Brian Josephson on Meeting With Andrea Rossi

With permission I am posting a report written by Brian Josephson, retired professor of physics at Cambridge University, and 1973 Nobel prize winner for physics. Dr. Josephson recently met with Andrea Rossi in Miami.

By chance I was in Miami recently and took the opportunity to arrange a meeting with Andrea Rossi. Although I had some questions prepared, our meeting was of the nature of an informal chat over lunch rather than a formal interview.

Rossi talked first of all of his ability to run the e-cat stably at high temperatures, quoting a specific temperature of 600 deg. C rather than simply saying ‘high temperature’ as in recent reports. The present effort is concentrated on making the machinery that will build the e-cats, and the second buyer does not yet at this time have any e-cats to comment on. The promised detailed account of the workings of the e-cat will be given when production is sufficiently advanced and
patents have been granted, which he anticipates will happen in the next few months (on the question of how genuine all this is, see the end of this report).

Through our discussions I have come to understand what may underlie some of his apparently perverse behaviour:

1. In the course of a scientific training one comes to appreciate the difficulties involved in obtaining a reliable result. Rossi’s perspective on experiments seems to be of a more limited kind (perhaps based on the kind of experiments one does in school, where one just carries out some prescribed process and out come the answers), which perhaps explains his impatience with people who criticise his demonstrations and want better ones (his opinion is that whatever experiment one does, people will not be satisfied, so he takes the alternative view that ‘the market will decide’).

2. The thought of people wanting to steal his secrets seems to weigh heavily on his mind, leading him to be suspicious of proposals by people such as Celani, whom he, in my view inappropriately, characterised as a ‘rival’.

3. While this did not come up in our discussion, one has to speculate that his paranoid tendency can only have been enhanced by his experience, shared by a number of us, with a particular science reporter whom I will not name here.

Perhaps this is being naive, but I find it difficult to imagine a conversation with a scammer having proceeded in the way that it did during our meeting, and feel that factors such as those listed above are much the more likely explanation for his behaviour. There is no reason why an inventor should adhere to the standards demanded of scientists and academics.

Brian Josephson
11th. May 2012

  • björn

    Come on, name the reporter, why not?

    • Methusela

      Surely we all know who ‘The puppett snake’ (sic) is by now!

    • Ed

      No one wants to give free publicity to a person they dislike.

      • hydroman

        Your right Dr. Josephson “has stood up to a maelstrom of skeptopaths”!
        And will believe ANYTHING! He is truly “omnicredulous”! When those pigs fly and the Rossi Ecat becomes a real working device all his years of believing ANYTHING will be vindicated!
        Of course when pigs do indeed fly!
        Good luck with that used car you bought without an engine Dr Josephson!
        Nothing has to be proven!

        • hydroman

          Also thanks for pointing out that Rossi is not a scammer he truly is just a certified paranoid!

  • Francesco CH

    Thanks Frank,

    you are the best!!!

    • dragon

      Brian Josephson is the best.
      He is a very passionate scientist and I think we owe him again many thanks for his efforts in the LENR field, even if he is not an actual LENR scientist.

      Bravo Brian Josephson! You really impress me.

      • GreenWin,

        You are right on this dragon. Dr. Josephson has stood up against a maelstrom of skeptopaths and institutional deceit. He is far more than a Nobel laureate – he is a source of good in the universe.

  • Thank you for sharing. I agree with your last sentence. But that does not mean that we must accept his claim as a scientific or technological innovation. I am waiting for a convincing demonstration, or for customers who had been satisfied for a long period of time.

    Ludwik, see:

  • Filip

    I like Josephson like I like Hagelstein and I like Hagelstein, therefor I like Josephson.

    Both integer.

  • Partyyy

    And what is going on with Steven Krivit?
    He died maybe?

    • Methusela

      No, he’s had a month off. Doubtless he’s preparing another attack right now, as he says that he’s working on a few things.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        He is getting his high school science degree. (:

        • Sojourner Soo

          LOL. Too funny!

  • This would have fitted better on the last thread, but anyway, here is the latest from

    “Here is a summary of the latest ECAT developments in May 2012:

    Leonardo Corp and Andrea Rossi is currently working on a new reactor type with specifications far better than the previous versions of E-Cat. The canonical improvement is that the new E-Cat is now working stably at much higher temperatures than previously achieved.

    These temperatures allows for a vast number of electricity solutions at 40%+ gross heat-to-power efficiencies and 25%+ net efficiencies taking into account the power used by the process. The design allows for merely any heat transferring media including water/steam, heat-transferring-oils, molten salts but also hot air.

    The high temperature E-Cat reactor currently in test also opens up for applications with Sterling Engines. The new reactor is smaller in size and has a charge of 1.5 grams and more shielding than the original reactor. The new progress also gives the possibility to increase the COP for industrial applications.

    Currently a one month long E-Cat test is in progress as part of the new development process.

