this was true, in the wider world there certainly will be some painful implications amongst all the good.

          • H D says:

            JNewman wrote … really too far gone to engage in sensible discussion of the subject.

            If we only had sensible discussions it’ll be half the fun :-)

            BTW you forgot climate change denial, on your list of unpleasant, willful ignorance.

          • JNewman says:

            I didn’t forget climate change denial. I left it out deliberately because a number of LENR fans are also AGW deniers. So I didn’t want to muddy the waters with my examples. But, in the general spirit of orders of infinity, one might claim that climate change denial is a slightly lesser form of delusion than some of the others… but not much less.

          • John Milstone says:

            Ransompw said:

            Most here are just oddballs, outside mainstream thought.

            Wow! Just… Wow!

            Of all the delusional things a “True Believer” has ever said, that has got to be the most delusional.

            Ransom, seriously, you need help

          • H D says:

            C’mon, John M. Ransom stated before that he includes himself into this oddball group of people who pay attention to LENR.

            Since the latter is fringe and outside the mainstream I think it is fair to say that we are all, believers and sceptics alike, a bit odd to pay as much attention as we do.

          • JNewman says:

            Oh yes, we are all oddballs for spending time on this topic. The difference is that skeptics think we are squandering it on a reality-show-like spectacle while the true believers think this is one of the most important things happening in the world. Quite a different kettle of fish, I would say.

          • H D says:

            JNewman, at any rate, still prefer “believers” over decidedly mainstream folks, who think that their actual reality TV show of choice is the most important story in the world :-)

          • JNewman says:

            I’m with you on that, Quax.

  100. Andy Kumar says:

    Greenwin,
    You have been taunting my newly found patho-skep brethren (and Mary) in their own den. I can tell that you enjoy fancy prose (probably an English Lit major?).

    Rather than hide behind fancy language, can you enlighten us in simple English (Hemingway is the gold standard) without calling people names, why you think Rossi is such a great genius.

    As an aside, long time ago, I tried to read Ayn Rand. I could not get past the first paragraph. I decided that her language is deliberately convoluted to hide total lack of substance. You seem to be doing that too.
    -Andy

    • BigWillyJohnson says:

      Hey Andy,

      One comment:

      Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead was a truly excellent read. It has been a while so I do not remember the prose but one of my favorite stories.

      BW