Rossi on the Safety of COP 6

In reviewing the video of the Rossi Q & A session at Zurich I found one of the exchanges very interesting, and it helps to understand better why Rossi has been so careful in controlling his E-Cat reactors. Someone asked him a question about why, since there were early reports of Rossi able to run his reactor with a COP of up to 200, is he now staying within a limit of 6. Here is Rossi’s response (at about 8:30 in the video):

You have correctly said that when we made the first experiments we had a COP: 200; we were working with powers of some hundreds of watts. We were working at an absolutely experimental situation. Now we are making products that have to be sold to industries at the moment (because the domestic have not been certified for safety).

It is right to make a Forumula 1 car to race, and to push to the extreme an engine, to learn how to make normal engines, and to make a car that has to be driven by normal people like me. To go to a COP 200 is extremely dangerous, and when I worked at those powers it happened that we had some escape of neutrons, in some situation. For obvious reasons this is very dangerous. This is why we had to reduce to 6, and this is why we have to limit the self-sustain mode . . . we must stay within the absolutely sure safety limits, this is very important.

I hadn’t heard Rossi speak about neutron emissions before, and since neutron radiation is extremely harmful, it is something that must obviously be avoided at all costs. The drive that Rossi speaks of (heat applied to the reactor) must somehow dampen the E-Cat reaction and keep the reaction from running out of control. He has said that in normal E-Cat operation, the drive is on about 50 per cent of the time. Safety certifiers will certainly be very careful to ensure that there is no chance that an E-Cat can run out of control, and this concern could well be the reason why it could be a while before E-Cats are approved for domestic use.

  • Redford

    @ Robert Mockan

    You’re using an hypothesis about how a vague and complex entity that we’re lacking huge data to fully understand, part because some of its actions and knowledges are keeêd secret and par because just the complexity of it make it impossible even to someone working in it to fully understand all the in & outsas a fact so well established that it guarantees in itself your affirmation to be 100% sure. Your pulling too much on the line : your hypothesis is plausible at best. Actually I am not even sure it’s even that : military regularly use stuff that have been developed in the civil area first.

  • Barry

    Did I miss something? I went away for a week and just before I left there was talk of A. Rossi’s Ecat testing out at a disappointing 2.5 COP and now people are talking about 200 COP. Can anyone fill me in? Just goes to show one should stay home and not try to have a life outside of EcatWorld!

    • Rossi says that at COP=200 there is radiation, but not at COP=6. There seems to be an awful lot of territory in between, and it would be very interesting to know what maximum COP is possible, and for how long, without generating loose neutrons. I suspect that this will prove to be a great deal higher than 6, and possibly self sustaining. The e-cat is “a Ferrari being made to go at the pace of a tortoise” according to Aldo Proia.

      Personally I manage to get away from the screen several times a day, but am always pulled back by some mysterious but irresistible force – even when nothing much is happening, like now.

      • Ged

        It’s still hard for me to conceptualize why applying a heat drive actually both kickstarts the device and prevents it from reacting at too high a COP. But, that may be due to what Robert Mockan pointed out once a long while ago, that the hotter a metal lattice is after a certain point, the harder it is for hydrogen to diffuse and stay within it, paradoxically. Could be that by heating the E-cat, it’s preventing too much hydrogen reaction by decreasing the number of reactive spots in the lattice.

        Still… that’s still hard for me to conceptualize. This phenomenon is so fascinating, so much we could learn.

        • I agree that the ‘heat drive’ story feels wrong. If the ‘old’ e-cat could be stabilised by applying a few hundred watts of heat while the core was running at approx. 120C, how come other core designs can go way above this, yet still be stabilised by the application of more heat? If the ‘heat stabilisation’ phenomenon occurs at say 130C, then it can’t also occur at 630C or 1030C.

          It seems quite likely to me that this is the purpose of Rossi’s triac circuit, and most likely the whole basis of control of the e-cat reaction.

          It seems to me much more likely that the ‘drive’ is elecromagnetic, i.e., generated by AC or pulsed high-voltage, low current input to the heating wires, which may thus serve a dual purpose. Possibly there are ‘damping’ frequencies that can be applied to bring down reaction levels, although that would beg the question of what would happen if they were not applied for some reason (broken connection, power failure etc).

          • admin

            Rossi often says that the process is intrinsically safe, because a runaway reaction will melt the nickel powder and shut down the whole reactor.

            So under what circumstances neutron release could happen is not clear.

          • That does seem to be another problem with the story! He is already running the system at close to melting point without increasing the COP, so where/how might a COP of 200 occur I wonder?

