Cold Fusion Times Reports Successful Cold Fusion Demonstration at MIT

Cold Fusion Times is reporting today about a demonstration of cold fusion that took place at a short course on at MIT taught by Drs. Peter Hagelstein and Mitchell Swarz. The report states, ” This JET Energy NANOR(TM) demonstrated a significant energy gain greater than 10, much larger than the previous open demonstration. This exhibition is also remarkable because it proved the role of lattice in enabling CF/LANR activity. It followed Prof. Hagelstein sharing his breakthrough explanatory theory of cold fusion.”

Cold Fusion Times, as far as I can gather, is owned and published by Dr. Mitchell Swarz, who is also involved in JET Energy Inc., so it would be interesting and important to get a report from someone outside the organization about this event. There are very few details provided about the experiment that was demonstrated, but a report on a previous 2003 JET Energy demonstration of a device called a ‘Plusor’ is available here, in which a net energy gain of 230 per cent was reported.

  • morse

    Is this a turning point in the energy field of the 21st century?
    Seems like Rossi will have to hurry up to keep himself in business.

    • Roger Bird

      The demand is so huge, and the supply is so small, and the product is so beneficial, I doubt if, at this point in time, anyone will be shut out of the market who can make a Ni-H heating device. Look at how we are all chomping at the bit like crazy horses waiting and wondering about this new invention. This was not the case with the invention of the automobile and any number of other inventions all of which were significantly less important. Defkalion and Rossi will win.

  • Alain

    so much time lost .
    I was asking myself how would MIT and similar establisment of science react… the answer is, supportive as if nothing happened before.

  • I do not perceive any problem for Andrea Rossi and his business, or for any other competition arises to Ecat making, the truth is that the world is in urgent need of good energy, nice and cheap, and it seems that this is already just around the corner .

    There have been many players, some for and some against, some will be affected in their interests, and that promote other undesirable energy (fossil fuels), which are not necessarily suited to continue consuming our world.

    Many believe that 2012 is the year of the beginning of the change of energy technologies for the world and not see a single player monopolizing this new source, but yes, many taking part in this innovative invention.

    • Luca Salvarani

      In my opinion arriving first on the market is the main point! Rossi could even not have the best performing product but if he will arrive first so he’ll gain a huge (and maybe decisive) advantage over other even better products… It also explains why he’s so ager to start commercialization and postpones the release of a more complete (also electric) e-cat.

  • Tom Krieg

    2003 — What a shame.

    The least.they could have done would have been supportive as of late.

  • Brian

    It would be nice if it worked. But the key is not power measurements. Very important information is missing: What are the reactions by-products?
    For example: If you put water in and get helium out, you don’t need to measure energy – you’ve won the jackpot!
    If you put water in and get water out – you have not produced power.

    • Alain

      don’t reduce LENR to simple DD fusion.
      He4 seems more to be alpha , or neutron absorption by H and beta decay …
      read (all):
      forget about hot fusion style, even if WL is wrong, they give good arguments to rule out classic DD fusion.

      • Roger Bird

        WL = Widom-Larsen Theory of Ultra Slow Neutrons.

    • Andrew Macleod

      So a temp difference between water in and water out means nothing? Is this not energy production?

  • ColdFuser

    So when some actor or musician made a scandal that is the news, but Cold Fusion at work is not so interesting…

    What the sad world we became.

    • Roger Bird

      More and more good things are being learned in this Internet informed world without the aid of the mainstream media. The lamestream media is making itself more and more irrelevant.

      • jetmech

        could not agree more. A U.S. House committee has already approved HR 1981, a broad Internet snooping bill. what about sopa? and pippa? havent heard a lot from media on ANY of these subjects.If you dont pay attention to these things your self they are gonna get passed.

  • sapain

    another small step for freedom and another big step backwards for cbf.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    This demonstration occurred in 2003! Unbelievable! At MIT! I smell coal, oil and gas suppression of this news. Where is our news media, what has happened to investigative reporting? The people responsible for this suppression better head for cover. Think of the people who have died because of no clean water in the last ten years! This is disgraceful!

    • This demo took place on January 30-31, 2012

      • But they inadvertently miswired the power plug, honest.

