Reflections on the Pordenone Hot Cat Report

The reports coming out of the Pordenone conference, along with the data from Rossi himself indicate to me there is something very important afoot with E-Cat technology. The biggest surprise is that after Rossi has been repeating the mantra of COP 6 for so long, he presents data showing a minimum COP of almost double that. There are still questions about the math he has released, but it seems clear that if the COP and temperatures he presents are confirmed, the E-Cat is a technology which far outshines any other available energy source, with the capability to power our world.

I have heard plenty of criticisms of Andrea Rossi, many from some of the staunchest believers in LENR, but to my mind I find it difficult to fault someone who has developed a ‘miracle’ technology and is committed to bringing it forward in order to change the world for the better. I find the man’s dogged determination and dedication to the development of his technology despite harsh criticism from many sources to be impressive, and I don’t think anyone can fault his work ethic.

I have followed with interest the discussions about whether open sourcing the E-cat would be the best and most moral approach for Rossi to take. My feeling on the topic is that given the reality of the current market-based capitalist system that exists in varying degrees in most parts of the world, a traditional business approach makes sense if the goal is to spread this technology far and wide as fast as possible. It will take a concentration of capital to get the best engineers, scientists and manufacturers involved in getting this technology out into the world where it can be put to use. Investors who put up the funds for these operations will want assurances that Rossi’s IP is not given away, and they be left with no returns.

I understand why many people look at this kind of business approach with distaste. In a perfect world things would be very different — ideally people would work on such projects for the good of all, and there would be no poor or disadvantaged people, as all needs would be supplied by a more just and equitable system. Believe me, that is the kind of world I would like to live in, but at the moment, given the realities of our current system, I don’t think realistic to expect Rossi to simply give away his intellectual property at this point.

The exciting thing about E-Cat technology is that it holds the promise of making possible a much more equitable and prosperous world. If this technology proliferates widely, it could have the effect of lessening economic inequality, easing poverty, and solving some of the most pressing social and environmental problems we face. This technology has the ability to turn economics on its head and allow for a world of abundance rather than scarcity. Unfortunately no technology can transform human nature, and I believe there will certainly be challenges involved in making a transition to a world of abundant energy given the many interests that are so heavily invested in the current energy balance of power.

Andrea Rossi may have opened a door to a new source of energy, but there will surely be others who improve upon his work and provide even greater advances in energy technology. Rossi himself credits Fleischmann and Pons for opening his mind to new possibilities, and other minds will be fired by Rossi’s work who could go on to do even greater things. What we are learning now could be just the beginning of amazing new discoveries.

I realize we don’t yet have the third party confirmation of Rossi’s claims, and I think it wise to hold celebrations in check. However, I am certainly encouraged by these recent developments. I personally cannot conceive how it is possible that Rossi is involved in a big scam, or is a deluded madman. The evidence I see continues to indicate that he has what he says.

Frank Acland

  • Andrea Di Luccio

    As southern italian, reading the “body language” of Rossi and listening to his speech I think Rossi is not making a scam.
    His conservative approach make not possible a big “self scam” based on mistakes in not considering some aspect of the phisics involved in measurement.
    Some “non linear” decision that he make have their root in the attempting of do not fall in tactic errors about the growin’ of the e-Cat.
    He knows that many people that he meets today (CEO of great industries, banks and so on) take a risk in not making good decision in a “collaborate or not collaborate” question. So many of them try to not intersecate Rossi but they know that this can be fatal for their positions tomorrow if Rossi claims will be confirmed.

  • orsobubu

    Andrea Rossi’ invention, if confirmed, opens fantastic possibilities, but it would be a big mistake to believe that this is a revolution that would bring peace scenarios for mankind. The worst wars occurred, for example, after the application of electricity discovery. The reason of economic crises and wars are overproduction and falling profit rate, causing unemployment, inflation or deflation, and debt. An innovative technology that wipes out an industry with higher capital outlay – like fossil’ industry – does increase the use value produced for the good of humanity, but decreases the exchange value (profits and money) because it decreases the surplus value extracted from the declining number of workers exploited by the capitalist class. Look at the highly robotized automotive industry for a confirm. Capitalistic production system needs more efficient energy sources not for environment, peace or scientific progress purposes, but as a constraint due to market competition; and competition brings on monopolies, state capitalism and fall of the profit rate. These new technologies will only partially increase the industries that today can not develop due to energy shortages, because today there is no such a shortage and because the current crisis is due to overproduction instead of underconsumption. Accordingly, there will be a massive leap forward in the next deepest economic crises and imperialist powers will be more than happy to use them to take a military advantage. The war menace with Iran is not due to energy shortages, but to take an edge in confrontation with China, India and Russia.