    To read the entire article, please visit

    Don’t forget to check all the questions answered at Currently containing over 500+ answers, all tagged and easy to search.

    The Team”

    • Robert Mockan

      1.5 grams catalyst, operating at 600 C?
      Many questions. What is the thermal power being generated per gram of catalyst? What is the lifetime of the catalyst before it needs to be replaced? How much electrical power in to the new E-Cat design needed to generate the thermal power out? If Rossi is talking about a self sustaining reactor, or even if it has a high COP and not completely self sustaining, then he has something comparable to conventional nuclear power. It is one thing to talk about marketing a hot water heater, but what he seems to be describing now is much in advance of that.

    • Robert Mockan

      Just finished the answers at Rossi web site to many questions other people have asked. His new design still has COP=6, less catalyst, higher temperature operation. To find the input electrical power (Pie) with output thermal power 6 times Pie, to get 10,000 thermal watts out (Pout), the relevant equation for Pie is:

      Pie=10,000/6=1667 electrical watts in
      Pout=10,000 thermal watts out

      That means the thermal power being generated by the catalyst is 10,000-1667 = 8333 thermal watts.

      Thermal power generated per gram is 8333/1.5 g=
      5555 thermal watts per gram (!). Over 5 kw per gram at 600 C (!). The only possible way to keep the internal region of the catalyst from melting would be as a thin film on a conductive heat exchange surface, with good conduction to the heat exchange fluid to remove excess thermal power over that needed to maintain the operating temperature. If a pellet, for example, the thermal power generated would not be able to conduct quickly enough through the powder to prevent the internal region of the pellet from melting. Whatever the configuration it must have large area per volume ratio, with good heat exchange to keep it within a desired temperature range for operation. That means it would cool off much faster than in the original E-Cat. The power up and power down intervals must be different from the original, by engineering necessity. Rossi may be using sheets of nickel surface treated for catalytic activity. 5 kw per gram(!).
      2 kilogram of catalyst would provide 10 megawatts thermal power (!). That is 4.4 pounds. Given the density of nickel one could easily hold the catalyst for a 10 MW reactor in the palm of the hand (!). Even I find these numbers hard to believe.
      Higher COP would still be better, even with the increased temperature.


      • Robert Mockan

        Nope. Does not make sense. What Rossi is describing now is a catalyst with a higher power density than you find in a conventional nuclear reactor using uranium.
        I think we are not getting the full story, or the story is simply not true. Why so? IF I have not made an error in my analysis based on the information that seems to be publicized by Rossi about the amount of catalyst and the operating temperature in the new Ecat design, then this subject WOULD BE CLASSIFIED by the military. It certainly would be technology that could be weaponized.

        • The 5 MW/kg power density would in principle be enough even for a launch vehicle (engineering still wouldn’t be easy, of course). Still I don’t see how it could be turned into a weapon; if made to explode, melting still limits the energy release so the explosion is similar to a chemical one.

          • Robert Mockan

            I have posted a new comment on my blogspot at OPEN SOURCE NUCLEAR FUEL titled “LENR Pulse Units For Rocket Propulsion” that talks about overcoming the energy release limitations of conventional LENR devices. It is not about weaponizing LENR devices (personally I think that would be an immature activity when so much more can be done peacefully using LENR), but one can understand easily how such pulse units could be used as weapons if so inclined.

          • Robert Mockan

            The potential for a launch vehicle could be realized if a LENR catalyst or fuel composition able to operate at 2000 c plus were developed. That would not use nickel, not heat resistant enough, but the concept appears feasible. Using hydrogen reaction mass in a rocket engine at 2000 c would have performance like that of the NERVA nuclear rocket engine program of the 60s, but with engine thrust to weight ratios more practical for surface launching of the vehicle, and with no radiation hazard. Such a power source would revolutionize space travel.

        • Alan DeAngelis
          • The link Jason posted ( points to an article that contains the full details of the purported weaponisation of CF. Other matters covered make the article unsuitable for anyone who is easily upset. Thoroughly depressing reading.

          • If one replaces Ni or Pd with U, melting should still limit it. And if one tries to make U-D into hot fusion bomb, the large U atoms ionise and produce many electrons which take up heat and make it inefficient. I remain quite doubtful regarding weaponisation.

          • Pekka, its not my field, but I don’t really understand the difference that melting would make here. In the case of Ni-H, a surface/lattice effect of some kind seems to be assumed, but this account of U-D CF seems to say that the fusion effect results simply from compression of deuterium-saturated uranium, with no dependency on surface features or a lattice matrix. If this is the case then presumably the phase of the metal is not a factor. As far as compression is concerned, presumably some arrangement similar to a fission bomb could be used, i.e., using a chemical explosive shell to compress the uranium for long enough to release significant energy and recombination particles.