      • Alain

        who is right, text is not so clear.
        it seems they say :
        for two days durin 2012 IAP, there was a demo.
        this 2012 demo , follow 2003 similar demo.

        complex sentence for an alien.

    • All I smell is the tainted buzz of some third rate website that looks like a refugee from the “I got a kid who can build a website” era, but maybe that’s just me?

      • daniel maris

        So you are saying the LENR demonstration definitely did not take place? Please clarify…

        • Other than Rossi’s claims, I know of no CF test that has supported the wildly exaggerated claims he purports to achieve. In every test I’ve ever been able to verify fully, the resultant heating in the tests was so negligible as to be ALMOST insignificant. So there may be an actual CF type reaction, but one that doesn’t lead to commercialization. It is my opinion that the confusion over the whole subject is the crack through which Rossi has slithered.

          So how could Rossi ‘prove’ his device without giving away it’s secrets? Simple. He sets one up in the parking lot at the Mall of the Americas. Uses the excess heat to keep a group of outdoor sauna/jacuzzi’s hot for a few months during Minnesota’s long cold winters (most years anyway…lol). What gyrations will the apologists for Rossi go through to ‘debunk’ my common sense (and commercially aware – great PR – company secret safe) demonstration idea??….cause you know they will!!


    • Camilo

      I strongly recommend to anyone that still believes that LENR demos are a new thing to go to and take a while to put themselves up to date. LENR demos have been done many times in the past. IMHO there is no doubt about the reality of the phenomenon, but it keeps being dealt with as pseudoscience. This late JET Energy demo only adds the value of creating a less debatable COP. Rossi’s claims aside, LENR, albeit real and promising, keeps being mostly shuned by mainstream science, and that’s a reality that will take some more time to change.

  • daniel maris

    It’s a double whammy! The NASA video was the first big hit to the body and this is the great clunking blow to the side of the head that will send the sceptics reeling.

    • The NASA video was refuted by the main scientist presented in the video on his personal website. Be prepared to see the same thing happen with this experiment in a classroom at MIT.

      To Joe Zawodny I would say the following:

      Making scientific claims and using the NASA logo to back them up with no proof is a goof.

      Lately there is a user named Joe who is making statements on this forum saying there was no mistake made.

      • Roger Bird

        Charles Ponzi,

        I am not even sure what you just posted, except perhaps a rationalization of why you are not stupid. You have been putting down LENR for months, and now it looks like it is true. Boo Who for You. You need to readjust you thinking apparatus, not just concerning LENR, but in the broadest epistemological sense.

        • Anybody who looks at the NASA video then reads Joe’s personal website is completely confused. The personal statements Joe makes completely contradict the official video. When faced with this confusion and contradiction and a request is made for him to admit an error Joe’s persona online claims there was no mistake or goof.

          I’m not putting down LENR. I’m upset and angry at the highly unprofessional way that the presentations are being made.

          You claim that now it looks like it is true. How are you going to feel if tomorrow the professor at MIT recants and says it was all smoke and mirrors so you shouldn’t trust it? That is exactly what Joe Z did. Don’t be surprised if this MIT fella does the same is all I’m saying.

          • Ged

            The statements Joe makes on his website do not contradict the video at all. He just clarifies to keep people from extrapolating off of the video more than what was said.

            So, I don’t know where you are getting your ideas, but it certainly isn’t from the actual video or web site. If you care to disagree, give point by point quotes from either that are clearly contradictory and we will discuss them–I haven’t found any.

          • Ged look no further than your own comment for the point by point quotes that you are looking for. I love your wording “He just clarifies to keep people from…”

            Old saying, “only the guilty explain themselves”. If Joe didn’t say it he wouldn’t be out there clarifying to keep people from thinking that he said what he actually said.

          • John K

            Charles…..never heard that old saying, so by your own standard I determine that it is concocted by you to prove your point. Besides, how untrue is it in essence? As my old saying goes, “Just because you say something which sounds ellegant, it still doesn’t make it right.”

      • daniel maris

        Charles, as stated above Zawodny retracted nothing. The so called retraction was a skilfully worded statement designed to sound like a retraction without being one. Presumably it was negotiated between Zawodny and whoever he p’d off in the NASA establishment.