    • Tony76

      “The war menace with Iran is not due to energy shortages, but to take an edge in confrontation with China, India and Russia.”


      The war menace with Iran is to take an edge in confrontation with China, India and Russia for control of Earth’s resources.

      Such confrontation will be rendered idiotic in an era of abundant energy where resources can be mined anywhere on Earth or the Solar system.

      • Peter_Roe

        Unfortunately I suspect that at the very best, politics will advance, like physics, ‘one funeral at a time’ (Max Planck).

        • AstralProjectee

          Thumbs up!

      • orsobubu

        Tony, you need to study deeply Marx to understand that crisis and wars are the product of fall of the profit rate and underemployment; competition is unavoidable in capitalism: this drives overprofits (profits apart than wage workers’ exploitation, due to any form of protectionism, like patents or monopoly) to zero, so profits depend in average on workers’ explotation. As soon as competition kicks in, capitalists need to lower costs, and after some time profits start shrinking (hehe, also Rossi admits this in a part of the video in Pordenone: “it will kill the technology”!). So, weaker competitors start to lose market quotas and fire employers, and stronger competitors start to gain quotas. At this point, the toy breaks, because there are two options: or they became monopolistic again, which is the worst thing for the capitalistic production system, because it brings protectionism and wars, or they must expand indefinitely: and this is a physical impossibility (when recent asian capitalistic expansion will be over, the Earth is completely developed, and you cannot transfer billions of people on mars). Capitalism has a mathematical necessity to expand itself indefinitely, at least at a 2% rate. So schumpeterian destruction is the only viable solution. And here enter Marx. You see, the fight for Earth’s resources doesn’t count in this game; it is only a production factor in the competition. The COMPETITION is the real stuff. Sorry, but you need to start from Marx, Lenin, Machiavelli, Kissinger to speak.

        • wizer13

          The very idea of ressource is, in my own point of view, limited. The only thing we can really call a ressource is energy. With energy, eveything else is possible, and everything can be transformed.
          With waste pyrolysis (or waste gasification), we can recycle a 100% of garbage, and the technology is just ahead these days. No doubt it will evolve and become economic and more efficient has time goes on.
          If eveything can be reuse and recycle, the very idea of ressource becomes a myth. I know that, for now, many things goes to waste, but as necessity arise, so will innovation.
          The earth crust is composed of 23,5 % of silicium, 8 % aluminium, 5 % of iron, 0,3 of potassium 2 % of phosphore, and many other I don’t quite well remember. With the total iron in the crust, we could make a plaque of 1 km thick all around the world ; are we going to lack iron ?, or aluminim or glass ? Many will tell me : yeah, because someday, pure batches will go scarce and it will be more costly to exploit. But, has mentionned above, with energy and innovation, technology can evolve, and metals are a 100% recyclable, and so is glass.

          (you’ll excuse my poor grammar, i’m a french canadian, just hope everyone can understand).

          The view on ressources are merely, in many views, purely political and ethological. On the physical point of view, it depends only on the ability to adapt and evolve.


          • wizer13

            sorry, meant to say

            ethical and logical, not ethological… typo

          • orsobubu

            Really interesting, thanx

        • Tony76

          “crisis and wars are the product of fall of the profit rate and underemployment; competition is unavoidable in capitalism”

          Maybe true in your part of the world with overbearing state control, where family, religion and nation are deliberately enfeebled by Marxists.

          Elsewhere, once food, shelter and security are in abundance, nobody will give a fig about political theory.

          • orsobubu

            You’re confusing communism with state capitalism. Never existed a nation in all the world leaded by marxists. Even Lenin said he did the state capitalism, not communism. I.e., US political economy is a full and fledged state capitalism; real free market failed so long time ago. About your absurd statement that your country resolved all the basic economic problems, this can be true only because you surely live in an imperialistic country: monopolies, financialisation, capital exports, expansion of foreign market quotas, expansion of military geostrategical influence sphere. Imperialism transfers outside the borders the contradictions dooming capitalism to fail, but this works only until opposite interests collide and the world order breaks.