          • Omega Z

            @ Peter Roe

            The link twists some of the facts. The Neutron bomb was developed in the late 50’s & tested in the early 60’s just prior to Kennedy’s assassination.

            The Russians Freaked because they thought we could take out their troops, then use their own weapons against them. Word in the News at the time was it produced massive radiation & very little structural damage even at ground Zero. Radiation dissipated rapidly & troops could move in within days, maybe hours.

            Rumor was Johnson considered using it in Vietnam to kill the VC in their tunnels. Nuclear Artillery shells were developed in the 60’s by both the U.S. & Russia.

            Jimmy Carter intended to deploy the Neutron bomb in Europe but both Europe & Russia raised such a fuss that those plans were canceled & the SALT talks began which was probably the intent all along, A political Bluff. The article states Reagan resumed production, but likely it had never stopped. As with Reagan’s Star wars. A political Bluff. Then the START talks began.

            Carter bluffed, then limited how many NEW weapons each side would deploy.

            Reagan bluffed then Drastically reduced how many weapons each side had.

            Today we have about 80% less Nukes between the U.S. & Russia. Nearly all the Russians Nuclear material from those destroyed weapons came to the U.S. most of it used up for power generation.

            As for the E-cat being weaponized, Depends on your interpretation.

            It will be, As a fuel source. A Navy Cruiser can burn up 4,000 gallons an hour at 20 knots. Up to 6,000 at full tilt.

            2 45Mw Super Cats would do the job. Add 2 more & you can use Rail Guns & lasers. Except for 10# steel projectiles, you no longer need conventional munitions & powder.

            If Rossi has obtained 600`C in the new E-cat cells, You can bet they’ll be powering Navel vessels within 5 years.

            A Cruiser would be smaller, Faster, leaner, & meaner with about a 70%+ reduction in crew minus support ships & their crews to supply it.
            And the Fuel savings, not to mention the savings in infrastructure for storage & the massive manpower for fuel logistics. Transport drivers & Ocean tankers no longer needed.
            It would be silly to think E-cats wont be used for military purposes. The savings will be hugh.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            My guess would be that nickel and palladium systems would be perfectly safe (the reactions would stop when the lattice melts) and that only uranium systems could have dangerous neutron chain reactions.

          • OmegaZ: The article is a little blurred, but basically it is talking about a new type of ‘neutron bomb’ based on a neutron-producing CF weapon, as opposed to the ‘conventional’ fission-fusion type. The advantage appears to be principally in the far smaller physical size of the (purported) CF weapon, and the very low blast yields possible with the latter. The photos of an explosion somewhere in China relate to the latter.

            Alan: I agree, but if the story about a cold fusion bomb are true, the technical distinction could easily be lost somewhere along the line if someone needs to make a false case about the safety of CF systems.

          • Robert Mockan

            > Pekka, LENR catalyst seems to release energy in a lattice mediated
            stochastic process, thus at first glance it is reasonable to assume a concentrated energy release would destroy the lattice, thus limiting the energy that could be released. But if the stochastic process could be primed in such a way as to increase the rate of reaction (all of LENR catalyst reaction sites functional BEFORE the integrity of the active sites is compromised by the energy release), then the energy buildup within the catalyst might be made to greatly exceed that able to destroy the lattice structure. Of course in the next instant as the energy spreads from the reaction sites the lattice structure would begin to dismantle, but the energy released while it was still intact would already be sufficient to not only tear the lattice about, but vaporize it into a hot expanding ball of gases. That is, causing a LENR explosion.
            When I suggest that if Rossi is correct about being able to obtain 5500 watts per gram of catalyst, that power ratio gain is literally thousands of times greater than what was being observed in cold fusion laboratory experiments just a few years ago. Previous experiments by other researchers (incidentally with far more intellectual, physical, and funding resources to draw upon than Rossi) might operate a reaction cell with milliwatt level gains of energy over the energy into the cell, measured in watts. So what Rossi is describing would be LENR progress literally off the charts. That kind of technology advance is no longer evolutionary, but revolutionary. Any government or military would want to KNOW, without a shadow of a doubt, if the process (and progress) could be improved even more before releasing it into the public domain. They would have to know, in advance, could the technology be weaponized, before it were commercialized. I understand your doubt that it could be, but unless one can prove it can not be, that situation would be sufficient to classify the research, in my opinion.
            Thus, I have serious reservations that we are getting accurate information about this latest “advance” in the thermal power that can be generated from 1.5 grams of catalyst, with a COP of 6. If what Rossi says is true, we should never have heard about it.

      • Robert Mockan

        If Rossi is correct with the numbers, the energy in joules generated from 1.5 grams of improved catalyst, in one second, is about the same as the net energy in joules generated by the explosion of 1 gram of the military high explosive PETN, and 1 and a half times greater than the energy released by the explosion of 1 gram of TNT.
        And the catalyst functions for weeks and months before it needs to be replaced?
        It will be interesting to see the global responses to this latest information release.