        The idea that NASA scientists can get any old video put up on an official NASA website on their own say-so is laughable. One thing we know about NASA is it loves proecdures and protocols.

    • I did not say, reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable.– Joe Zawodney. To me this is less about science and more about showmanship. The science seems to say that there is something strange going on, but see above. One thing to remember is than LENR can be an honest to goodness scientific phenomenon but that would in no way make imply it a viable commercially exploitable effect. Static electricity is abundant and free. We know it exists. It’s more powerful than gravity at short distances. Where is my free static electricity power generator? We’ve had a century to figure it out. This LENR ecat crap is yet another diversion away from what is much more obviously a more achievable solution. /poe

      • daniel maris

        Nice try but the energy released is there as free heat, as far as I understand it, so it is accessible.

  • daniel maris

    Yep, it’s a turning point for sure… No one can any longer deny the reality of LENR. The only issue now is commercialisation. Is Rossi ahead of the game?…I hope so, but it is almost an irrelevant question.

    But WHY, WHY, WHY is none of this mainstream news? Not even in the BBC science section. Pathetic.

    • Pathetic!

      • I found out about this on the mainstream presses back in the tail end of October. Since then I have seen nothing but monkeyshines on the part of Rossi, Defkalion, and sadly to say NASA. It needs to be noted that MIT did not make the announcement of this news, some no-name website did. This news may end up like Joe Zawodny’s insult to all the donkey’s out there listening and watching.

        • daniel maris

          You sound a bit desperate Charles. How about closing the curtains and lying down for an hour or so.

          Zawodny withdrew not a word of his videoed statement and did not contradict a single word of the voiceover. Neither did he withdraw the LENR patent application he made on NASA’s behalf – well he couldn’t really as it had already been approved.

    • Roger Bird

      Unlike my LENR mentor Bruce Fast, I don’t want LENR to go mainstream. I want it to spread far and wide before the government realizes that they have been snookered.

      • dAnt

        Me Too! Let it be like the internet. Game over before the can regulate and tax.

  • daniel maris

    I think some people are reading the report wrong.

    There was an original demonstration in 2003. This is reporting on a new demonstration, with a much more impressive result that took place in the last couple of weeks and was part of a course.

    Why on earth nothing was done between 2003 and now is a question that needs to be looked at some time!
    I suspect MIT have got in on the act because they know others are making independent deomnstrations.

    • That would be January 30-31, 2012. This is very HOT OF THE PRESSES news!

      • daniel maris

        Correct. 🙂

  • And Wikipedia still describes LENR as “pathological science”!

    • Roger Bird

      Bruce, Wikipedia is naturally going to be what the mainstream thinks is real. So, it serves as a means of knowing when LENR-on-steriods has arrived.

    • ColdFuser

      This is LANR not LENR. 🙂

      • Roger Bird

        Actually, logically speaking, Coldfuser, I think that you are right. Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reaction (LANR) is a much better term. From now on, I will be calling it LANR. Thank you for pointing that out.

        Now you have to change your handle since it is most certainly not cold fusion. (:->)

  • DaveL

    Details! Is there a full report on the way?????

  • Jerry

    Its not wonder Rossi has had to jump hoops and endure insults from the hot fusion people and at the same time we are paying 4.00 per gallon of fuel at the pump and fighting WARS over oil and the corporate media just turns the other way on reporting on this energy source.

  • Thomas

    Yeah! Cold fusion is becoming hot! 🙂

  • Dr. No

    Although I work in R&D, I do not require any scientific proof of LENR. What I need is an e-shop where I can buy & try the device. The prices given by Rossi and Defkalion are so low that even if it is scam, it will be a good entertainment worth few hundreds dollars/euros.

    • daniel maris

      Well to be fair that is Rossi’s view as well. Certainly ANY video or test produced by Rossi will be denounced as a scam by a vociferous group of Rossi-haters.