      • orsobubu

        Also, when energy costs start nosediving, this will be a tragedy, because higher costs mean higher profits for capitalists. If energy is abundant, without the need to hire millions workers to exploit to produce it, profits will dramatically decrease in this key sector (it really is a key sector, you admit this when talking about fight for resources). Air doesn’t cost a cent, and free air for everybody is a tragedy for capitalism. No people to hire, no surplus value to extort, no profits. I’ll repeat it, the present crisis is not due to energy shortages (really, oil and gas producers use every sort of geopolitical and financial trick to increase prices, because abundance and competition would drive to very low levels, a tragedy), it is due to overproduction instead: the world produces too much energy, too much houses, too much bankers, too much cars: imagine when we’ll have free energy, when china, brazil, etc will became a competitor in every field: world war III is assured.

        • you , like most, are totally wrong.

          LENR will reduce cost by more than 10%, increasing productivity by 10%… more in fact because Grid will disapear, like many military forces, pollutions…

          The result will be like what happened in occident in the 60s when farming get more productive. People start both to consume more and work less, being better paid for less work.

          It is the same as what happens in emerging countries when they increase their productivity.
          Great temporary change of employment…

          read the next convergence to understand what I talk about.

          summary: LENR will be good for all people, except for the owner of economic rents who will have to find a new economic rent… why not LENR?

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Alain: Are you serious? “People start both to consume more and work less, being better paid for less work.” In the US, during the last 12 years productivity has increased by inflation adjusted 100%, during the same time frame wages have decreased by inflation adjusted 2%.

          • I apologize if his was already asked- how is hydrogen confined
            in the Hot Cat tube? Are there flanges, gaskets? Is hydrogen generated in situ?
            Thank you!

          • In situ. It’s nowadays stored in some Rossi-developed substance (probably metal hydride) which is designed to release it at wanted temperature.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            I wonder if someday, LENR is produced via micro-reactors in the form of layered beads (like Patterson beads)with layers of nickel, metal hydride, plus a catalytic layer, and covered with a ceramic coating?

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            “Cross-linked polymer microspheres having a sulfonated cation exchange surface are carefully separated into fractions of equal size and density. Each fraction is separately plated preferably with copper, palladium, nickel, titanium or any metal cation which will reduce with hydrazene to form a conductive metal flash coating. The flash coat plated microspheres are again separated into fractions of equal size and density. Each fraction is then given additional metal platings first of nickel, then preferably palladium, then a support plate for the palladium, followed preferably by a stabilizing metal plate such as chromium. The thus plated microspheres have uniformly thick platings and have a maximized surface area for the amount of metal plated making them particularly useful as catalysts or in electrical products or processes. Microspheres having a plating of palladium exhibit a marked improvement in the adsorption of hydrogen both quantitatively and in rapidity. An inner nickel…”

            Two other scientists (including Dr Miley were successful in replicating the Patterson devise) Biggest problem is in constructing the beads.

          • Johannes Hagel

            They sound so good these latest news! However, we remain still in the same uncertainty as we were 2 years ago. And since an independent test can very well be performed without having to give away any secrets, we still have to ask ourselves seriously why within all this time we never got any of these tests? Specially because the only test that could be called an independent one failed and made the swedish investors disappear! So while I am still a believer in LENR, despite of the latest report I remain suspicious about Rossi and Leonardo. However, as stated before, I would not consider it a catastrophe if Rossi failed. It will just delay the success of LENR in general by putting it on the other side on a more solid basis. Maybe I am mistaken. Believe me, I would enjoy it as never before to be wrong in my suspicions! 🙂

          • Luca Salvarani

            Dear Johannes

            Rossi has said that within November the same test he presented at Pordenone will be the object of an indipendent (third party) report so you can compare the results.

          • Omega Z

            Johannes Hagel

            The Hot Cat is a prototype in progress. Certain levels of development have to be reached before 3rd parties can test it. Otherwise the tests would be meaning less. As in well it works to a point but we don’t know the end results yet.

            I believe Rossi has reached this point, but 3rd party will be more cautious & will require a little longer time frame to process the results. The Documents we all await.