  • Hampus

    Frank you are really on fire. Article after article. Keep up the great work.

    From what I have read this July seams to be the next new big month. Then Rossi will deliver his plant to an Italian that are willing to give out his name and defkalion are showing there prototype.

    Soon the last piece of the puzzle will be laidt and we can finally breath easy.

    Thanks for your hard hard work.

    • dragon

      Then we can give Frank a standing ovation.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Sorry, but until Rossi unequivocally demonstrates something, and leaves off the shy mystery customers and the fulminations and the “jam yesterday and jam tomorrow but never jam today” redesigns, I’m going to regard all his communications as being of the “who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes” variety.

    • I think that you are not the only one who takes Rossi’s words with a grain of salt. Albeit, I am prepared to believe that his demos were pretty straight up (with my greatest doubts on the 1Mw plant.) I think Rossi has much of what he claims, but I think that he solidly over-hypes his position. This, after all, is the second time he has claimed high-heat functioning. Last time he didn’t mention that he had instability issues. Hmmm.

  • Bill Nichols

    A thoughtful and compelling post. His reasoning resonates with my personal experiences with new science and technological discoveries.

    As a scientist, the proof will be in the product issuance or non-issuance.

    Inclined based on trends its when, not if LENR comes to fruition, still maintain this phenomena is a crude but important step to more accurately understanding nature.

    Finally, as have stated earlier in previous posts, there is a tendency to over promise with new technologies w/r/t capabilities and timelines/goals. Nonetheless, hard to not see the question of this as being real commercially or not at least much more fully answered by end of the year. So much has been promised by Rossi and Defkalion.

    Just use your observational and pragmatic “common sense”.

    Thanks for posting this.

    Finally, agree with the last sentence.

  • Charles Stewart Jr

    At one time before my retirement, I supervised Engineers and discovered that an Engineer will work on something forever. There is always the next little improvement and the next little thing that will make it better. Finally I had to say, wrap it up, finalize it, it is going to production as is. No more improvements no more changes.

    To Rossi I say: Wrap it up, no more improvements, no more changes. Send it to production just where you have it.

    • The expression that summarizes your experience is: “At some point you have to shoot the engineer and just build the damn thing.”

    • Charles, your experience and mine are the same as well. I like how Zedhsort said it, “At some point you have to shoot the engineer and just build the damn thing.” I do believe that this is Rossi’s weakness. However, with Defkalion and Brillouin in the race, one will get to market sooner or later.

      Frank, I agree with others that are impressed by your front-line news.

  • Bill Nichols

    A thoughtful and compelling post. His reasoning resonates with my personal experiences with new science and technological discoveries.

    As a scientist, the proof will be in the product issuance or non-issuance.

    Inclined based on trends its when, not if LENR comes to fruition, still maintain this phenomena is a crude but important step to more accurately understanding nature.

    As have stated earlier in previous posts, there is a tendency to over promise with new technologies w/r/t capabilities and timelines/goals. Nonetheless, hard to not see the question of this as being real commercially or not at least much more fully answered by end of the year. So much has been promised by Rossi and Defkalion.

    Just use your observational and pragmatic “common sense”.

    Thanks for posting this.

    Finally, agree with the last sentence.

  • Pingback: Brian Josephson on Meeting With Andrea Rossi | E-Cat News Live Feed()

  • There is a fourth item I would add to “explain” Rossi’s eccentric behavior. That is the effect of his prosecution or as I see it “persecution” by Italian authorities. To be successfully attacked by such people would have crushed most people but he rose from that very difficult experience and has returned but perhaps is a bit scorched.

    • GreenWin,

      Zed, you are on the right track. History shows us hundreds if not thousands of inventors, innovators, scientists, artists, who appear to “behave eccentrically.” Why are we surprised? The common ground is disenfranchisement, alienation, suspicion. These are people who daily are reviled, rejected, dismissed as interlopers intent on stealing light from the purported enlightened.

      However, in the valid albeit less resonate world, there are rules of ethics too. A foundational rule is the of “informed consent.” i.e. The obligation of any authority or system to inform an individual of any actions or manifestations affecting that individual, and consent to such actions. The absence of “informed consent” constitutes a crime against the individual, the community, and the State. Such crimes are the sole, uncontested reason for antisocial activity..

      Compartmentalization, “means to an end,” and other defenses are flimsy excuses for institutional paranoia – they gain no respect in the cosmos. Without informed consent – a heinous, criminal invasion of independent spirit is manifested. The resultant perversions are of the invader’s own making.

      “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” Galatians 6:7

      • Greenwin, I admire your broad perspective and optimism. I can only say that in five decades of adult life I have not witnessed much evidence of wicked people at the top ever getting their ‘just deserts’ – except of course when it occasionally suits the purposes of other wicked people at the top.