  • s

    People should realize tat the 2003 experiment produced power in the watts range. I didn’t read what the power output for this experiment was, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the power was still in the watts range. So, after 8 or 9 years of resaearch, this particular team might still not have reached the kilowatt range. The bright side is that a 1.5V AAA battery has an energy capacity of ~ 1 Amp hour. If they could make a low power cold fusion AAA battery with 100+ Amp hour capacity for about the same price, they could take over the global battery market overnight.

    • daniel maris

      I think you’ll have to explain to me what the problem is with scaling up from test tube size?

  • Allen Perry

    Forget the heat output. I just want to see a finished electric generator to run my complete household needs on pennies per day that runs at least 6 months on a charge and a low cost recharge. Address that please.

    • Joe

      If the past is any judge, the net results of all past “extremely promising” cold fusion demos is Nada, zip, zero, NOTHING.

      I hope you are a teenager else you might not live long enough to see your dream come through.

      • daniel maris

        Working to your principle, Joe, people should have given up trying to produce a reliable motor car in 1870 and given up trying to create flying machines in about 1895.

        • Joe

          I don’t see how you arrived at such a conclusion from my statement. It was only a statement of fact about this field and was in NO way a critique on if research is worthwhile.

          Everyone is acting like something big is imminent in this field and i see no evidence of this.

          This field does not need more admirers only people doing real science. Many are trying to turn this field into a religion where the more people believe in it the more legitimate it becomes. Science should not be a popularity contest, belief is not required only testable evidence.

          • ColdFuser

            I may even agree with you about results. But why the Hot fusion research is not at the same status ? They also work for 20-30 years w/o result and most important they are funded by the governments ?
            Is the job of the government to work for common good of the people ? (They build roads, rails,…) Why should not they invest in both CF and HF ? What testable evidence has Hot fusion ? I am not saying that CF will produce energy but can we be 1000% sure that it is not ?

          • Joe

            It is because Hot Fusion is feasible, look at the sun. There are a few machines that proves Hot Fusion produces a boat load of energy. What has failed over the last 30 years is making the reaction self sustaining(harness the output and feed it back in), if the reaction only lasts a second the energy produced is less that the energy used to kick it off. There is no atmosphere of fraud surrounding Hot fusion.

            What can 1 say about Cold fusion, a side from the fact it has a great many devoted supporters?

            The universe is infinite so anything is possible. Please someone, produce some recipe all can replicate that will produce some positive result that will hint that CF is feasible.

  • The more evidence I see for/of Rossi’s ecat claims, the less I believe them.

    • MIT announces a demo of LENR, and your confidence goes down? You are surely a brilliant one.

      • daniel maris

        A Big Oil CEO?

      • dsm

        The more I read Tim’s posts the more convinced I become that he is here just to ring people’s bells and annoy them. 🙂

        The lessons I have learned in the past week include that the USA Inteligence Defence Agency, US Army Research Center, US Navy SPAWAR centre & NASA have all *published* documents stating that LENR is real but now needs some engineering to package & scale it.

        Nasa actually go as far as to say that they think Rossi is a starting point and that they expect to see Rossi’s LENR process passed by with much more scalable devices.


      • Skeptic

        MIT did not announce anything. A fringe website repackeged an otherwise very ordinary powerpoint presentation at MIT into a much more spectacular sounding ‘cold fusion breakthrough’.

        • E-catatonics: “Would all you skeptics please step away from that curtain over there, and while you’re at it, could you please keep that dam little dog (Toto) of yours under better control!!

  • Pingback: Cold Fusion Times Reports Successful Cold Fusion Demonstration at MIT |

  • Not a peep from the maintream news media about
    this (very) significant event.

    It may be they are hatching and concocting up
    “mad scientist” and “nutty professor” senarios.

    Don’t call AP.

    • Brian

      Why isn’t there ANY mention of it outside this cold fusion journal?
      That question alone deserves an honest answer.
      I don’t buy huge conspiracy by journalists and big oil. Whenever the mainstream doesn’t do what you want them, it’s a conspiracy and you have figured it out.
      If there was a big conspiracy between ‘big oil’ and all the journalists in the whole world, we would never have heard about the huge oil spill in the Gulf.
      So, why doesn’t mainstream media report anything?

      • Take a look at the world around you.

        Look at what is being reported as being worthy of attention and the root causes of todays serious world problems.

