Report of Pordenone Meeting from Aldo Proia

Many thanks to Aldo Proia, for sending this detailed report of the Pordenone meeting.

Dear Frank,

As you asked some days ago, I send you a few lines about the meeting organized in Italy by the Technological Pole of Pordenone, which has been an extraordinary opportunity to illustrate the E-Cat technology to a top level public composed of big companies listed on the stock exchange, medium-sized companies, stakeholders, journalists of major national media.

The meeting has been a real success! Eng. Rossi has made a very good impression to the audience, also to the most skeptics, like Franco Battaglia, professor at the University of Modena, in the past opponent of the cold fusion: he has proven to be opened to this revolutionary invention. The final round-table debate has been replaced with many questions to Rossi from the skeptics and from the public.

The requests to participate in the event have been so numerous that the local organizers have generously granted the access of extra audience to a second room connected through a TV cable. The event has been sponsored by the Technological Pole itself and by the regional council Paolo Santin.

The general manager of the Technological Pole, Eng. Franco Scolari, has very kindly offered to Rossi and to us of Prometeon the opportunity to have an office in their new building. So, I would like to thank him for the hospitality and for the good organization by its staff. Thank you also to the collaborators Gino Becevello and Federica Grebello, who have made this event possible.

Rossi has shown to the audience an E-Cat, which was on the table, so anyone could see it up close. His coworkers – the electrical engineer Fulvio Fabiani and the designer Arch. Gianvico Pirazzini – have described in good detail the engineering of the E-Cat and the future marketing of the 1 MW low temperature plant. The Hot Cat in the course of development has been illustrated too.

Regarding the last important test performed on Hot Cat, you have read and widespread the report released from Rossi, anticipating in some way the document that will be released and signed from an independent third party. Here below I would underline some important points regarding such a report.

But, first of all, I would like to clarify some general aspects regarding “self-sustaining” referred to an E-Cat apparatus. When an E-Cat is in “self-sustaining mode”, it means that the reactor absorbs zero energy in input: so, a power meter registers only the electricity needed for the controls, i.e. a few watts.
Well, you can run an E-Cat in: (1) continuous or (2) intermittent self-sustained mode.

The first case is used sometimes for the experimental work but never in front of an audience, as it is unstable, but very impressive because you can reach high COPs: 100-200. So, it is not used in the E-Cats on the market, which operate in an intermittent self-sustained mode with a (guaranteed) COP 6, a very safe and stable condition. I have seen the E-Cat working for long periods in this last modality.

An E-Cat working in intermittent self-sustaining mode is substantially similar to an electric iron, because it alternates phases of on-off regarding the electric input power, but with the difference that an E-Cat produces heat by itself even when it does not absorb electric power.

As the last test on Hot Cat aimed to obtain a (very) conservative estimate of its COP, it was conducted in intermittent self-sustained mode, the same used in a real product. Not considering at all the energy output dissipated by convection and conduction – which accounts for at least a 10-15% more – the measurements clearly show that the guaranteed COP 6 is fully satisfied also for this type of E-Cat!

Indeed, Rossi said that the duration of self-sustained mode, in this test, has been of 218 hours, not 118 as appeared in the first versions of the report for a typo, and the produced energy cited in the document has been cut of 30% to subtract all the possible margins of error. This means a minimum COP near 12.
Please note the simplicity of all energy measurements, made with a top class instrument for the electric input and a thermal camera also used in the military field – and with a 1% accuracy – for estimating the radiative component of the thermal output. Prudently, a below-unit emissivity has been assumed, instead of the correct value “1” for a black body, so the calculated COP is clearly underestimated.

The other very interesting result of this report is the so-called “energy density”, given by the net energy produced (3268 kWh) divided the “active mass”, estimated in a conservative way in 20 grams. So, the energy density is (3268 : 20 =) 163.4 kWh/g, i.e. 163 MWh/kg, which – again – is an underestimate.

For a comparison, the energy density of fossil fuels is typically in the range 9-15 kWh/kg, and the natural Uranium in a light water fission reactor has an energy density of 123.0 MWh/kg, lower than the E-Cat charge! Now, each of us can easily draw his conclusions: mine, is that mankind has “a new fire”…

Kind regards,

Aldo

  • daniel maris

    Well this sort of report seems consistent with a genuine phenomenon. That doesn’t mean of course that the phenomenon is definitely genuine, but it means (personally speaking) I am very satisfied with this commentary – it makes me feel much better about prospects.

    I hope this will be followed up in short order by the independent test results, certification and real time webcam demos…and then full scale marketing. Things should be happening very quickly now. There should be few delays from here on in.

    It will be nice if at some time soon we can give Rossi a full-throated cheer.