        • GreenWin

          True Peter. And yet, David slew Goliath. And big tobacco (in States) was convicted of criminal racketeering – forcing them to pay billions in health care costs. By a class action of State Attorneys General BTW!

          • Dubious

            And yet they still have license to sell tobacco! I’d hardly call that a win.

  • daniel maris

    Well that’s two killer posts in a row Frank – well done!

    There are many I am sure who wish Rossi well and would like nothing more than his claims to be proved true. The fact that a Nobel Prize winner can speak to him over lunch and not feel in the presence of a scammer has got to count for something.

    Rossi could do more to communicate with the public through photos and test results I think it is a shame he leaves us still v. much in the dark. But if he is for real, well then all such criticism becomes irrelevant. Perhaps he knows that and prefers to operate behind a smokescreen of sceptism. But then again, perhaps he is just one of the best scammers ever seen.

  • This is true for all product development.

    Improvements continue all the time but there does need to be a cut off point to market.

    The first and foremost application for cold fusion is the production of inexpensive heat in various sized packages and this is the real breakthrough.

    Third parties have the know how to adapt this to the application.

    For example a 12 volt battery is built by the
    battery manufacturer. It is then used in thousands of other devices.

  • Paul

    Frank you really have front line news here, how you got to Brian Josephson is amazing! we really appreciate your efforts to bring this news to light.

    • For the record, the background is that I thought it would be worth having an account of my meeting with Rossi on the web somewhere, and this was suggested to me as a good place for it to appear.

      Re the comment by Rogerborg: such comments generally originate from people who have not met me, and who therefore have no reliable basis for forming a judgement. One has to assume that my colleague who does know me, a very down to earth Materials Scientist (see and for details of her research), who is a Cambridge University full professor with also has a long-term visiting staff position at Los Alamos, would not have suggested we make a video to publicise the Rossi reactor had she considered Rogerborg’s view to be an accurate one. I’ve never worked on astral projection by the way, but who cares about actual facts when sacred cows are at stake?

      Finally, I accept the possibility that my judgement could be wrong. Can Rogerborg do the same, I wonder? Only time will tell who is right.

      • jacob

        brian josephson,don’t mind the borg ,he is stuck in his own illusion .
        but i wish he will snap out of it soon.

      • Mark Bachelder

        rogerborg might just be on a payroll to issue such comments, too. Part of the “manufacturing doubt”industry, me thinks.

        • Mark, my experience is that people seem to be pretty good at speaking in such terms even when they are not being paid to do so!

          As the number of views of the video I mentioned is gradually dropping, I might as well plug its URL, which is — it is also available, with subtitles in French and Italian provided by supporters, on YouTube.

          Since writing my Miami report I’ve had some rather unfruitful correspondence with Rossi on the subject of reliability of the power measurements. While some might view his uncooperative spirit as confirmation of a scam, the detail equally fits the view of his being an impatient person, which could be good for an innovator even if it is not good for scientific research! This trait could explain a lot of untoward happenings, but all we can do really is be patient ourselves and see what develops.

  • daniel maris

    I think the problem with ROssi is that he led us to expect an open process with the 2011 demos and then he closed down and the information flow became inconsistent and sometimes contradictory. That’s his fault and no one else’s.

    But I would agree that anyone entering this field is under extreme pressure. They are inviting attacks on their integrity.

    • DGT followed a similar pattern some months later. They went for openness first, then saw it better to change strategy.

    • Maybe we all misunderstand and underestimate the plain humanity of Andrea Rossi. As Josephson suggests, he is neither an ivory tower academic nor a sophisticated international business leader. He is a human being with the whole panoply o f emotions and fears that accompany our human condition. I think that explains a lot of his activities and decisions.

      • georgehants

        Well said Joe.

      • Antonella

        I met him and I can say that you are perfectly right.

      • jacob

        Andrea Rossi is man with great humility
        and is a hero for getting the ball rolling with E cat cold fusion.
        just a little uneasy about, why America?
        the Police State ?

    • I think the ‘going dark’ in both camps (Rossi and DGT) could be interpreted as a transition from amateurism to a more professional approach. What spurred these sudden changes in tactics is obviously open to debate, depending on the observer’s world-view. Rossi’s various contradictory statements seem rather harder to reconcile. I suppose it is possible that the actual effect – decreasing belief in anything AR says and reducing expectations – may be the intended effect, but that seems a bit too machiavellian even for Rossi. As others have said, Rossi is very human, is under massive pressure, and has had a hard past – perhaps he just gets a bit loosely wrapped at times and says things that he wishes were true, but aren’t – yet.

      • georgehants

        Peter I think it does not hurt anybody to give the guy every chance.
        People are afraid they will look foolish if he turns out to be a fraud, they are wrong, if he turns out bad I will feel very happy that I have never attacked or insulted him and I will be the same with the next guy.
        (if I were investing it would be up to me to assure my self of the validity of any claim)
        I would rather be wrong about Rossi than chance the horrific personal hurt and damage that abuse and prejudgement could cause if he is genuine.
        If one doubts him one can always just say I bet against him as in the survey at the side of this page, and that just changes on every piece of evidence positive or negative that arises.