        What if the media and governments brought in cold fusion 15 years ago
        instead of uninformed rejection of
        the idea on criterion that does not

        Now we have a solution finally being
        validated and this is historic but somehow not worth people being informed.

  • Sparks

    Hoo boy, if you actually go to the link, it’s a letdown. This was yet another academic demonstration of an increment forward in the phenomenon of LENR (which they point out is better termed LANR). But they are still at the proof-of-feasibility laboratory stage, far from ready for prime-time. For those unfamiliar with academia, this sort of thing (trumpeting loudly academic but subtle victories as one nuance in the theory displaces another) is standard fare in all branches of science, and while very worthwhile and significant in advancing our understanding of nature, it is but a tiny drop in the bucket toward a useful reduction to practice. That said, the Cold Fusion Times magazine link was a delight compared to the Jet Energy, Inc link, which amounts to little more than a dead-end conspiracy theory website with no means of contact but a PO Box.

  • John S

    I can’t wait to see what happens next!

  • jetmech

    Something i do not understand. How could any of you say
    you are NOT a skeptic? You all must be. You have not spent all your money on every device or product that touts itself as “zero point energy” or “lenr canr cf”
    or you would not be on this forum you would be homeless! what about magnet bracelets? I know each and every one of your “BELIEFS” STOPS somewhere. It has to or you would be broke! I think the major problem is you are confusing skepticism with criticism. Most of the skeptic arguments i have found to be valid skepticism and i must say have added to my knowledge (looking things up to verify what they say) than any of the believers! Sometimes you just have to be honest. Not hiding behind some kind of conspiracy theory. just be honest. If you believe the world is run by some conspiracy how will you ever know who’s conspiracy it is! Get involved in politics and government try your best to change the world! Posting on forums is not going to change anything if you believe in these vast conspiracies GROW SOME BALLS! Get out there occupy something! At least 50% of Americans are convinced they have to give up wages and benifets to support the rich. conspiracy or just laziness?

    • sparks

      Nice points, well said and rather philosophical to boot! Yeah, I’m a skeptic, but I’m not a pointy-eared devil with horns and a tail. I too have learned more from the skeptics than the believers.

    • ColdFuser

      I think you are right. People MIX the interest to maximize profit with conspiracy. For instance free market concept is great, people decide what is good or bad we can agree on that, but then you see that USA Gov make 65% of all orders, (This percent is rising) and you ask yourself , that is not free market because the government must not act like an person, it can be lobbied or bribed … The second thing is FED or Bank of England, it is a private company, and you ask yourself why the gov will borrow the money from private company ? Lets assume that this is not so bad , can I open FED2 and gov will borrow money from me ? This is monopoly, and it is often mixed with conspiracy.

    • Skeptic

      Remember ‘X-files’ character Fox Mulder? He had a poster on his wall that read ‘I want to believe’.
      Many people want to believe that the end of all problems is about to be revealed, and they want to be a part of it.
      Heck, I would like that too.
      But some people cling to their belief and use ‘conspiracy’ as a stopgap for everything.
      You’ll never hear anyone say ‘ah, skeptics were right all along, it’s all a fake’.
      Nope, Rossi just needs more time, ‘Big Oil’ silenced him, you name it.
      The problem with conspiracies is that they can no longer be disproved: Contradictary evidence or the total absence of evidence are turned around and presented as evidence of the Conspiracy.

      I’d like to know two, no three things:

      – Cold fusion would save the US, Europe and China trillions of yen, euros, dollars. Are we supposed to believe those powerblocks would rather serve ‘big oil’?
      – If ‘Big Oil’ is so powerful, how come they allowed reporting on major oil spills?
      – Personal one: What evidence would convince you the e-cat doesn’t exist?

      That last one touches the cornerstone of belief. If Rossi himself came on and told us ‘It’s all a fake, I’ve made it all up’, there will be people who’d rather believe he has been ‘silenced by vested interests’.
      Are you one of those people?

      • Alain

        you are partly right and wrong.
        I see pathologic skeptics like believers.

        there is no “null hypothesis”, and many manipulation is to try to reverse the null hypotheses (precaution principle, climate AGW).