  • Peter_Roe

    A couple of quibbles:

    “Prudently, a below-unit emissivity has been assumed, instead of the correct value “1” for a black body, so the calculated COP is clearly underestimated”

    Emmissivity of 1 means 100% radiation efficiency – a true ‘black body’ that the special paint is supposed to achieve as closely as possible (if it doesn’t then Rossi wasted a lot of money on it). A value of 1 means that no compensation needs to be applied to the calculated value for radiated energy as it will follow the theoretical pattern. If emmissivity is less than 100% (a value of less than 1) then the difference needs to be added to the calculated figure for radiated energy in order to compensate for the fact that the target is radiating less than an otherwise identical ‘black body’ would. Therefore, assuming an emmissivity lower than it actually is would in fact over-estimate the radiated energy, and hence the COP. This would mean that a value of 1 would in fact be the ‘conservative’ assumption, and the figure that should have been used. Or am I missing something?

    Second: “…”energy density”, given by the net energy produced (3268 kWh) divided the “active mass”…” As we have no idea how long the 20g fuel mass could produce energy for, the figure of 163 MWh/kg calculated is actually meaningless. ‘Underestimate’ hardly describes it – the real value could be tens, hundreds or even thousands of times greater.

    • Ged

      You’re absolutely right, Peter. However, in the calculations of the report we have, an emissivity of 1 is indeed used.

      Maybe Aldo is referencing the third party work, which would be much more stringent about that sort of accuracy.

      • ivan_cev

        correct, the 30% less should have been applied as a coefficient of emissivity.

    • Chris

      I noticed that same sentence and it struck me Proia was making a hash but more about the way he says things. As for the relevance on results, it depends on whether he was talking about the use of optical pyrometry to measure the temperature, or about estimating the emissivity for computing thermal power from a known temperature. The latter case would make him correct about the bearing of a value nearer to unity, but the fact is I don’t find it reasonable to assume it would be 1. I don’t get his drift and he doesn’t seem to be an expert in the topic there. Perhaps he just misunderstood the details.

    • The guestimated value of 0.95 for the emissivity will reduce the calculated value of emitted energy. Hence it is a conservative value to use. I would never use an emissivity of 1.0 . If the emissivity is in fact higher than 0.95 it would raise the output energy and hence the COP.

    • Sanjeev

      He could have simply measured the emissivity by doing a control run for an hour. If you pour 1000 W in the resistors and the thermal camera shows 900 W, then the emissivity is 0.9. Its simple, no need of expensive paints, and he could have earned points for being thorough.

      I guess he could not get impressive figures without the paint, so he had to go for it. Anyway the result is awesome even in the worst case, only that its signed by Rossi himself and is therefore not so exciting for us outsiders here.

  • Robert Mockan

    Time to refocus attention on the precise procedure for making LENR catalyst, and providing the knowledge to every person in the world.

    Can you imagine having a handful of nickel powder treated to be a LENR fuel, that provides more energy than a conventional nuclear reactor, safely, with no way for the world energy cartel to control people using it to make their own energy for any purpose they choose?

    Live off the grid? Power your car, your boat, your plane?

    It all becomes not just possible, but feasible, when COP becomes much greater than 6. Forget the “intermittent” self sustain mode. These things are going to run HOT!, and FAST!, when people finally get LENR catalyst.

    No more begging for a fish to eat. We all want, need, and deserve, our own fishing poles, so we can each catch our own fish.

    Rossi, you finally get a C grade for one of your demonstrations! Now really start watching your back!
    If what you are saying you have accomplished is real, you just blew the oligarchy that rule this world back to hell. They are not going to be pleased!

    (Now please do not disappoint again with more “corrections” of the data saying that the self sustain mode can not be continuous).

    • Jim

      While waiting for catalyst information from Leonardo (which is not in their interest to release):

      MFMP (actively working with Celani)looks like the leading “open” test platform for 1) replication at all 2) optimizing reactive compounds, 3) optimizing driver functions.

      http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/replicate/progress-blog

      another possibility

      google fusioncatalyst.org/open-catalyst/peer-pressure/

      “When” MPFM (or other) achieves general replicability, optimal compound/driver search can begin in earnest.

      • Robert Mockan

        A few researchers have already broken away from using nickel, and are operating at infinite COP using other elements and compounds. For example here:
        https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxvaGlvdG9pb3xneDpjZGMzM2VjNGQwY2ExZDc

        If you look at page 13 you will see the chart for the cobalt and gadolinium nano particles with potassium hydride as a promoter. Like with other experiments the metal particles appear to become thermally activated at about 350 C, and quickly generate heat and maintain 450 C for weeks at a time.

        Clearly we are looking at a phenomena that is not limited to just nickel, and clearly also electricity is NOT needed for many other LENR catalysts, and they can use self generated heat to maintain the reactions.

        But the synthesis procedure still needs to be optimized so that any person can make catalyst, and many more experiments need to be done to reach the highest temperatures for the longest times.