        • I absolutely agree, George. I don’t prejudge Rossi but I do think it is reasonable to try to deal with the inconsistencies in what he says (in as far as that is possible, given the evidence available).

          I’ve mentioned before that I think we observers are all ‘mushrooms’ and that seems to me more and more the case as time goes by. We are now in the almost pitch black dark I think, glimpsing only tiny bits of the game, and much of what we think we know is probably ‘manure’!

  • Pingback: Word articles for May 2012. | Conscious Media Network()

  • Rogerborg

    Brian Josephson, lately of the “Mind Matter Unification Project”, or some other Brian Josephson who didn’t go cuckoo-bananas and waste the last 40 years of his life trying to find any shred of evidence that telepathy and astral projection work?

    • georgehants

      Rogerborg, you have given your view here is another view.
      I personally will take more notice of a man like Brian Josephson who simply advocates to look fairly at the evidence than a person who with no evidence comes on here to insult him.

      Hard scientific evidence of psychic phenomena
      People I’ve met, and those I’ve read about, who claim that psychic abilities (such as telepathy, clairvoyance or telekinesis) or paranormal phenomena (such as ghostly apparitions) do not exist because there is no scientific basis or proof for such things, do so out of sheer ignorance.
      Both the British and the American Societies for Psychical Research, established in the late 1800s, have tons of research data pointing to the existence of psychic and paranormal phenomena. The problem is that skeptics and critics never really bothered to look at the evidence.
      They sound like that character in a cartoon who growled at his subordinates: “I have made up my mind! Don’t bother me with facts!”

    • Sanjeev

      Even Newton studies paranormal. Feynman tried out of body experiments. There are a number of scientists and psychologists studying these fringe things.

      Fact is that these subjects are highly interesting to a curious and brilliant mind. They do it because its fun to know. Its pure knowledge and joy of finding strange things. Anyone who has already formed an opinion on unknown is not a scientist by definition.

      How will you ever know anything new if you do not venture into fringe territory ?

      The history of science is full of people who were called insane because they took interest in something unusual, however their madness resulted in groundbreaking discoveries.

      I personally have a big respect for people who do not care about dogma and go on doing what they like.

    • jacob

      Rogerborg, again you have been caught with lack
      of knowledge, telepathy is what ants , bees ,dolphins and wales use in communication,but again
      if it is up to Rogerborg ,such a thing is not possible , as thought is traveling through aether waves ,or living conscience of the universe ,it is
      the main form of communication of advanced humans
      in inner Earth ,in and on Venus,in inner Mars,Saturn,Pluto and some other Outposts in this
      solar system ,all planets are hollow.
      For those of you that don’t know,SURPRISE,SURPRISE

      you’ve been had , we are not from apes,even apes
      did not originate from earth,dolphins only showed
      up on earth in 1943 , for example but came from the planet LYRA in the Serius binary star system,

      Open your minds eyes ,and stop to think for just a minute ,look for just a minute at the diversity
      of humans , blonde and blue eyed people originate
      from venus ,the capitol planet of this solar system, brown eyed people from Saturn, the gravity
      is not based on the mass of the planets.

      cold fusion has been done thousands of years by the advanced humans.

      we are the dummed down version of advanced man ,with the same abilities as them ,but are not taught how to use them.

      the proof is on earth ,sodom and gamorra was wiped out by superheated liquid light ,the sunken
      continent of Atlantis ,lies just mere miles from the coast of America ,bermuda triangle ,and some
      ancient buildings and paved roads lie under water
      2 or 3 miles deep ,we are the remnants of them ,and we are just regaining some of the technology
      that was lost ,
      but by some Jackass mentality we are kept in the dark by those who are the keepers of sacret knowledge, mainly so we dont blow each other up,

      we are called by our universal Creator to raise
      our conscience and awareness and level of love and
      care more for our human family on earth.

      then we will inherit our utopia .

      • Tom

        Very well stated. It’s amazing how many people will not look at the evidence.

        • Christian

          It’s sad, yeah. And really unscientific.

          People like Sam Parnia, Jon Hagelin, Lynne McTaggart, Ian Stevenson and Dean Radin have contributed a lot to this field, and it’s no longer conjecture, it’s demonstrably the case, that consciousness is not solely contingent upon the body, and may in fact be an epiphenomena, a fundamental property of the universe.

          One last person, I would recommend any one study, with ample scepticism of course, is Ph.D. Alan Wallace. He gives an excellent talk @google called “Towards a revolution in the mind sciences” and he persuadingly argues that what most scientists think they know about conscioussness is mostly dogma and a priori.