        I don’t believe in complots, conspiracies… just interests and stupidity.
        look at that pamplet
        … then benabou articles…
        so classic… so common…

        hard to know where is the denier and the realist.

      • dragon

        So you rather want me to “believe” the world is fair and such things as evil people that want to control other people by killing disrupting technologies don’t exist?
        Who is more skeptic here, me or you?
        There is no Big Oil, there is no Big Pharma… look at who owns those companies, or better look at who owns the money of this world. Then you will see better why they sometimes choose to kill, hide, or even attempt to CONTROL (like now) disruptive technology.
        Cold fusion is not a new concept; it was a technology that was hidden for almost 25 years. Now they will release it under their CONTROL, just as they did with other technologies, technologies controlled enough to have little (instead of great) impact on the population of this planet.

    • ColdFuser

      I must add an additional point, remember the electricity war between Tesla and Edison on AC vs DC current? Edison was trying to protect his investment there was not a conspiracy, what if the Edison succeed in passing the law to forbid the AC? This is not about skepticism, the Cold fusion and the Hot fusion should both be in development. The Hot fusion is in development for 20-30 years w/o result and a lot of tax payers money spent, why not the same for Cold fusion. Cold fusion has shown some initial results, why should we ignore this?

    • daniel maris

      Sceptic is just short hand for “irrationally and aggressively denying the possiblity of something being true if there is strong evidence that it is possible and some persuasive evidence that it has taken place”.

      I like to think that I am sceptical towards Rossi’s claims as in “I do not believe they are established fact and look forward to seeing further evidence.”

      Another point: very few people here are trained scientists. They are not looking at this scientifically but as rational human beings who see the promise of LENR/cold fusion and are following developments. We are I think mostly convinced that LENR is a reality because of repeated experiments which show it to be. So that is a firm basis on which to stand.

      • jetmech

        Sceptic is just short hand for being sceptical which YOU are. If you were NOT sceptical you would be broke from buying everything that did not work.You would have so many used cars without engines in your front yard! YOU are confusing cricism with skepticism.Like I said be honest.However if you want to jump into the swimming pool before seeing if its full go ahead just be sure to do it before me!

  • david

    Well all of the venom aside IF this is real we should see proof in the form of a marketable device within two years. Either Rossi, Defkalion or some other entity should be in a position to either give a proof positive demo or sell a product by then. If not it probably doesn’t exist or will be many years away.
    For myself I can wait. What have I got to lose anyway?

    • Well all of the venom aside

      It’s mostly a problem of people deciding what is a fact and what isn’t. My list of facts weighs heavily towards this being a scam.

      Let’s review a few of my concerns so the true believer can get in their apologetics exercises for today.

      Focus of today’s lesson will be marketing 101. For purposes of discussion we’ll assume Rossi has the design worked out well enough to be discussing large scale production (a claim he makes repeatedly). You are now Rossi…..

      Do you:

      a: continue to waste time (from your perspective) battling small time internet rumors and bolstering up artificial orders for a product that wouldn’t need any outside bolstering if it were actually available? Taking preorders on an [email protected] email addy? (…

      b: offer to hook up one of your many functioning test units on the set of a major television news show (Good Morning America or equiv) and let it run in place for a few days to show how safe/effective/easy it is to operate? Invite the world’s scientists to scrutinize and comment….for DAYS.

      How much advertising for pre-orders would you need in that event…none.

      If the afterlife actually existed, and ghosts/spirits could really give you insights into the great beyond, then religion wouldn’t have to work so hard trying to make you guilty for not believing in them. But I do give the churches credit for good marketing. Even though they’ve nothing real to sell, the pre-order system to the afterlife is well developed. Either in the form of an offering plate or ongoing tithe.


      • SteveZ


        You should check out one of the many books by people who have experienced death experiences and were brought back. Just because you can’t see something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Sometimes it just means you refuse to see it. One person, Maria Faustina Kowalska, having seen hopeless, suffering souls in hell observed that most of the people who were there did not believe that it existed. It amuses me that scientists who espouse conservation of mass and energy can assume a created universe from nothingness. Creation, itself, is proof of a Creator. As for offering plate, the creator does not need our money. But He does will that we make a tangible expression of obedience to His will to love Him and to love others in charity. Have a blessed day!