        I would like to see verified the use of the gaseous germanium hydride reacting with alkali hydride to generate LENR temperatures over 2000 C documented a few years ago. The germanium forms nano-particles suspended in the reactor but it is still unknown if the LENR heat is being generated on the germanium particle surfaces, or in the gaseous mixture. In any event if that reaction could be optimized for a much higher power level as the Rossi catalyst, it might be interesting to design a rocket engine using it.

    • Filip47

      Glad to have you back on the optimistic side 🙂

      • Robert Mockan

        I am always an optimist, but I have no problem roasting Rossi when he botches what should be simple reports.

        • Omega Z

          Robert

          The Fact that he has shown that there will be a COP breakout in time must make you Smile. Just saying as I’m aware that’s been 1 of your pet peeves.

          • Robert Mockan

            I am smiling, but this insistence by Rossi to keep COP=6 for commercial products has been baffling. The COP limit, for “safety”, is probably a solvable physics or engineering problem, and he could get it solved quickly if he would simply open source what he is doing with the current and let thousands, if not millions, of science talent solve it for him, probably in a few days, if not hours. Undoubtedly the solution is already out there somewhere, given the knowledge base in physics and engineering that exists. All Rossie has to do is ASK for help (the dope!). Then we can all have our COP=20, or whatever, LENR reactors, and stop this goofing around with COP=6 hot water heaters. Many readers here have already done the cost analysis for COP=6 in their homes and the numbers are crummy for electric power savings. COP=20 would be a game changer.

  • vbasic

    For all the hand wringing skeptics have over the COP and ways to correctly calculate, isn’t there a simpler way to judge the machine. How about the way a business would do it? Find a heater that industries use to heat stuff to 1050 C. Hook it to your standard electric meter the type the meter reader uses. Hook the hot cat doing the same work to a similar meter. After a few months, read the meters. The hot cat bill should be 6 times cheaper. Whether it’s LENR or the worlds most efficient electric heater, a buyer wouldn’t care, if it lowers their electric bills that much.

    • Adam Lepczak

      Hello,
      I think that realistically all of us expect the HC to be connected to some sort of a heat engine that drives the electric generator. The generator feeds the electricity back to the grid effectively “rolling back” the electric meter…

      • vbasic

        True, but many industries need heat. The point of the 1MW thermal plant and home cats is to make heat. So a test of industrial electric heaters versus the hot cat would be useful.

        • Kim G. Patterson

          Yes heat is a big issue in industry.

          High heat and steam is used in all
          industrial applications, HUGE !

          Respect
          Kim

        • Pedro

          There is a big paradox in the working of the eCat/hotCat…
          Suppose I have a mass of 4.3 kg of iron and some electrical coil running through it. When I apply electricity to that coil, the iron will start to heat up, until it reaches some peak temperature where the heat generated by the coil is balanced by the heat loss to the environment.
          Now switch the 4.3 kg of iron to be a hotCat… Again, when electricity is applied, it will start to heat up, but at some point it will “ignite” and generate far more heat than can be explained by the heat generated by the electrical coil. I presume that happens when the hotCat is heated above a certain temperature (Rossi suggested that the device could also run on natural gas, so heat is most likely the trigger and not EM).
          Once the reaction kicks in, the device starts to generate 11.7 times more heat than it would generate on electricity alone (that’s what a COP of 11.7 implies).
          If I now switch of the electricity, there is no way the device could start to cool down… it’s own heat will keep the device heated up and therefore keep the reaction going. If I switch on the electricity again, that should also have no effect because the “little bit” of heat generated by the coil is completely overshadowed by the 11.7 times larger amount of heat generated by the device itself.
          Why does the device need the electricity switched on and off all the time? Why isn’t it by its very nature a self-sustained device once it’s heated up??? There is no chance the electricity is used to cool down the device when it get’s to hot, because there is no cooling equipment attached to the hotCat.
          What is the function of the electricity on/off cycle? Any ideas?

          • Ged

            In Zurich we saw the “heat after death” curve, that is the curve down of temperature after input has stopped. The hot cat takes a long time to cool off (in fact, they stop measuring it long before it actually cools to room temp), which suggests to me the reaction does keep going (but it loses more heat than it generates and so eventually dies). Now, this new hot cat design apparently lacks the exposed inner tube, and so would do better at retaining heat.

            So, the real question is, what do they do to quench the reaction on demand, especially with this new hot cat? Since we see self sustaining, you’re right, it is able to keep itself going. Maybe it loses power very slowly and still needs a bumper after a few days. But how do you quench it, unless with active cooling?

          • The cooling power of the device is some function of temperature, which for high temp is approximately like T^4 (radiation-dominated). The anomalous heating power is some other function of T which is known to AR but not to us. Apparently the anomalous power must increase with T somewhat milder than T^4, otherwise the HotCat would always go to thermal runaway. The system must be designed so that without driver (whose role is to give a constant offset to the heating curve) the heating curve is always below the cooling curve, but when the driver is included, the two curves intersect at some point T which is the operating temperature. The point T must be stable in the sense that a small increase in T causes more cooling and heating, and a small decrease in T causes more heating the cooling, i.e., the cooling curve must have a steeper T-dependence at T than the heating curve. It works, but it becomes progressively more difficult to engineer with higher and higher COP, unless one uses some moving radiation shields, thermal bridges or other active devices that the control software can use to modify the cooling function on the fly.