          • look also at those zeolites experiments

          • Robert Mockan

            Rossi said he is using a chemical compound to provide hydrogen inside the reactor. Although he has not shown a schematic for it, I assume he must have a deformable metal ring gasket on a flange somewhere to prevent hydrogen gas leakage. There are not many design options for a system that can be repeatably dismantled to contain hydrogen gas at high temperature.

          • buffalo

            hydrogen gas systems,even room temp systems are notoriously difficult to maintain leakproof due to H2 solubility in various metal parts.the slightest leak would be disastrous in a ecat i imagine due to air oxidation(explosive)

          • Robert Mockan

            I have been wondering how he solved the hydrogen gas problem with the “hot-cat”, especially at 1000 C(!). NASA has used silver “o-rings”, at 1000C, that deform to seal under pressure when a cover is screwed tight on a flange, so in theory he could be using that method. But you are also correct about hydrogen solubility in metals. Not only can it literally leak through the metal, but it can react with the metal causing “hydrogen embrittlement” that can make the metal very weak.

            How Rossi expects safety certification for retail products continues to puzzle me.

          • Omega Z


            What ever he uses, It is patented.

            Someone at the Pordenone questioned him about it. Rossi gave him an invitation to contact him. The said person is interested for marketing purposes.

            I believe it only releases up to 1 gram at any given time & reabsorbs it when it cools. Not enough to cause an explosion.

          • Robert Mockan

            My last count of reversible high temperature and low temperature materials for hydrogen storage and release was about 200. Almost every element and hundreds of compounds have been studied with hydrogen. Nothing that Rossi patents or uses that is patented prevent conflict free designs that do not violate any intellectual rights.

            As a natural phenomena cold fusion itself can not be patented, and the evidence continues to mount there are many alternatives to using nickel.

            Besides all that, Rossi does not have a patent on his catalyst, and I doubt he is going to be issued one. All his real and potential business opponents have legal departments with the sole purpose of preventing events that might affect future profits. Rossi may sell products, but the first products that hit the shelves, and he is out of business, because it will be reverse engineered, the catalyst “secrets” discovered, and a competitor will market something at half the cost with a superior design.

            Rossi continues to underestimate his obstacles, in my opinion.

            That is why I continue to say only the open sourcing of the catalyst synthesis method will give LENR technology to the world.

            And that is what is going to happen.

            When every person knows how to fish, and has their own fishing pole or net, the begging for a fish to eat is over!

            The era of controlling societies by controlling sources of energy, is over very soon!

          • forst look at emerging countries today, at europe in 1945, at US in 1870… we all have seen an agrarian revolution where less people were needed to produce the same food… the the same with fordism revolution…

            about productivity, look at whom have increased productivity, and whom get richer…
            and also ask what is the average growth and productivity increase.
            like it is explained in “the next convergence”, when there is slow growth, thus slow productivity increase, the rich , the incumbent, concentrate the wealth.

            only big increase of productivity like LENR can spread wealth.

            today slow growth,and also unfinished transition in China, put the pressure on workers to lower their wages and increase their work time, thus making everybody poorer, slowing transformation of work into capital.

            The productivity increase transition is a big earthquake, but if you don’t slow it too much, things get better quickly.

            Of course all incumbent actors coalize to block the change and maintain their advantage, when they can capture more of a small cake.

          • georgehants

            AlainCo, well done —
            More productivity = longer working lives, with our economist geniuses, backed by government and the rich and powerful nothing will change.
            Can anybody see the mistake we are all being brain-washed into.

          • georgehants

            Lovely day.

          • orsobubu

            No, productivity increases only the wealth spread between rich and poor, augmenting the perceived relative poorness. Also, and more important, the worker is even more exploited. And even more important, the race to productivity brings inevitably to overproduction, fall of prices, fall of profit rate (less workers needed) and to crisis and wars. Productivity is only a temporarily method to postpone necessary revolution, meanwhile producing useless goods and depleting the environment. Capitalism is doomed – if it don’t want to fail – to increase capital by minimum 2% yearly; on the long time this is impossible to sustain: as capital can only be explained with stolen wage from the workers by the capitalist, capital can increase only increasing – in average – the number of workers, and this process has objective limits. Really you need to start to study some serious book, my friend.