        • HanzJager

          “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” – Hitchens

          Enough said.

          • dragon

            Death is evidence.
            You can’t rationalize Total Death (becoming nothingness) of an intelligent being as something that is logic. You (what defines as your Inner-Self) cannot become nothingness. It is not logical, because your inner-self is not a material process, material process do not acknowledge itself.

        • We seem to be in total agreement then as I perceive the bulk of your response to be that the ‘proof’ of Rossi’s claims are every bit as ‘valid’ as those of religion.

          Creation from your perspective needs a creator but the ‘creator’ himself?….not so much.

          I didn’t start posting on the topic of ecat Rossi scam until I realized that he was indeed pimping for money from outside investors. It was only then that I realized he has a history of fraud and no history of real science. He is excellent at affinity scamming though, as he tries to tie any link to CF or CF science to the belief that his device is groundbreaking.

          I have the advantage of coming to this party rather late in the game. I get a satisfying tingle in my nether regions when I look back at all the previous attempts by Rossi at ‘proving’ his device, only to find an ongoing trail of improperly designed/monitored trials. On the days preceding such events the Rossipalloza crowd gets all indignant. Just wait until Oct…Dec…Next March…lol.


        • jetmech

          to me they were not death experiences!
          obviously if they came back they were not dead!
          once your brain dies then your dead.
          just because your heart stops does not mean your dead.
          what was all the fuss about terry shiavo anyway once she was dead the newspaper published her brain scan – mostly liquified there wasnt ever any hope of her coming out of her coma. name one “miracle” where an organ or a limb has grown back!

      • david

        “a: continue to waste time (from your perspective) battling small time internet rumors and bolstering up artificial orders for a product that wouldn’t need any outside bolstering if it were actually available? Taking preorders on an [email protected] email addy? (…”

        An interesting point. I have been wondering why so many feel it necessary to come to an E Cat site only to claim over and over that it must be a scam? As an example, I don’t believe that the Earth is flat nor do I believe in the Loch Ness Monster. I feel both ideas are simply insane.
        The difference I suppose is that I don’t really care if anyone does believe it and frankly with all of the facts available I seriously doubt anything more I could add would change a believers mind anyway. Therefore I don’t go to a site supporting such ideas just to spend useless energy telling them they are wrong. I find myself wondering why, if you feel so about the Ecat, that you do? My guess is that basically you are either:
        A: just enjoying the argument which is fine but then your motivations are in question and therefore your arguments are slanted and invalid.
        B: You have some belief in it too and are emotionally unable to come to grips with it. Please, do tell which it is.

        • Of course it’s an ‘interesting’ point. It’s also quite telling. But rather than focus on the topic at hand, let’s get ad hominem on me instead!! Let’s question the messenger if we don’t like the message. Let’s look for sinister motives in my common sense analysis of these ongoing and illusory claims.

          Of course I enjoy the argument, but don’t kid yourself into believing that every random blog poster who trots in here to point out this foolishness has some emotional connection to Rossi, his fantasy product or the science of CF in general. Why would you assume such? I believe that such assumptions say more about your emotional connection to this subject than mine.

      • Don Harvey

        Tim, over the years, since Pons published his experimental data back in the late ’80’s I have had both optimistic and pessimistic interest in the technology. I too, like you, have thought that if indeed the technology did what is claimed then why not build some demo systems with proper legal protection and offer them to universities and perhaps engineering companies for further review and to develop commercial partnerships. However, they haven’t.

        Also, especially in the recent Rossi experiments, I haven’t seen such poor experiment and scientific documentation and instrumentation. A High School science class would know how to capture temperature, pressure, flow, current, and voltage date using cheap A-D computer data boards, simple SW, and perhaps some T/C linearizers. That’s it. Publish calibration date too, offer error bars on the data, etc. The experimental data is so bad that I wouldn’t trust it.

        Also, why make steam? Why not just hot water? Steam is problematic in that once it is in the vapor phase all sorts of mathematical equations must be used to characterize the heat content. Pressure is important and I don’t believe that was ever considered.