          • Ged

            I get the feeling it’s a different reactor design that can do that 200 COP. The Hot Cat as we know it definitely can’t.

            So, that would imply that the E-cat can be designed to run at such high levels, and it is a problem with that particular design — be it a formula mixture, extra reaction induction power through Q pulses, design of heat flux, or what have you — that allows for neutrons. Basically, it starts to favor another nuclear pathway under those specific conditions.

            Question is, what were those conditions?

          • Ivan_cev

            It depends if they are dummy neutrons or science fiction neutrons.
            How you test for the presence of neutrons?

          • admin

            Maybe it’s only at a high COP where the reaction is so strong that new nuclear processes occur.

          • That must be the case.

          • Ged

            I think it also requires a completely different device design which we have not previously seen. I get the impression the E-cat is designed from the ground up to keep to disfavor neutron creation pathways, but this also keeps the COP low.

            I do not believe any of the E-cat designs we have see so far are capable of high COPs. I think their intrinsic design is what is handicapping them and preventing all that. They could never be pushed higher based on their engineering (geometries?).

          • jacob

            that,s the objective

          • Jim Johnson

            That points to Brullion’s approach, and a major point in Widom-Larsen theory, that the cold neutrons fuse with the hydrogen, not the nickel. Maybe if the process gets sufficiently energetic, they start fusing with the nickel, which decays more energetically (hot neutrons).

          • Ged

            That’s certainly a potential explanation. The Hot Cat as we know it couldn’t do this, but the question is, how exactly can you build an LENR reactor to do that, and what does that tell us about the process in general?

          • Joel C.

            Food for thought – US military secretly met with Rossi and told Rossi it would allow him to sell the E-Cat as long as its COP stays at 6:1 while it would continue to apply this technology with any level of COP it so desires for its own ambitions.

          • jacob

            I suggested that about 4 month ago, as long as he stays at COP 6
            he may not get shut down.

          • GreenWin

            A Ferrari walking like a turtle??

          • AllHelp

            Cops with neutron guns at COP 200 is military (MIC) dream. Cheaper than bullets. AA & AAA are the new bullets for the neutron guns. So the enemy stays in the dark, let’s not mention COP>6. Let’s not mention neutron. Exclusivity is key to sales or security!

          • Ivan_cev

            Link? or is just speculation?

          • NonFiction

            Not far-fetched at all. Even with existing tech, if you raise the efficiency too much all at once, you get a visit and the “talk”. Improvements must be introduced slowly, or they are not allowed.

          • Jim Johnson

            @Ged: Please take a look at the Replication Cookbook and Hot Cat Groups at LENR Connect, which attempt to create structures for exploring these questions.

          • Ash

            The ‘heat drive’ story has never made sense at all. Rossi’s recent dispute with Hydrofusion about how much input power the heat drive was using is very revealing, because it may yet turn out that the heat drive is the entire source of Rossi’s cold fusion.

            Last year with Rossi’s original design, someone pointed out that the way the ‘heat drive’ power was being measured was problematic as well, but it was ignored by most.

          • Ged

            Because it was unfounded mostly, and the margin of error was too small to account for the heat.

            And no, the “heat drive” -cannot- be at all the source of the measured heat, as the temperature response curves clearly indicate. Look at the data yourself, it is blatant (I posted up graphs awhile back in the follow up threads to Zurich).

          • Ivan_Cev

            Ash is questioning the measurements in which your graphs are based on.

          • GreenWin

            There are few metals that perform well above 1500C – and certainly not in consumer products. After graphite which needs coatings, there are borides, carbides and nitrides…ZrB2?

            Maybe Ing Rossi is building a spacecraft. Now, that would be fun.

          • Miles

            “There are few metals that perform well above 1500C “. I believe I read that there are possibly other metals other than Ni that could be used to produce a COP >1, possible using different nano-power particle sizes.

            Note: I’m not a scientist or a physics guy but I have glued my eye balls to this website almost every day. Magnificent reading!

        • The original prototype was equipped with an apparently useless external band heater, that could not heat anything except the water jacket surrounding the core. I suggested at the time (on another blog) that this might possibly be being used to create an induction field focused on the core, and that this might be an important aspect of the e-cat principle.

          It seems possible that although heat may be necessary to bring about the right level of excitation of the nickel matrix for operation, it is EM stimulation that is the initiator and controller. Rossi’s triac circuit probably produces very high voltages requiring special equipment to measure accurately, and this may have given rise to some of the recent measurement disagreements, especially if RA did not wish to reveal the true nature of his ‘drive’.