          • orsobubu

            Capital is ONLY worked time stolen; you cannot increase capital increasing productivity, on an averaged productive cycle: in a free market, competition lowers the costs but lowers the profit at the same time, because the good price diminishes accordingly. So you can only profit from the worked hours stolen to the worker. This can be achieved only putting men at work for longer hours, or doubling the machines and workers. And this is a limited process. Hence the crisis and overproduction. and all of this in the best conditions at all for the capitalist, the free market; I hope you don’t like a protected, not free, market, or, worse, a socialist market. Study Marx, please, before to speak.

    • Jim

      I think a challenge in political analysis is the reliance on the concept of the “state”.

      “State” has taken on the same pseudo-reality as “law of physics”. There is no proof that there are laws of physics; there are only models that are more or less effective for describing measurements. Likewise there are no “states”, that exist like giant actors waving swords at each other from one continent to the next.

      A state is a conventionally accepted term that is applied to (roughly) agglomerations of interest groups that are generally manipulated (out of their own interests) into supporting the benefit of an elite consisting of wealthy business people, property owners, religious leaders and military leaders (often indistinguishable), who act through institutions that are more or less democratically legitimate, led (or at least publicly represented) by politicians with different combinations will to power and altruistic intent, and bound together by an ability to control the use of violence within a geographic territory.

      This same model applies to every “state” on the planet, including Syria, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, India, Russia, China, France, England and the United States.

      What entity, then, is interested in confrontation with China, India, and Russia? As German industrialists learned in the 1940’s, war is not necessarily a successful path for expanding markets. Does the Pentagon wish to confront the People’s Liberation Army? Does the Catholic Church wish to confront the Hindu League? Does Sony wish to confront Levono?

      The idea of states striding through history, clashing with one another as they build and lose empires, makes good dramatic entertainment, and even better propaganda. However, it’s not that useful for predicting the behavior of the increasingly fissiparous interest groups that exercise the greatest, and yet ever weakening, influence over the populations of the world.

      Net: there is a lot of open space in the operation of “states” through which LENR can diffuse out into the world.

      • orsobubu

        All of this is true today and in near future, when capitalism still expands and different imperialisms are united in dividing the world profit quotas. But this favorable condition will end, sooner or later, in a breaking of the world order.

  • timycelyn

    a good stand back and reflect.

    I agree with your basic premise that Rossi is neither a deliberate scammer or deluded. Too many people involved, the agents, his close partners and employees. Are all of them either in on the scam or are being conned? As every day passes scamming or delusion becomes an ever more far fetched idea, and those that still put this forward, like those sad souls at ECN, need a serious human reality check. Not about Rossi, but about the people surrounding him.

    Andrea Rossi seems to be, as many here have commented, almost a throwback to an earlier generation of ‘inventor.’ Mercurial, irrational, emotional, and communicating in another tongue. An Italian Edison.

    Those that point to his irritating inconsistencies, changes in the basic story, just fail to get the point that this type of behaviour is part of the territory with an inventor of this type. In the past, the Edisons behaved similarly, but we only caught small snapshots of it because they were not under the glare of instant worldwide scrutiny that the internet brings.

    Again, the question is often asked why he does not behave more ‘professionally’ and keep his mouth shut until he has a product to roll out complete with independent validation. It’s simply not his psychology, he has a need to share the excitement, and receive positive feedback to keep his kettle boiling. I can identify and sympathise with that, as I am of exactly that mindset. This need to give out the good news, to get feedback to keep me buoyant, has more than once landed me in hot water with my research lords and masters 🙁

    To use the myriad inconsistencies in Rossi’s output as evidence for it being fiction, is to miss the point entirely. The way a forensic accountant, say, might never get the real underlying point of a Picasso masterpiece. He’s talking in a different language.

    From everything I’ve seen, I have been convinced for a long time this is the real deal. The zig-zagging forward, the changing story, is all very normal for this type of ‘inventor led’ technology. Other plodders, myriads of them, will come later to bring many different developments of this into the world.

    What a wonderful and exciting time to live.

    • Peter_Roe

      Echo all of the above. I have a nagging feeling though that Rossi may play the ‘mad professor’ image a bit, in order to cover some really clever management.