      • Christian

        These are very controversial claims and if you have solid information, wow, that’s really something. But you sound like a troll, when you make fantastic claims with not even a shread of evidence – especially while criticizing others for ignorance.

        Be a good sport and tell us how you know all this amazing things to be true:

        “…telepathy is what ants, bees, dolphins and wales use in communication,”
        — How do we know?

        “…thought is traveling through aether waves, or living conscience of the universe,”
        — What is the evidence for and against the existence of such a thing as the “aether”?

        “…advanced humans in inner Earth, in and on Venus, in inner Mars,Saturn,Pluto and some other Outposts in this solar system,”
        — How do we know there are outposts?
        — How do we know there are creatures living inside plantes (apart from bacteria?)

        “all planets are hollow.”
        — So everything we thought we knew about gravity is wrong?
        — How do we know?

        “…we are not from apes, even apes
        did not originate from earth,”
        — This may be true according to the theory of panspermia and exogenesis, but to my best knowledge, no evidence has been presented demonstrating this.

        “…dolphins only showed up on earth in 1943,”
        — Where did the fossils come from then?

        “…came from the planet LYRA in the Serius binary star system.”
        — What do you base that on?
        — It’s Sirius btw.

        “…cold fusion has been done thousands of years by the advanced humans.”
        — How do you know?

        If you cannot answer, you should stop spouting all sorts of idiocy for which you have no evidence. You sound semi-skizophrenic and you’re polluting the debate.

        • Christian

          Hah, sorry, forgot to read the last line: “we are called by our universal Creator to raise our conscience and awareness and level of love and care more for our human family on earth.” <- Did our universal creator tell you all these things? 😛

    • Christian

      Non-local effects of consciousness, including forms of telepathy and the interaction between the human mind and electronic systems over distances, demonstrably occur. The effects are not incredibly strong, but it appears the ability to affect what we perceive as a physical reality separate from us, is something than can be trained.

      The fact that you believe you know it cannot possibly be so, even though there’s ample data to support the idea, goes to show just how indoctrinated most of us are.

      You’re not just your body.

      Anyway, don’t accept this because I say it, accept it because it’s solid science and because the idea of the mind/consciousness as being solely a product of biochemical- and electrical processes in the brain is an a priori assumption not based in science.

      Here’s a bunch of names, that you might have fun googling and reading about:

      Sam Parnia (MD, NDE research)

      John Hagelin (Harvard Ph.D. physics, now at Princeton)

      Lynne McTaggart (Journalist)

      Ian Stevenson (MD, Reincarnation research at
      Division of personality studies at University of Virginia)

      Dean Radin (IONS, MA Educational Psychology, UG electrical engineering)

      Ph.D. Alan Wallace (Ph.D. physics, former Buddhist monk. Look up his google tech talk)

      IONS (Institute of Noetic Sciences)

      GCP (Global Consciousness Project)

      Mind and Life Institute (Holds regular symposiums with scientists, psychologists, buddhist practitioners).

      Before anyone says: “WAIT! Hindus and Buddhists cannot say anything scientific about quantum physics or consciousness because they’re biased and believe in fairytales”, it’s worth noting, that both Hinduism and particularly Buddhism are not religions in quite the same was as the monotheistic religions. Furthermore, it’s not enough to point out that someone MAY be biased because of a held belief in a certain life philosophy. If anyone wishes to criticize the results of these people and groups, it must be done without resorting to straw man, guilt-by-association and ad hominem attacks, if such a criticism is to be taken seriously.

      It’s important to ask: “from where do I know what I think I know?”. Many of our deepest beliefs about reality, the world, life, people are not necessarily based on anything more than habit and conditioning.

  • georgehants

    Should help with Cold Fusion research.
    Watching an electron being born.

    (Nanowerk News) A strong laser beam can remove an electron from an atom – a process which takes place almost instantly. At the Vienna University of Technology, this phenomenon could now be studied with a time resolution of less than ten attoseconds (ten billionths of a billionth of a second). Scientists succeeded in watching an atom being ionized and a free electron being “born”. These measurements yield valuable information about the electrons in the atom, which up until now hasn’t been experimentally accessible, such as the time evolution of the electron’s quantum phase – the beat to which the quantum waves oscillate (see paper in Physical Review Letters:

  • Brian Ahern

    Rossi has never passed a single test and he refuses any further testing. I have observed heat in Ni-H systems, so I know there is value at some level. Clearly, Rossi and DGT do not understand how to repeat the effect and they cannot pass a test on demand.

    Rossi refuses any help, so he can make no progress. He has no chance of understanding how to advance the technology. As a consequence, everything he saya is a lie. He has no factory. He is not in a UL program. He has no MW unit for sale. He has no real customers. And perhaps most importantly, he has no partners, because he has absolutely no test data that can withstand scrutiny.

    • Sanjeev

      So are you the real Mr Ahern ? If yes then you must be having all the evidence for what you say. The crowd here would love to see even 1% of that.