          • Ged

            I very much like your conjectures. The problem comes up with we try to reconcile that with natural gas heating, but it’s not necessarily out of line; electromagnetic control can still be used and just separated from the heating element.

            But yes, saying it’s actually the electromagnetics is very much what makes the most sense to me. The hydrogen ions would be sensitive to such, and so could be dampened for sure.

          • My dear friends in this community I said a year ago that you can achieve a COP of over 250 I said it on this blog and it can be done safely as well as I have said this two very important people who know that this is a fact.
            You can go up to temperatures as high as 3500°and higher as well and do it safely I know because I’m doing it myself and I am also doing it without nickel and in some cases with very little nickel. I have never been out here trying to impress anybody by staying on this blogs and talking a lot nor am I going to put my experiments out in the public because I am light years ahead of what everybody else is doing and if people can’t accept that then that is just simply too bad. I will sell my systems to people who are really interested in coming and taking a look. and we are only interested in qualified people.
            Everyone have a wonderful day.
            Dave
            PS . People never know how to receive the truth when the truth is spoken directly in front of them or they are shown the truth and sometimes the egos are just so big that they can not see the truth regardless of what is said. And I find that to be very sad
            Warmest regards to all.

          • georgehants

            David, very good luck to you in your venture.
            One must point out that not being “sensibly” sceptical of anybody and anything would be a fatal flaw in humanity and in this imperfect World, very quickly lead to disaster
            It is a little strange that you do not seem to understand this.
            Will look forward to seeing any progress that you make in the future.
            Best Wishes.

          • Robert Mockan

            You must be doing something interesting to reach those temperatures. The only patent literature I’ve come across that suggests high temperature and power density at 3500 C, nuclear but probably not LENR related, is this application US 2007/0263758 A1, dated Nov. 15, 2007, titled: “Deuteride/Hydride catalyzed Condensation Energy Production”.

            More about it here:
            http://images2.freshpatents.com/pdf/US20070263758A1.pdf

            The information claims the inventors had to keep the reactor below 1500 C to keep it from melting, using stainless steel, so it would appear they could have gone higher if they used for example a pure tungsten reactor chamber, that would not melt in an inert gas until 3400 C.

            I acquired a 500 gram germanium ingot that I had intended to experiment with to make the volatile reactive hydrides, but funding remains a problem.

            The higher temperatures are always more difficult to experiment with.

          • jacob

            tungsten suffers badly from oxidation,a more stable ,but much more expensive at about the same melting point as tungston,is a metal called renium,and is used extensively in refineries,to turn steam and crude into gasoline by hydro cracking and steam reforming at a plasma stage.

          • GreenWin

            Interesting theory of any element forming a covalently bonded deuteride. Apparently resulting in a shrunken H2 or H1 atom. Reactions IIIb & IVb yield some Li6 or Li7 – which possibly appear in other H catalyzed reactions (e-cat, Miley, Brillouin, etc) – should they look for it.

            What seems rather clear is the lower ground state for H1 is common to many of these table-top fusion experiments.

            But Bob Park told us this was impossible.

          • I hope you carefully notate every step of your process, David, so that your relatives can benefit after your death.

          • Hurley

            David,

            Congratulations! Can you provide some additional information on the system you plan to sell. Such as, Size, cost ect..

            thank you

          • HHiram

            Yes, yes, very funny. You are mocking Rossi. You even ended your post with his usual “warmest regards”. Some of us reading this actually do get the joke.

          • Blanco69

            Why don’t you step up and save the planet then Dave? Or do you prefer to post the occasional note claiming that you’ve cracked this technology ages ago. These are bold claims so give us something that points towards you being for real.

          • Jim Johnson

            @Peter Roe: I find your comments to be very insightful and would like to ask if you would consider joining the Hot Cat Group at LENR CONNECT.

          • Jim – mostly shots in the dark, but thanks anyway. I’m on coke and you’re suggesting I move on to heroin! I may just do that.

          • Ivan_Cev

            I was sure of that

        • Well, I have always thought that there is a different flavor of the secret sauce, not so ‘hot’, applied to the present E-Cats. Consequently, they have a COP of 6, more or less inherently, and have a somewhat linear response to the drive.

        • pipmon

          Perhaps the device is designed (geometrically and ‘catalyst’ wise)to not be self sustainable from its own heat generation, which would probably lead to positive feedback leading to ultra-high temperatures, meltdown, radiation etc…
          So the alternative and safe design is a very low yield (comparatively) device which shuts down if external heating is removed for overly long periods of time.