          • Ged

            Beautiful answer, Pekka.

          • Omega Z

            @ Pekka

            @ Ged

            Don’t Overlook the RFG. Electricity is require even with NG heat.

            I would suggest that the process continues even when the power is shut off but still dies without the RFG as suggested in the heat death curve.(Death Slower then anticipated.)

            The Drive part has puzzled me for a while. I understand the start up as a certain temp needed to be reached to start the process. The RFG Also required to keep it going. A recent Idea/conclusion I have thought about as of late….

            Over a period of time, Cold spots develop causing stability issues. This is when drive needs to be applied to keep the reaction stable.

            Rossi’s little black control box monitors the situation & determines when this is needed.

            What do you think?

            Also, with these cold spots, the Hot spots could become to hot.- Runaway, nickel melt & core death.

          • Mark

            To know the anomalous heating power curve
            we need to know the theory behind the reaction,
            or to collect enough valid data from trial-and-error
            experiments.
            As long as we don’t have any of it, we have
            to hope that Rossi made enough of homework
            to have a replicable device.
            What is really strange, that the best labs –
            McKubre’s SRI, Zawodny’s NASA – have not been
            able to find and patent the ‘magic dust’, the
            catalyzer, that is at the core of the E-CAT.
            And why Rossi have not patented a chemical
            formula or chemical ingredient that can
            trigger a non-chemical reaction?

          • Omega Z

            Mark

            It has been suggested by Focardi that Rossi tried something that would be highly unlikely to have been thought of by those in the LENR Field.

            This actually happens quite often in life. A laymen trying something because he doesn’t know it shouldn’t work. Yet Does.

            An example where to much Education can be detrimental to Learning. Like those taught that CF is impossible so why investigate it.

            Rossi- Edison-The Light bulb. Throw everything at it. See what sticks. Some of what Edison tried seems absolutely Ridiculous But his approach worked.

          • Robert Mockan

            I’m inclined to agree with you. Andre Rossi seems something of a throw-back to another age. Probably a romanticist in the historical sense. A creative genius among pragmatists. He seems to have adapted pretty well to a square world, and can hold his own, obviously, but how different the world might already be if he did not have to fight forward all the time. It must be exhausting.

          • KPS

            I would indeed qualify as one of those laymen, and I’m thinking there could be two separate effects regulated by the electrical input. The first would be resistance heating to get the reaction started because it requires a certain temperature to trigger. The second could possibly be more “catalytic” than triggering?

            From my understanding LENR is a nano scale surface phenomena. This would imply that the strenght of the effect is dependant on the total contact surface of the involved materials. What if the power input also serves to regulate the contact surface, thus speeding up the reaction?

            To do an analogy it would be a little bit like trying to start a fire in a pile of sawdust. Lighting it by putting a match to it is quite difficult. Take a spoonful and pour it over an open flame however; wham! Because now the total contact surface of the reagents (fuel/wood and oxygen) are many times greater.

            In the case of the E-cat the input power would then serve both as the match to trigger the reaction and to somehow “stir the pot” to increase it. If no “stirring” occurs the reaction slowly dies out (COP < 1).

            The E-cat can apparently run in self-sustain mode as well, but so could a sawdust fire assuming it has reached a high enough temperature.

            Could this make sense?

          • “What is really strange, that the best labs –
            McKubre’s SRI, Zawodny’s NASA – have not been
            able to find and patent the ‘magic dust’, the
            catalyzer, that is at the core of the E-CAT.”

            Piantelli found NiH reactions few month after F&P in 89-90, (see peter gluck comment quoted here http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=708#p2602 ) yet it became popular much later in 2005+ , and is still heavily criticized by some hard scientist in LENr community…

            Peter gluck also quote the work of Leslie Case who discovered catalytic LENR…
            maybe Rossi just read the articles like Defkalion say they do, and say they find much in public litterature…

            as I say, there is nothing important hidden, just things carefully ignored.
            My hypothesis is that Rossi invented nothing else standing up on the shoulder of ignored shy giants. which is great.

          • Pedro

            Thanks Pekka, your theory makes sense.
            If I understood correctly, taking away the electricity causes the device to cool a little bit, which in turn kills the LENR effect a bit, which causes the device to cool down even further, etc. At some point the electricity has to been applied again to reverse the effect and get the LENR effect up again. How often and how long to apply the electricity is a balancing act.. More electricity gives more extra heat but also lowers the COP. In addition, there may be an optimum temperature where the extra heat effect is largest. The latter may also be influenced by the nano structure of the charge. Once they develop a good theory of LENR it becomes easier to model all these effects and optimize the device. I guess this is only the start of something with a much bigger potential!