        • The calorimetry brouhaha is definitely a sign of trouble. You wouldn’t even need the high school setup if you just ran one of these in a Home Depot parking lot in Minot ND and heated a bunch of jacuzzi’s for a week.

          The fact that there is even a quibble over complex calorimetry data when the device is claiming such a large degree of output relative to input should make it prima facie obvious without the assistance of anything other than a finger to dip in the water.

          How about claims of a device claimed designed but not yet marketed (although many prototypes) yet NOT ONE long term test?

          I’m as flexible to the idea as anyone. I’ll bend when I see some real evidence. Until then, I refuse to be bent over.


    • Alain

      2 month is not long…wait defkalion.
      rossi was too messy to be clear, but DGT took a much more simple method to kill the doubt.

      just look at the board of director to undesrtand if it is business or scam:


      George Sortikos, born 1942 – Chairman
      Engineer. Ex banker and industrialist (high tech ceramics). Ex president of the state owned Greek Industrial Investment Bank (ETBA) in 80-90s and founder of Omega Bank.(90s)

      George Xanthoulis, born in 1987 – Deputy Chairman,

      Aurel David, born in 1969 – CEO
      Swiss, Banker with vast experience in project finance and logistics. Ex president of a Montenegro Bank.

      Alexandros Xanthoulis, born 1954 – Board member, representative of Praxen
      Macro-Economics, Greek-Canadian. Former EU officer, Head for Energy and Financial Reconstruction EU delegation in Central Asia (90s).

      Christos Stremmenos, born 1932 – Board Member
      Chemical Engineer. Professor (retired) in the University of Bologna, ex Ambassador of Greece in Italy

      Ioannis Chatzichristos, born 1958 – Board Member
      Mathematics/Systems theory, vast experience in software development, management and IT project management.

      Andreas Meidanis, born 1953 – Board Member

      Mouafak Saouachni, born 1961 – Board Member
      Medical doctor, Greek-Israeli, responsible in labour health and environmental safety

      Andreas Drougas, born 1945 – Board Member
      Mathematics/IT, ex-executive consultant in LARCO (Greek Nickel mining co, now state owned), vast experience in management consulting and IT

      All these info is public in Greece (Government Gazette for private companies)

      • Nuclear Physicist

        no one of these people is a physicist.

        Such e phenomenon like cold fusion simply does not exist.

        • dragon

          I hope you will remember this remark (“Such e phenomenon like cold fusion simply does not exist.”)later this year, when a huge scientific cmomunity (NASA, MIT, Bologna, SRI, etc.) will prove you wrong.

  • I asked Peter Hagelstein through his MIT eamil to clarify the factor of energy gain, and he wrote back that Michael Swartz reported on Tuesday that the actual energy gain achieved during Monday’s demonstration was 14. (I assume he means that Michael reported this to the class on Tuesday.)

    So when Cold Fusion Times reported energy gain as “greater than 10″ it appears they wanted to be very conservative in what they reported.

    Why have we not heard from any of the students who attended the class? Wouldn’t news reporters be all over the students and instructors for interviews?

    How about if e-catworld puts up a request for students of this just completed MIT class to contact them to be interviewed?

    • Busy

      Because all who attended the class i busy building their own device… 🙂

    • Frank

      Why not more media attention?
      Probably because the measured ‘peak energy’ was quite low – so low that an error in the measurements/conclusions what causes the ‘energy gain’ could easily happen.
      Look here:

      • Paul Maher

        All naysayers and skeptics would do well to review the 6th volume of the JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE. There is a great deal that has been verified experimentally and ways of optimizing the effect have been devised. It is readily available online.


  • Pingback: Your (semi-) Daily Dose of Reality v.2.15.12 « Falcon’s Eyrie()

  • vince

    Peter Hagelstein said
    “But because of these consistencies, “I am of the view that Rossi’s claims probably should be taken seriously ”

    Like what part then is a scam?


    Please consider Belgian patent BE1002780 published through e-Cat Site under the title Belgian LANR Patents. Said patent has been blocked for publication by the Belgian Ministry of Defense for 2 years after filing; no reason or test results have been given.