      Here we are, looking at the emergence of the most important, profound, game-changing (apologies for the cliche) inventions for generations, yet somehow Rossi avoids any one moment where the ‘world changes’. Step by step his claims have become more and more concrete and proven despite the shrill noises of the maryyugos, but there is never a great splash – just a steady ripple that spreads wider and wider, drawing in ever more players, but apparently never quite reaching a threshhold where frightened politicians and corporate energy bosses panic and do anything stupid.

      I think Rossi is a very, very clever man, and we may only come to appreciate this when the full story has unrolled.

    • Peter_Roe

      Stuck in moderation first time around, so I’m trying again with slight changes:

      Tim, echo all of the above. I have a nagging feeling though that Rossi may play the ‘wacky professor’ image a bit, in order to cover some really clever management.

      Here we are, watching the emergence of the most important, profound, game-changing (apologies for the cliche) invention for generations, yet somehow Rossi avoids any one moment where the ‘world changes’. Step by step his claims have become more and more concrete and proven despite the shrill noises of the naysayers, but there is never any great splash – just a steady ripple that spreads wider and wider, drawing in ever more players, but apparently never quite reaching a threshhold where frightened politicians and corporate energy bosses panic and do something stupid.

      I think Rossi is a very, very clever man, and we may only come to appreciate how clever he has been when the full story has unrolled.

      • timycelyn

        Peter, we seem to have a moderated day today – my OP was stuck there for a short while as well.

        You make a very good point and I too have wondered about whether some of this is an act by Rossi, for the reasons you give. Certainly it is achieving a steady unveiling of the technology, with the amount of frightening of the horses minimised, or at least postponed.

        On that though, I feel it is postponed only. I suppose it is better to try and delay adverse reactions as much as possible, on the basis that the more positive momentum is quietly developed before the balloon goes up, the better.

        Back to Rossi’s performance. I’m sure a lot of it is real, the ‘mad inventor’ thing is not just an act. I think what he may be doing is playing up, at strategic moments, his own natural tendencies.

        Looking back at this in a few years time, it will be fascinating to see how the release of information in this period was managed by him…

        • Peter_Roe

          Tim, as you say, the seemingly purposeful progressive disclosure that Rossi seems to be engaged in, could only ever delay opposition rather than eliminate it. But as well as simple delay, by spreading out the process he also avoids providing a specific ‘trigger point’ for opposition. The continuing residual doubts mean that those who stand to lose are never quite sure whether there really is a threat, and so do not connect with others to design a coordinated response. Hopefully the resulting piecemeal reaction will lack the coherence it would need to be effective, or will simply come too late to stop what may be something of a juggernaut by then.

          As you will know though, I take a rather pessimistic view of the chances of LENR ‘escaping into the wild’ and I think that sooner or later a coordinated plan to capture and control the technology will be put in place, and will succeed, at least in the short to middle term (10-20 years). I think Rossi has probably already decided that this is inevitable, and is now focusing almost exclusively on the ‘hot cat’ variant, as being the closest match to the needs of the corporate energy sector, and so the most likely path to getting at least one form of LENR ‘out there’.

          • timycelyn

            Peter, I like your ‘trigger point’ analysis.

            Even though some of the PTB have very large vested interests in slowing, or even stopping this development, they are also quite risk-averse. As such, stamping on Rossi in some way is fundamentally ‘risky’, so all the time it seems he is a bit cranky, people are talking about scams etc., the ‘do nothing’ temptation for TPTB is great, and they probably won’t get around to forming any sort of united front as you say.

            The question that this begs, though, is what will be the trigger point? Good third party validation this nov? The first user of an industrial unit going ‘It’s great, come and look at it’? At some point, maybe closer than we realise, one stone too many will move and the avalanche will start.

            Regarding your points about buttoning up and monopolisation of the technology by TPTB, well, maybe. A few points on that:

            1. As you note, even if it happens it will not be viable on much longer than mid-term timescales. As we have discussed in the past, developing world countries (especially India and China) will not play along, and in the long term this will force a change to a more liberal approach here as well.

            2. So much hangs by the developing understanding on this technology/effect. At present, there is no agreement yet on what is going on, with many rival models. We have anomalous heat effects reported in a range of metals in a range of formats and environments. If this turns out to be a multi-faceted technology with some facets at least executable by a guy with a a good workshop, then it will become very very difficult to keep the lid on it. Think of the ongoing battles over music file sharing – as fast as one legal obstacle is errected, the sharing community moves to the next variant of the technology.