          Sort of like what is done in conventional fission reactors by controlling how much fissionable material is allowed to be in close proximity.
          You can imagine the fun of seeing ‘how close’ to runaway you can get it, while never letting it go quite over the edge.
          My guess.

          • Ged

            Your guess sounds very good indeed. And fits all the observed behavior we have seen (i.e. both the low temp E-cat and the Hot Cat will slowly die down and reactions will cease if they are cooled faster than they generate heat; which occurs simply through open air cooling for the Hot Cat, and is why heat must be supplied at times).

            The comparison to fission reactor designs is highly observant. I think it would benefit the field greatly if we could learn more about the specifics of the COP 200 cat.

        • ThinksforSelf

          The condition to increase COP and possibly cause neutron release might be pressure. Increased pressure would also increase the melting point of all the solids in the reaction. Rossi says he has gone to a solid material that supplies the hydrogen when heated instead of having hydrogen gas at pressure like he did in the first publicized test. Higher pressure would also mean more hydrogen atoms packed closer together and likely more reactions per time unit. Maybe even chain reactions just on the fringe of the lattice.

          • Gerrit

            Could it be that there are two different nuclear reactions involved. The first reaction is started by the heat drive. Once this is ramped up producing heat and maybe slow neutrons (or other stuff) the second reaction becomes possible. But this second reaction is not wanted for safety reasons. The heat drive is used to quench the second reaction from happening.

          • ChemE

            The initial reaction is a collapse of hydrogen in the voids releasing energy. If/as the reaction becomes more energetic it begins triggering fusion and fission with the lattice, eventually destroying it.

            I also have another very important related discovery on my blog:

            http://darkmattersalot.com

          • You know I thought I would say one more thing on this subject there seems to be a few people that don’t believe that I’m real that is OK but if you look in the past you’ll find that I have an excellent shop and electronics lab that cannot be beat and before any of this stuff was published I was telling people for the longest time both publicly and privately how far this technology could go in many different fields. I also know most of the people that are financing and behind most of the technologies that are out there both in Italy and in Greece and in other places not realize yet including the United States navy. I have tried to be very kind of the things that I’ve stated I’m not a fool I know exactly what is going on in this community at some of the highest levels that anybody can imagine there’s work around the world being done that goes beyond anything most of these people here can imagine. So regardless of what you believe and believe what you will this is something I know very well and I suggest to the naysayers and the nonbelievers you better get on the bandwagon because this technology is going places that most of you people that have big egos can not imagine and that is including in the thermoelectric field as well.
            And the problem that I see here on this blog is that most of the people tend to talk too much instead of actually doing something. Just because a lot of the researchers that do not say anything or do not post anything or do not come out publicly announce everything that are doing does not mean that work is not being done. And work is not free technology is not free it cost money and people have to protect the things that they do until they’re ready to bring them out to the public when it is a proper time and most agencies will not bring the technology that are working on out until many years after it is already been proven. And for all of you that want to know what I’m doing I am more than happy to do so once you give me the serial numbers and the codes and your secret codes to all of your bank accounts so I will make it very clear if you want the fruits of my labor than give me access to the fruits of your labor.
            Or is it possible that most of the people that talk too much here are just parasites and trolls that have absolutely no ability to offer anything other than talk and casual conversation and BS and criticism and nothing but nonsense as well as criticism for the people who are actually doing real work and doing the best that they can at least that’s what I see as one individual when I read most of these post of complete and total nonsense.
            (I deeply and sincerely resent people who do not know what they’re talking about and say unkind words about people who are doing good work in this community both men and women and in our armed services and scientific departments throughout the world. If you can’t say something kind or intelligent than simply keep your mouth shut.)
            O and because most of you think that this is some kind of a joke
            Warmest regards to all
            David
            And this statement has absolutely nothing to do with Andrew Rossi and regardless of mistakes made by this man I respect him for going on and doing the things that he does I admire him for his work and for all of the things that he is done with the different companies that he’s working with at least he’s achieving something what are all you talkers achieving absolutely nothing. And the naysayers even less.
            And if you people don’t like me for what I have to say I guess the truth hurts doesn’t it and personally speaking I could really give a damn less.
            I know I will be hung for the things that I say here today but that’s OK I got giant red marks around my neck so I guess you could say I’m a redneck.
            O and one more thing God Bless to wall and I do mean that sincerely.

          • Joe Sidoti

            BRAVO,BRAVO, BRAVO!