          • ivan_cev

            Hang on, assuming Rossi is real, It still makes no sense to me, and the original paradox question still stands.
            As Rossi has said the control unit is not in the device, this means heat is actually not controlling the reaction otherwise will be like increasing the power of a house fire with a single matchstick. the orders of magnitude given by the COP make this no reasonable.
            There have to be some mysterious mechanism to control the reaction, radio waves, certain frequency of electric pulses etc. otherwise you can not control a huge heat with small heat. as heat travels from hot to cold.
            Any one could see an analogy in another field to explain the paradox?
            My point is, if this is real is not controlled by heat.

          • Ged

            I don’t see the paradox you are alluding to. Or at least I’m not sure what you are alluding to. Pekka answered all that.

            Heat is necessary for activating the reaction (>100 C). However, the reaction is slow enough that heat is lost faster at room temperature than is made; so it slowly cools and ceases if there isn’t input to keep it above the temperature of activation.

            Now, how one modulates the reaction dynamically — tuning it — that indeed is still a mystery, though it is possible to modulate the input for accomplishing that, as Pekka’s ideas also suggest. Still… I agree with you fully that part is a mystery.

          • Ivan_cev

            Pekka explanation will only make sense if the COP is less or equal to 1

          • Ivan_cev

            A COP 10 you have 10 times more heat in the reaction that in the input.
            the point of start of reaction is 10% final heat. the the functions will never intersect. they are in different orders of magnitude.
            The cruzial point here is that heat travel from point of high entropy to point of low entropy.
            The temp of the e-cat will have to be lower that the temp capable to be produced by the input for Pekka’s ideas to be true, at the instant of start a new cycle.
            The total energy of the system is input+reaction output, but heat travels like electricity in a diode, in one direction only.

          • G_Zingh

            My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that there are two reactions. One with the nano nickel powder and hydrogen, and one with the gamma rays and the steel enclosure.

            The electrical resistance drive heats up the the nickel/hydrogen. This generates gamma rays (of some sort) and these then heat up the steel enclosure and emit heat to the room/boiler.

            Given the mass of nickel powder as compared to the much larger mass of the enclosure it is easy to see how a COP of 20 or higher is possible as we are dealing with more than just heat radiation from the core. COP measures energy not heat.

            It is then possible that at any time the core and the enclosure are at two different operating temperatures; but we don’t know the secrets of the internal mechanism.

          • ivan_cev

            Zing,
            Heat is energy
            COP measures the relation between input and output energy

          • G_Zingh

            I understand what you are saying but the world doesn’t always agree.

            heat |hēt|
            noun
            1 the quality of being hot; high temperature : it is sensitive to both heat and cold.
            • hot weather conditions : the oppressive heat was making both men sweat.
            • a source or level of heat for cooking : remove from the heat and beat in the butter.
            • a spicy quality in food that produces a burning sensation in the mouth : chili peppers add taste and heat to food.
            • Physics heat seen as a form of energy arising from the random motion of the molecules of bodies, which may be transferred by conduction, convection, or radiation.
            • technical the amount of heat that is needed to cause a specific process or is evolved in such a process : the heat of formation.
            • technical a single operation of heating something, esp. metal in a furnace.
            2 intensity of feeling, esp. of anger or excitement : words few men would dare use to another, even in the heat of anger.
            • ( the heat) informal intensive and unwelcome pressure or criticism, esp. from the authorities : a flurry of legal proceedings turned up the heat in the dispute.
            3 a preliminary round in a race or contest : the 200-meter heats.

          • Omega Z

            ivan_cev

            I understand what your saying about the heat. Has puzzled me for sometime. It seems counter intuitive.

            Read what I suggested above to Ged & Pekka. If this is the case it makes sense.

          • ivan_cev

            All this business about control by heat makes no sense, as 1050 is the average, or is constant? if is average, then there will be higher values, and Nickel will be melted.
            Pekka hypotheses is absolutely impossible, “if the device work”. the control has to be a parameter that is not heat. and using this parameter you could turn on and off the reaction.
            But still the problem about thermodynamic and flux of heat and input power, f the device produces 10 times more heat than the input, then when controlling the device there is no need of more input, it should be a device working in self-sustained mode controlled by a parameter other than heat.
            So the paradox still valid and for me is a huge red… no purple flag that put in risk the validity of the device.
            The thermodynamic flux and the logic analysis of it does not stand a rigorous evaluation.
            1.- The orders of magnitude difference of heat.
            2.- The thermodynamic flux.
            3.- The need of a external control
            4.- why would you need an input power 10 times less than the working regime.
            5.- the different temperatures needed if the control was by heat. as the average temp 1050 c. if is an average then higher temperatures are needed (not possible)
            6.- if is control by heat then the temperature of the device at the start of each cycle has to be lower that the temp potential of the input power, otherwise there is no heat flow.