            3. Thinking a little more about the UK, we have always reflected on the fact that HMG will HAVE to get control of this, if for no other reason than the lost taxation revenues.

            I would suggest that this is not, in fact, an absolute. If it is fairly easy to do then yes, of course, it’s the natural way they think. However, if, by the time they wake up, it’s at a point (see point 2 above) where it will get very messy to try and rein it in and control it, the better strategy would have to be:
            i) Announce that due to the changing nature of energy supply, it’s becoming harder to raise duties reliably, and therefore heating fuel (later, eventually, maybe elec as well) will have no/reduced duty. (This is the sugar on the pill. There would, in fact, be little given away at this point.)
            ii) However, the money has to be made up elsewhere, so VAT will rise to 25%; Income tax to….whatever.



          • Peter_Roe

            You make some good points Tim. I guess all that can be said at the moment is that the whole thing rather hangs in the balance. Many of our various scenarios may in fact play out at various times and places, as the balance of controlling factors change, or a completely new and unpredicted world order could emerge. As many have said, including yourself I think – exciting times to live in!

        • Peter_Roe

          Also, if he is unable to get patent protection, as seems entirely possible, selling a relatively smaller number of sealed units to large corporate players is probably the nearest he could get to protecting his IP (as opposed to scattering millions of small units around, many of which would inevitably be reverse engineered).

  • Gérard2012

    The critical point

    I totally agree with your text, Andrea Rossi has reached the critical point of failure. In the coming days. It must be the recognition of the world by the most popular media, television, newspapers etc.. It must also publish the same time in a credible scientific journal. I do not think it will take years for this recognition, as the first flights of aircraft …
    Whatever happens now, he no longer has control of subsequent events. He did his job with great fortitude and conviction, he has one foot in the history of mankind as others. It will still surprise us, it must continue to uncover its secrets, enough to make it credible and looking beyond recognition.
    As one person said, “humanity has a new fire,” I add that the fire has never belonged to someone, that since prehistoric man. We are now entering a new flame war.
    I applaud Mr. Rossi

    In french

    Le point critique

    Je suis totalement en accord avec votre texte, Andréa Rossi a franchi le point critique de l’échec. Dans les jours qui arrivent. Il doit avoir la reconnaissance du monde, par les medias les plus connus, télévisions, journaux etc. Il lui faut également dans le même temps publier dans une revue scientifique crédible. Je pense pas qu’il faudra des années pour cette reconnaissance, comme pour les premiers vols d’avions…
    Quoiqu’il arrive maintenant, il n’a plus le contrôle pour la suite des évènements. Il a fait son job avec une très grande force d’âme et de conviction, il a mis un pied dans l’histoire des hommes comme d’autres. Il va encore nous nous surprendre, il doit continuer a dévoiler ses secrets, suffisamment pour se rendre crédible et passer le cap de la reconnaissance.
    Comme une personne l’a dit “l’humanité a un nouveau feu”, je rajoute que le feu n’a jamais appartenu a quelqu’un, cela depuis les hommes préhistoriques. Nous entrons maintenant dans une nouvelle guerre du feu.
    Je vous applaudi Monsieur Rossi

    • daniel maris

      I too agree – I said at the end of last year the critical point would be around this time of year. If it’s real, the reality should be shining through about now for all sorts of reasons. It seems we have some rays of light coming through…will they now build into a bright shaft of light as a new technology is born? I’ve no idea but I am “optimistically expectant”.

  • What if
    • telecommuter

      You cannot have third party validation by using data that Rossi created himself.

      • Warthog

        Nobody said Rossi was providing their data. Rossi said PARALLEL MEASUREMENTS were made by both parties at the same/similar times, and that the results of the two sets were mutually consistent.

        • Omega Z

          Maybe I got it wrong, but I thought he indicated separate tests on a similar Hot Cat in parallel to Rossi’s tests. Not on Rossi’s premises.

  • morse

    When will we see the 3th party test results? University Bologna etc…???

    • Luca Salvarani

      To morse

      Apparently in november! And their report are based on the same experiment Rossi presented at Pordenone so you can compare the results!

  • Ivan Mohorovicic

    By the way, it looks like the guys from MFMP received the special wires from Celani:

  • Tony76

    “Given the reality of the current market-based capitalist system that exists in varying degrees in most parts of the world, a traditional business approach makes sense if the goal is to spread this technology far and wide as fast as possible.”