            A perfect response to those idiots who, as you say, know nothing of what this technology is about, yet continue to feel that they are authorized to express their opinions as fact, and insult the achievers. Meanwhile, they sit on their butts contributing absolutely nothing.

          • georgehants

            David, your frustration and anger is understandable, but unfounded negativity and abuse appears to be a part of the scientific method today.
            On this web site you are relatively safe and may like to thank some of the very fair contributers to these pages rather than condemning most everybody —
            “And the problem that I see here on this blog is that most of the people tend to talk too much instead of actually doing something”.
            —-
            There is nothing wrong with talk or fair opinion as long as it tries to be constructive and is never spoken by a scientist disguised as Fact.
            Not everybody is in a position to do practical work on Cold Fusion, but follows and encourages those who do.
            If you wish to add some Evidence or fair opinion on Cold fusion or your own work I am sure you will find that it is treated with respect on these pages.

          • jacob

            David,I respect what you just posted, I work in a different field of free enertial energy ,and I am amazed how easily I can cross the line ,going from a genius to a nut case in just minutes,I have some friends and one thing I don’t talk about is what I am working on ,so I can keep those friends,they are good people and I appreciate them,but I keep certain things between myself and my better half.
            I encourage you to keep up the good work and keep the passion alive,many of us are working on the dream of providing towards a better future for mankind.

          • NonFiction

            Thank you, David! I was itching to log on and say something similar.

            The charming chap who posted with the smart remark suggesting sarcastically that you should save the planet made me positively seethe. If he knew his modern world/techno history, he would know that you already did that, for free – but he probably is not old enough to remember the Kuwait fires.

            To assume that people who work for decades and donate their own time, money, blood/sweat/tears, genius, and effort, with little or no support and harping legions of naysayers and critics, all to produce a better mousetrap, should then GIVE AWAY that mousetrap to the world that craps on them, for FREE…say WHAT???? Where does that kind of mad illogic originate, pray tell?

            Well said that first they should give you their bank account numbers before you share your valuables with them. Why are the fruits of the labor of inventors worth less than the fruits of anyone else’s labor for which they expect to be paid? Get real, people.

            And thank you for pointing out that people who are working on proprietary technology are not in a position to blab about it, especially when their work is more advanced than what is commonly known. The people who assume that “if you really had that, you would be selling it” are downright morons. Do they have any idea how much investment it takes to manufacture and distribute? What inventors are in a position to do that? And if you did not bring a product out in high quantity at the very beginning, then it would be copied and stolen within months, and mass-produced by the thieves. The nuts who post remarks like that are clueless…and very irritating.

            There are good sincere people working very hard, some employed by industry and some privately, but of necessity they are all working in secrecy if they have anything of real value. They deserve far better than constant criticism by do-nothings. Thank goodness there are some folks on this site who realize that – many blessings to you!

            (By the way David, nice going on the LEERS! The photos are your test units?)

          • tectak

            ……and thank you from our correspondant in Nigeria…with that,goodnight.

      • Barry

        Don’t worry Peter, after CF breaks through all barriers we can form some type of Ecat twelve-step program.

        • GreenWin

          Hello, my name is GreenWin and I’m a CFaholic.

  • Jimr

    Neutron release causes new problems. If power is needed to start and continue operation, that’s no problem, but if power is needed to stop the operation and not cause runaway, then the odds of the home Ecat being available are diminished.

    • Ged

      I think it’s a very different device we’re talking about here, if it was indeed successfully made. We already know the home unit can run in self sustain, and eventually will cool down and cease on its own. Heating definitely isn’t holding it back what so ever. Same seems to apply to the hot cat.

      Whatever design can do a COP of 200 is under different rules.

      • Jimr

        You maybe right,but Iwould assume they all operate on the same principle. I can’t believe there could be a major difference.

    • Cimpy

      So Rossi will have less need to give you an e-Cat…at least one with an incredible cop. And if at end it will be proved it is as good as a normal boiler, it could always be asserted that it is so to prevent pollution…

  • Lu

    It’s an interesting observation there Frank. It suggests that there is more than one kind of reaction going on and he is trying to avoid the one that produces neutrons.

    • Ged

      Many nuclear reactions have multiple pathways — favored and disfavored paths, which can be changed based on conditions. ELTB theory definitely highlights this. The question is, how is this COP 200 device designed differently from the rest, to drive these higher energy (or simply faster reaction), neutron generating pathways? So many important scientific questions could be investigated if we knew.

      • Lu

        According to Rossi, “Impossible, for safety reasons.” [see georgehants post below]

        Who really knows though.