          • Omega Z

            ivan

            1st- Heat is used to start the process. Pekka says >100`C. Everyone doing LENR does this. So I assume we can all agree to this point.

            Rossi says without his catalyst he gets the same results as others. Works to a degree by itself. The Catalyst promotes or enhances the process. Others are now saying the same thing.

            YOUR discussion seems to be how the heat is used to control the reaction when the E-cat is already hot.

            I’m no expert, but here’s my 2 cents worth.

            Once the process starts, itself sustains from the Reactions taking place. Possibly Nuclear of some type. Kept under control by Frequency or pulse energy.

            Over a period of time, cold spots develop. The heat is no longer evenly produced. Instability develops.

            This is when the control box kicks in the Electric drive to even out the heat causing non active areas to become active. I assume the heat activates the cold spots as an NG system would have no pulses.

            The Additional heat can be used to help control the E-cat, But it is only 1 of several things used. Not the only 1.

            Thou probably a bad comparison, Firefighters build backfires to Help control primary fires.

          • Even with the correction to the correction to the correction he has made a gross error. The term (Te – Tr + 273)^4 = 2.838 x 10^12 is wrong it should be (Te + 273)^4 -(Tr + 273)^4 = 3.06 x 10^12 .

          • Ged

            Indeed, that still is uncorrected. Though I wouldn’t call it a “gross” error at least (it’s only a 7.3% lower value), but still an error that lowers the final power out calculation below what it should be.

          • Actually it raises it but the thing is it is sloppy and makes me question his abilities.

          • Ged

            I dunno, I feel we’re being a bit too harsh here. Just because one equation is slightly misdone to lower the COP we calculate even more conservatively from what it should be (what I meant is that if you calculate it right, as you did, the output power was more than that reported, so the COP is greater than reported), doesn’t mean we should question wholesale someone’s abilities. That’s just silly in my view. Mistakes happen, and even if this report is slightly sloppy, it isn’t that big an error.

            Still, for completely accurate numbers, we have to wait for that university report; as it is their job to be accurate.

    • Sanjeev

      vbasic, I agree with you, there are far more simpler ways to judge the machine. The simplest way is to stand in front of it and watch your jaw drop as it pours out 1000 degrees of heat without any input power. The drop length of your jaw is its COP 😉

      But all we have is these pieces of bones Rossi throws at us from time to time, and we must chew it well to feel comfortable. Else, its all hush hush and top secret. There are no machines to judge.

  • edog

    I wonder how long the periods of “self-sustaining” mode last for??

    Yes I know.. approximately 2/3 of the time the device was operating.

    But.. was that of multiples of 20 seconds with power.. 40 seconds without?

    Can heat be rapidly extracted from the device and the self-sustain continue?

    I must admit it does all sound too good to be true! Whats the catch?

    For ROSSI…

    A SIMPLE VIDEO OF THE HOT ECAT RUNNING ISOLATED AND UNPLUGGED WOULD BE A GREAT SUPER FANTASTICO START (or WARM UP pun intended) TO THE PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN THAT MUST BE UNDERTAKEN BY LEONARDO CORP IF YOU DO TRULY INTEND TO SELL THESE DEVICES TO PEOPLE LIKE ME…

    AND FOR VERY LITTLE EXPENSE!!! HOW MUCH IS A GOOD QUALITY youtube.com video??? THEREFORE YOU CAN SPEND MORE MONEY ON MAKING THE PRODUCT MORE EFFICIENT AND LESS ON ADVERTISING.

    sorry about the CAPS.. but Rossi seems to like them….

    🙂

    • Andrew Macleod

      The electronic controls still need power.

      • stuey81

        why can it have a few AA batterys for the controls?

  • georgehants

    The delay in knowing that Rossi definitely has a technology of the capabilities that he and Defkalion claim, is now causing serious problems.
    If governments had such conformation then the energy planning they have under way would have to be publicly reviewed and changed,under the knowing scrutiny of the population.
    The immediate release is not so important as the unambiguous knowledge that it is practical and shortly available.
    Rossi is now undoubtedly, unreasonably, (if genuine) effecting the welfare and safety of the World.
    There are many possible reasons for commercial and academic silence and confusion, but the time has passed when fair justification can be allotted to these considerations.
    No one needs to know the secrets, but the definitive proof that the breakthrough is genuine and practical is now essential.
    Mr. Rossi time to stop peeing around and show your hand.

    • Ivan_cev

      George, you finally asking what I have been asking for a while now.
      Rossi prove your claims!

      • daniel maris

        Funny – I normally George for being unduly optimistic. In the light of this post I would say he is being unduly pessimistic.

        I feel we can wait a few weeks. I get the sense things are bubbling up nicely. We are either in for the launch pad experience – all systems go – or a complete crash. Come the New Year there won’t be any doubt on that.