    • WarpFactor

      Rossi has performed many, many tests that show clear gains of energy. He did a test for the DOD and the DOE. He also did tests for Ampenergo and Defkalion. Then he did a dozen public tests in 2011. Rossi’s technology is real and it works. I think I smell jealousy.

    • That’s quite a jump – from Rossi’s tests have been inconclusive and he doesn’t plan any more, to he’s a liar and has absolutely nothing. As Sanjeev has requested, perhaps you could provide evidence that is not already in the public domain? Otherwise your conclusion has little value.

      I find it rather difficult to imagine that a fellow researcher in the field of LENR (if you are really Brian Ahern of MIT) would make such claims. Perhaps you could confirm your identity?

    • jacob

      Brian Ahern , I hope you have evidence to back it
      up ,and so you would not make a fool of yourself,
      you may well be brainwashed by the current school system, the more credits you got in your education,
      the more jaaga gaga poop kakka you got in your brain,to confuse your reality and are blind , and you would’nt see the truth if it fell on you

      you should find support in Dick Smith and PersonFromPorlock and for that fact anyone who
      call Andrea Rossi something he is not.

      As history will show years from now AR is the hero
      that started LENR domino effect.

      He know the state the world is in,and what and who
      controls it.

  • Sanjeev

    There are people who routinely kill thousands of innocent citizens in “enemy” countries for oil and other resources and get elected as presidents.
    There are people who spend trillions of $ to blow up whole earth in a blink of eye.
    There are people who hoard billions and evade taxes and twist laws whenever they want. People dying of poverty is nothing for them.

    If you compare Rossi with such people, he seems perfectly normal to me. I wonder why everyone calls him paranoid etc. His paranoia is nothing compared to the madness of people who are in charge of world. All he is claiming is that he has a new source of energy.

    Anyway, I ignore Rossi’s words mostly and just wait for his solid move.

    • jacob

      thanks Sanjeev,that is a very real statement of the present reality, its those few that are in ‘control’
      that have made a mess of things, but all the money
      and control is not going to raise their conscience
      to a higher level, and they are lost souls,bound by
      the dark side.

      what would they give to be free spirits ?

  • Sanjeev

    Ecat world has touched a new high with recent posts. Excellent journalism. I can now say that this is the best site reporting LENR. Congrats Frank !

  • WarpFactor

    The E-Cat technology is absolutely real and works. It is going to change the world in the not too distant future. What is going to be very fun to watch is the hateful competitors and pseudo-skeptics scurrying to find cover as the world wakes up to the existence of the technology. Right now there are researchers who publicly bash and attack the E-Cat technology (denying it is real) while privately admitting that they know it works. There are a whole slew of competitors eager to figure out how Rossi can get kilowatts of power, when they can only get watts. Attacking Rossi and trying to discredit him is the only way they know to try and slow down his progress. They want to figure out how Rossi is making kilowatts of power, so they can claim they figured it out themselves.

    The fact is cold fusion was not practical until Andrea Rossi developed the E-Cat.

    • If/when a commercial product is demonstrated, I doubt that the shills will run for cover. I suspect they’ll just shift their public identities then begin pretending concern about the safety of LENR and looking for anything they can cite to ‘prove’ the ‘danger’.

  • Pingback: Josephson Reveals Discussion with Rossi | E-Cat = Rossi Cold Fusion()

  • Has Andrea Rossi made any comments about the eCat being used for military purposes? I am hopeful that he will be looking at consumer and industrial uses. A home eCat used with an electric or hybrid car plus home power generation would be a good start. I am skeptical about most hybrid but I think some of the German manufacturers like VW or BMW can come up with a plug-in turbo hybrid diesel that would get better mileage. A plug-in Prius or Ford Fusion at a home with eCat power would be another nice option.

  • morganism

    Looks like Rossi has been reading Brillioun’s press releases, and has incorporated a nickle sheet instead of just using powder, to up his reaction area.

    The problem there, is that he still doesn’t understand the reaction well enough to describe it accurately enough to get a patent, and with Brillioun’s release of their description, it is “prior art” anyway.

    that is also why Brillioun isn’t trying to patent his process. It is a natural reaction, just amplified by his Mhz sweep generator, (which he did patent.)

    Rossi has said time and again, that he has delivered prototypes, and working models. It has turned out not to be true. Every. Single. Time.

    There is not a single instance where he has output anywhere near the BTU’s he has claimed.

    There is not a single instance that he has had his units tested by ANY of the firms or labs he has claimed. EVER.

    I would just thank him for getting the press interested, and move on to Brilloun.

  • Charles Richer

    Rossi does it again.

  • Pingback: Andrea Rossi Speaks About The E-cat()

  • jerry

    Clearly eCat World is the Leader in delivering LENR News that counts to the public Thanks Frank for the excelent updates !