  • Omega Z

    As others are Speculating I’ll put my 2 cents in. When considering ALL that Rossi has said, Most of it is starting to make more sense.

    It requires a certain Temp to jump start the Process. Mentioned by Multiple sources, somewhere between 200`C & 400`C. Heat Drive & RF is used for control. Again from other sources, Acoustics or mag fields Etc. may be substituted for the RF.

    I would speculate that the Heat Drive is used for Both stimulation & Dampening Effects. The RF would control the COP>

    When Rossi kicks the power up during Drive Mode, It’s possible that the heat both dampens the process while triggering a release of Additional Hydrogen. Hydrogen is good for Neutron capture.

    Rossi now says the nickel to copper transmutation is more or less a side effect. In fact, it appears this transmutation becomes minimal in the Hot Cat where it’s very hard to even measure. Don’t recall who said it, But they stated the same thing recently. Nickel to Copper is a side effect.

    • Ivan_cev

      Then we need to ask, Is he producing He4 ?

      • Omega Z

        Rossi will not answer that question. Also wont respond to questions about tritium. Have to wait for the final report & IP.

        I suspect so. Indications from Rossi & other bits & pieces Now Indicate that the True heat source is from H+H. I’m not deep into the details like some, But I believe this produces HE4.

        Also Rossi says that the mutation to copper is a side effect. One that has been reduced percentage wise.

  • Sanjeev

    If I remember correctly, the published test involved only gamma radiation measurements and no neutron measurements were done. I wonder why it was not done. Its possible that neutrons are emitted at cop=6 also but in tiny numbers.

    Its somewhat odd to think that the mechanism changes at cop=200. Same mechanism operates at low cop in my opinion.

  • theBuckWheat

    The issue of the safe operating COP shows how utterly important it is to understand the subatomic physics at work in these devices. Until this is done, these devices may sometimes not work as well as is planned, or not even at all. The opposite may be true- that a device may runaway and become dangerous on its way to a meltdown. But this does does not mean that anyone should stop this important work. It means we need more minds to show terminal curiosity as to the physics of LENR. It also means that operating experience is also essential. A few devices working a few thousand hours are not enough to demonstrate or even hint at the behavior envelope. We need a million devices running for at least a year and I look forward to the day when that happens.

    • GreenWin

      This is pure catastrophizing Mr. Wheat. We fully understand how fission works yet that does not prevent regular failures at nuke power plants. We also have no good solution for disposal of used fission fuel rods – now at a cost of $$billions and growing health hazard. LENR in a metal lattice self-quenches when heated above catalyst melt point. There is no runaway.

      Side by side LENR out performs nukes and fossils at a fraction of the safety risk of fission, oil, coal, NG. LENR energy density blows away intermittent wind and solar. Voters might ask, why has the DOE put its head in the sand? Where is the President? When will NASA come fully forward?? Why all the procrastination???

      • freethinker

        A dead on accurate pinpointing of the core issue that is so frustrating to all of us who know LENR is for real.

      • jacob

        The President,NASA and the DOE have no intentions to give LENR a fast forward,if they did,they would have done it by now,heads in the sand people are those that are uninformed and clueless and never heard of cold fusion LENR.

        • Ivan_cev

          No official body in USA will give LENR help. but the Italian ENEA has done this for the last 20 years.

        • Miles

          Why have we continued to pay through our noses on gas & electricity bills when the government knowingly “knew” there was cheaper alternatives?

          There should be an uprising !!!

          • Andrew Macleod

            Agreed. I’m grabbing my pitchfork and torch…… Now where is Mr. Park?

          • GreenWin

            Mr. Park is better suited to tar and feathers. Along with the MIT hot fusion clowns.

          • jacob

            does big business not run the governments?

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        GreenWin: Agree, good post. And: Where is our Patent Office? After LENR becomes a reality, there is going to be a huge investigation, and people will go to jail, and rightfully so, the delay has caused lives!

    • jacob

      oh ,I would install a e-cat in a green house right now,would not care so much if it has a cop of 50 and is a little unstable,nothing 20 pounds of lead can’t fix,can’t be any worse than getting electrocuted by a tesla coil.