        • Zordo

          Oh, yes, we can wait few weeks. And few weeks more. And more. And more. And……

          • daniel maris

            No, I don’t agree. I always felt October 12 was about the crunch time on the basis of what Rossi said towards the end of last year. Things really do need to start happening now. And perhaps they are with this conference. We will see.

          • Barry

            Don’t you see the progress Zordo, from Nov 2011 to now?

      • captain

        Wrong, wrong, wrong and to me U remain a skeptic.

        Now Rossi has nothing to demonstrate to U and to the others: he’s awaiting that USPTO and UL give him his recognized brevets/patents and certifications.

        I repeat USPTO and UL. THEY HAVE TO DO SOON AND WELL THEIR DUTY.
        Give Rossi what belongs to Rossi.

        And U can keep on posting hot air in all the blogs U like, with kind admins’ permission.

    • Fibb

      georgehant, I really appreciate your singular post. You make a very important point. I wholeheartedly agree – the time has come for Rossi and others (like Dick Weir at EEStor) to reveal what they have and send all nations back to the energy policy drawing board before more money and blood is unnecessarily wasted on fossil fuels.

    • captain

      Hi George, Rossi needs his IP duly and soon protected, OK?

      Important ==> for skeptics and the like.

      And for practical 1MW thermal plants operation, plz ask to US Navy (as 1st possible military customer) and maybe to http://www.usag.vicenza.army.mil/sites/local/about_usag_vicenza.asp (as possible, repeat possible 2nd military customer).
      Vicenza’s garrison is relatively close to Bologna, Italy.

      IMHO obviously 🙂

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      georgehants: So, issue him a patent. There is no reason for governments to deny LENR patents, except for political/big corporate money reasons.

      • AstralProjectee

        Bernie ~ “There is no reason for governments to deny LENR patents, except for political/big corporate money reasons.”

        No, they deny cold fusion patents based on the MIT experiment that the government paid for the try and replicate the Pons and Fleishman effect. If the MIT experiment worked and or if cold fusion was proven otherwise then they would have no reason to deny cold fusion claims. The USPTO has very little incentive with corporate or politically to deny this claim.

        Let me ask you if you worked as an employee at the patent office would you not have to listen to what your peers tell you, to deny cold fusion patents until we have universal proof/acceptance of this technology?

        BTW I do believe Rossi likely has what he claims.

        Peace.

        • yes, don’t think organization have an independent brain.
          The behavior of those big animals is only consequence of single selfish, fearful, limited, scrudge and greedy brains…

          As I’ve heard from so having been part of an FBI exchange, FBI prefer to obey the manual and kill the hostage than risk to be sued, and they are right… because if obeying the law lead to stupid results, the guilty is the law writer.

          US is corrupted with fear of being sued because nobody agree on real values and that law is the only common accepted value. Hopefully for US, that lack of common shared values is spreading to europe with similar effect.

      • Karl

        I fully agree. The real crime is that the patent structure created several hundred years ago allow innovators 20 years protection while they can invest and concentrate their work. This type of protection has clearly been prohibited in the field of CF/LENR type of innovations.

  • Roger Bird

    I ask this as a persistent Rossi skeptic: why would a scammer invent a story about intermittent self-sustain mode? In fact, why would a scammer think of such a story, and why would they want to publish such a story? It does not make sense, unless Rossi is for real. It is such an elaborate con that it violates Occam. One would think that if Rossi were conning us, his story would not have this difficult complication.

    • daniel maris

      Yes,I’ve always thought Rossi doesn’t really fit the scammer mould. Maybe more delusional if not genuine.

  • “Mankind has ‘a new fire…'” What a wonderful idea and phrase!

    • Kim G. Patterson

      Mankind also has the same owners.

      Same Problem, different fire.

      Respect
      Kim

      • Tangled Connections

        +1

    • Omega Z

      Joe

      Looks like a hot kitten.

      I speak of the red head on the left at about 10 seconds in. LOL

    • Steve B

      obviously Rossi did not think “new fire” it was such a good name.
      The trademark was abandonded because Rossi did not reply to the office inquiry.

      from the US patent and trademark database:

      Word Mark E – CAT – THE NEW FIRE
      Goods and Services (ABANDONED)
      …..
      Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
      Serial Number 79105490
      Filing Date August 10, 2011
      Current Basis 66A
      Original Filing Basis 66A
      International Registration Number 1097571
      Owner (APPLICANT) LEONARDO CORPORATION UNKNOWN 1331 Lincoln Road, Suite 601 Miami Beach, FL 33139 UNITED STATES
      Priority Date June 30, 2011
      Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK
      Register PRINCIPAL
      Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
      Abandonment Date June 17, 2012