      • Venno

        I would like to suggest another method of getting the LENR message out there
        ( besides Franks efforts)
        I would like to suggest that the forum write / develope a article about lenr for the not so well informed public and make available to all
        Then whoever wants to send it to their local small newspaper can do so
        even school newspapers ( there are many entities wanting to fill their columns) who knows what kid is going to show it to his father who might talk about it etc. etc. We all know about the “100th monkey Phenomena”
        This way we could circumvent main stream media and great awareness and also get many more people to read Franks blog

        • Ivan_cev

          This is a good Idea, but you have to remember that today no one has ever replicated and reported, the experiment of another researcher, so LENR has not yet fulfill a basic requirement to be recognized as “real”

          • freethinker

            Your statement is not true. Both palladium/platinum and NiH cells has been reproduced by others. That is exactly why you may state that LENR is real.

          • Ivan_Cev

            OK, show me the report! where another researcher has replicated the work of a former researcher. it has to be specific and not generic.

          • Max S

            I suggest you should read the books of Storms or Beaudette, or check out http://www.lenr-canr.org. There are hundreds of papers cited that reported LENR effects. With experimental evidence for excess heat and nuclear reaction products, in contrast to Rossi. It can´t be all faked.
            Even I have to confirm this – although it does not mean that Rossi is for real. That´s another story.

          • Ivan_cev

            True, I have read the book, but you did not understood my point, to be accepted as science a particular experiment has to be replicated by separate teams and documented and go trough peer review. this has not happened.

          • Ged

            This has happened, and you were just linked to a repository of it happening.

        • The American Reporter has several of my articles on the E Cat and on LENR that I would be happy to provide free to other newspapers. You can reach me at [email protected]. Please use the Subject header “Permission.” Thanks!

          • cx

            with all the history that site has it really needs a redesign

      • Star A Star

        http://phys.org/news/2012-09-thermoelectric-material-world-electricity.html

        A new material, based on the common semiconductor lead telluride, is claimed to be the most efficient thermoelectric material known

        15-20% efficiency is claimed. This is claimed to apply to 400 to 600 degrees Celsius.

        Is this relevant to the Hot Cat?

        • Star A Star

          Sorry, already mentioned by Miles below

  • georgehants

    Steven N. Karels
    September 19th, 2012 at 1:36 PM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    From a couple of my previous postings, I suggested how much Hydrogen was consumed in six months of operation and, assuming it went to Deuterium, how much would have been generated. When you have done your six months operation eCat testing:
    1. Have you tested the residual gas content of an eCat?
    2. Have you detected Deuterium in elevated levels?
    3. Have you detected a measurable increase in the presence of Copper and, if so, what were the isotropic distributions of Nickel and Copper after 6 months?
    —–
    Andrea Rossi
    September 19th, 2012 at 2:02 PM
    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    1- yes
    2- no
    3- the amount of Copper, after more than 2 years now of tests and measurements, analysis, etc, is very low, so we know now it is a side effect. The energy comes from other nuclear effects that we have understood. We have a precise theory now.
    The isotopic distribution will also be disclosed with the theory.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • georgehants

      Andrea Rossi
      September 19th, 2012 at 2:05 PM
      Dear Steven N. Karels:
      Better focus on electric power production, now. The tests with the Hot Cato are going on very, very well. The day after tomorrow the Hot Cat will have a very important measurement, with a new system. If things will go well, an important step forward will have been done.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

  • georgehants

    From Vortex-1 Joe Hughes
    Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:19:23 -0700
    I usually really enjoy reading the articles on the Casey Research site, although the latest article from their “Chief Energy Investment Strategist” is a total hit piece IMHO. Really burns me up – I think I’m going to have to send her an email in response to it.
    http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/do-fringes-energy-science-offer-real-hope-energy-hungry-world
    Excerpt:
    /”Cold fusion is many things — including a mental exercise for theoretical physicists and a hoax from Andrea Rossi — but legitimate is not one of them//”/

    Anyone have any thoughts on what information to use to best discount her claims?
    Joe

    • georgehants
    • Ivone Martin FitzGerald

      I’ve read the article. It is so unbelievably bad that I don’t even know where to start. I’m working on a rebuttal, but remember that both the article and the author are funded by the oil corporations. But if that’s their best, the O. C.’s demise is near and they know it. It’s just the start of a very long drawn out but well deserved scream.

    • daniel maris
    • freethinker

      A lot of words that can be summed up in two words. B*** s***.
      I find the writing very Mary Yogoesque. Any relation, perhaps.?

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Piantelli’s claims of seeing energetic partials emanating from his activated nickel rods when he places them into a cloud chamber proves a nuclear reaction is taking place in H-Ni systems.
      Are you sure the sun came up this morning? Just because there’s a glowing thing in the sky doesn’t mean it’s the sun.