    • Barry

      +1

  • ivan_cev

    New fire, New paradigm?
    No to fast, I still need to see the device heating my hot-water tank and saving me 90% of my electricity bill!
    Do not run to fast ahead of yourselfs, Rossi needs to support his figures with real test and demos use of control devices, etc, etc.
    The patent office will never give him a patent unless Rossi shows a working device. so who has to be first the chicken or the egg?
    Some naive idealists are asking for a patent, as the patent office will hear them, stop being childish and request what is realistic.
    So what is realistic is Rossi giving a working device to the patent office, and giving serious scientific demos to twist the patent office hand.
    He will risk giving his secrets? so there is no choice, as you have seen, He will only be able to sell to secret organizations.
    Real clients like you and me will never put a hand in a ecat, unless Rossi shows his device works and twist the hand of the patent office by giving uncontroversial test.
    There is no other way… if He takes longer to act, some one will catch up as we are seeing multiple reports of more and more advances in LENR.
    Rossi should be happy to get a couple of hundred million dollars instead of trying to fully control the destiny of the ecat, otherwise he will get zero, cero, nothing, nada…..

    • Dickyaesta

      If a tree falls in a forest nearby you and you haven’t seen it fell, does that mean the tree has not fallen or that you havenot seen it fall 🙂
      Saludos from Spain

      • Dickyaesta

        @Ivan,

        And once and for all the concept of a chicken had to be there first. If the chicken not layed his first egg you could never have asked the seemingly eternal question :”Was there an egg before the chicken”, just a thought 😉
        Saludos once again,

        Didymus

        • Peter_Roe

          It had to be the egg first. Assuming a genetic ‘definition’ of a ‘chicken’, a hen might nearly correspond to this definition, but not quite. It would therefore not be a ‘chicken’ as defined. However, through genetic mutation or mating with just the right cockerel, it could lay the first egg that contains the full genetic code as defined for a ‘true chicken’ for the very first time. An egg can only produce what it is already genetically programmed to produce, so the change point is between chicken and egg. Therefore the egg must be the first to contain the ‘correct’ genetic code, even though it comes from a chicken that does not.

          • Dickyaesta

            @Peter,

            We are on the same line the concept(underlined) of a chicken has to be there first in order to design an egg that produces a chicken. As you have to have a concept of a turkey to have a turkey’s egg 😉

            Saludos from Spain
            Dickyaesta

          • Barry

            But what laid the egg? (sorry Frank, just a little off topic)

    • HeS

      @:”So what is realistic is Rossi giving a working device to the patent office”

      Is it joke?
      Who brought DEVICE to patent, to patent office (maybe “standard” nuclear reactor inventor:)???

    • Omega Z

      ivan

      The Chicken came 1st. Determined long a go. The mythical statement hangs on.

      As for the Patent. A working E-cat with documentation/track record under private/corporate ownership will suffice.
      After a time Rossi can arrange a demo at his expense to demonstrate his product to personnel from the Patent office. The patent will be granted as history shows.

      As for Rossi’s secret sauce, It does Not need to be disclosed. It’s a common practice of many products in the market today.

      No doubt some Corporation will in time obtain this secret in due course, but only in order to help them create their own. It will not be replicated by them for use.

      The Technology to obtain this information already exists. The process has already been discussed nearly 2 years ago. This is why Rossi will determine Who will be his Customers until the Patent is Granted. Wanting & having the Funds to purchase an E-cat at this time doesn’t mean you will obtain 1. You have to go through & pass a Screening process by Leonardo Corp. If you pay attention to all that Rossi say’s, You would know that the E-cat at this time is a selective customer process.

      The Tamper alert system is for the lay person. Big Corporations in possession of an E-cat could learn all it’s secrets without ever taking it a part in short order. As stated above, the technology required & how to do this has already been discussed. This is Why Rossi plays his cards close to the chest.

  • Voodoo

    From temp graphs it is clearly obvious

    Rossi use this algorithm for reactor shut-down:

    1. Reactor must reach certain high temp
    2. After that input go down a while
    3. After thar input and temp go steep Up
    4. After that input is shut-down

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    October 14th, 2012 at 5:22 AM
    Dear Luca Salvarani:
    We are close to the production of electric power, as you correctly said. We have to complete issues, among which the control systems. About this issue: a very smart, genial person wrote somewhere that we have hired to deal with a so much important issue ” an informatic “. This comment merits consideration, because we always have to learn from intelligent persons: it is time to stop the bad attitude that humanity has, leaving important duties to not fit persons, and I agree with this guy ( from now, “The Intelligent”). For example, the Mankind left the duty to develope the Relativity to an employee of a patent office… The Intelligent has, for the benefit of all of us, introduced this important issue, it was time. But this bad attitude of Humanity has deep roots in the past: for example, 1979 years ago Somebody, a big boss, gave the duty to make the Destiny of the world to the son of a carpenter, who at the age of 33 still had to walk on the water ’cause was unable to swim.
    (by the way: Eng. Fabiani comes from the Army, and is electronic and informatic engineer, and has been hired because has invented a system to control our reactors far more genial than the other proposed to us)
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Alessandro Culeddu

      “Power is nothing without control” – by Young & Rubicam