    • Job001

      As read from a science view, typical, modern FUD. See WIKI; Fear, uncertainty and doubt, frequently abbreviated as FUD, is a tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations, politics and propaganda.
      Typical of our modern politics and court rooms(why do we permit lawyers total freedom to FUD the court when the result is not justice but disrespect of justice?, limits on FUD are proposed).
      Politically the same thing has happened, extensive bi-party FUD has eliminated intelligent discussion and problem solving. The oil biased casey FUD quagmire is unworthy of science comment or consideration.

  • Robbie

    If this is true then it is great news; the best possible. Unfortunately given the history of the devices and if particular the history 1Mw (so called sold) unit we will have to hold our breaths and our money until we are shown that this time the claims of success and the claims of sales are genuine. The world need such a device but history regarding this development are against us.

  • vbasic

    Considering this year seems to be the year LENR will “break out” I was pondering how many actual LENR devices are there in existence? With Blacklight, Brillouin, Defkalion, Celani, Rossi and others I wonder how many working devices with cop > 2 and at least 1kw either as lab setups or beyond. I get a feeling when adding other countries, I would guess there are at least 1,000 total devices, some even doing work. Does anyone have a gut feeling or information on where things stand?

    • For most people (it seems) a thing is not ‘real’ until it has been packaged and summarised for them on the corporate ‘news’ channels such as CNN, BBC, News Corp, Sky News, Fox News etc., or the equivalents in other countries. When that happens, they have ‘permission’ to talk about it down the pub, and it becomes an accepted fact.

      But this will not happen until both the technology and the path of acceptable introduction have been worked out, which may take several more years. Acceptable means providing potential benefits to the corporate profit structure that outweigh the inevitable losses. In practice this must also mean (a) ring-fencing the technology on ‘safety’ or ‘national security’ grounds in order to contain it, and (b) putting in place a new system of taxation that will ensure the financial continuity of corporate sponsored governments when CF becomes available.

      For the time being, as far as the general population is concerned CF will be a ‘fringe’ interest, with the perception (deliberately engendered of course) that the area is inhabited by fantasists and tinfoil-hatters. When this line of resistance begins to crumble under the weight of evidence available online, we’ll probably move seamlessly into the ‘it may be real but it is dangerous’ propaganda (I think we’re pretty close to that now).

      • Daniel Steward

        I absolutely agree but I also think this may be a case where the genie may escape the bottle no matter what the corporate power structure does to contain it. At that point all bets are off I think.

      • Peter Roe wrote, “When this line of resistance begins to crumble under the weight of evidence available online, …”

        Here is a link to another online source of information about CF, for educated laymen:

        http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/

        …………………………………………………………………
        Ludwik Kowalski
        http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

  • artefact
    • Auenland

      Any chance of a version with english subtitles?

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    What is the harm in giving Rossi a patent NOW? He can then reveal his knowledge about reaction and we will have 100 researchers improving the process!

    • Daniel Steward

      Unfortunately in the real world where big corporations with deep pockets pretty much rule the instant Rossi reveals the details of his technology with or without a patent he will loose it. A big corporation will simply take it away from him and he wouldn’t have the resources to defend his patent.

      • jacob

        History repeats itself, we can learn from Tesla,how he was brought down from fame to lonely existence with 700 patents in his name,he was a genius .
        with his Wardencliff project he was trying to bring free electricity to the world.
        Once JP Morgan found out that an electrical meter could not be used to charge the consumer,he withdrew funding from Tesla and tore down the tower and transmitter and ruined Tesla.

        That lesson serves as a reminder to those who think they can do the same thing.

        Just big business ,capitalism and politics stops good things from happening.

        Even Bill Gates pays an electrical bill every month.

        We are consumers,we consume gas ,coal, firewood,propane,natural gas ,heating oil and electricity.

        If we had all the free electricity we needed produced by solid state devices the size of a suitcase,what would happen to our beloved energy suppliers?

        The technology was already built by Tesla a hundred years ago,nothing changed.

      • NonFiction

        Daniel and Jacob are correct.

  • Conundrum2012

    This is intriguing.
    I have theorised that yet another way to build a miniature “Rossi-type” reactor would be to make a nickel microsphere with the correct coating, then put it in the centre of a sonoluminescence cell with UV lasers (ie Bluray) to superheat it to the working regime.

    Once working the lasers could be shut down or used in control mode to keep the bubble centred and stabilise power output.

    Such a cell could be several times smaller than the conventional reactors, ideally suited to my intended application of a near space “stratellite” running a hybrid ion wind/hydrogen engine to keep it at altitude using nothing but water.
    Free broadband for all!!!!