    Then how come a single hacker gave away work produced from his bedroom, seeding a trillion dollar industry that controls most of the worlds information technology (excepting MS Office fixated desktop computing)? Of course I speak about Linux Torvalds and Linux.

    This talk about “traditional business approach” and “the current system being best” are mere assertions without foundation.

    Even if Rossi delivers a prototype, his production plans will take decades to supply the world.

    Were the catalyst secret to be revealed, anyone with basic scientific education would start to try to develop it.

    Take just one single group: the MFMP. They have plans to supply the world with a kit to replicate the LENR effect. Were they to receive the catalyst, then anyone could receive the knowledge and seed hardware to start producing in their country. This would lead to the whole world producing instead of just Leonardo Corp.

    • jacob

      Thanks Frank, you are reflecting my view of LENR at this point.
      I have high regards for Mr. Rossi,he has known before hand what he was up against,as far as opposition to his achievments and results,everything he has said and done has been subject to faultfinding and ridicule.
      But right from the start I knew Mr. Rossi had a solid solution to our words energy supply,there is no doubt in my mind that this is the case,third party testing and all I don’t really care,

      But one can not change human nature,but accept it as it is.

  • daniel maris

    I was waiting on your reflections Frank and I am pleased to know my reflections reflect yours! 🙂 – especially as you obviously know a bit more about what’s going on, in the sense that you have had more direct contact with some of the people in this real life drama.

    I too tend to think that it is better to go down a traditional commercial route, but for Rossi to have a major influence over what is done with the proceeds. I think he might have some interesting ideas on investment e.g. how about water vapour capture from the atmosphere to solve the world’s water shortage problems (and thus avoid a lot of human misery and conflict).

    HOwever, as you say, the champagne must stay on ice for a while longer. We need independent testing confirmation and then we need some real world evidence.

    • Regarding which route would have been best; I don’t know, but I know that Rossi has thus far proceeded with lightning speed, compared to any new tech development. I’m doubtful that some other scheme could have been even faster. But of course what worked well up to now is not self-evidently the best strategy in the future.

  • 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 yourselves, 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 if 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 this is needed as the patent office do not accept the reality of LENR.
    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…..

  • Robert Mockan

    Just a couple points to add.

    Capitalism is great. Now let us have competition from open sourcing, and let the best system win. Like it or not, the catalyst secret will get out, and peoples will be building their own reactors. With a market of billions of people, investors in Rossi products will get their desired returns even with piles of LENR catalyst on street corners. Many will always prefer to buy finished product. They will follow, rather than lead. They will do as they are told. Nothing wrong with that, and that may be what they want.

    As for Rossi?

    “Do you think I’ve gone round the bend?”
    “I’m afraid so. You’re mad, bonkers, completely off your head. But I’ll tell you a secret. All the best people are.”
    ― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

    • Tony76

      (my previous comment awaiting moderation, I’ll try again)

      Agreed Robert Mockan.

      Recall how a single hacker ** gave away ** work produced from his bedroom, seeding a trillion dollar industry that controls most of the worlds information technology (excepting MS Office fixated desktop computing)? Of course I speak about Linux Torvalds and Linux.

      Even if Rossi delivers a prototype, his production plans will take decades to supply the world.

      Were the catalyst secret to be revealed, everyone with basic scientific education and a conscience would start to try to develop it.

      Consider the MFMP. They have plans to supply the world with a kit to replicate the LENR effect. Were they to receive the catalyst, then anyone could receive the knowledge and seed hardware to start producing in their country. This would lead to the whole world producing instead of just Leonardo Corp.

      • Robert Mockan

        The whole Wide World Web has become so ubiquitous many people do not realize the information resources of web pages, blogger sites, You Tube, and other, are all open source, as are all the social media. I suppose it is to be expected they also think capitalism must be protected.

        • GreenWin

          Robert, “Facebook” the most widely used application in social media is ringed by patents and trademarks. It is only these IP protections that allowed their IPO to raise some $5 BILLION in cash literally overnight.

          LENR will spark a 10kW home appliance able to co-generate heat and electric. The growth will follow that of refrigeration. Many appliance makers, fast adoption. Benefits to all.

          • Robert Mockan

            Facebook is an excellent example of the exception to open source social media. Good rebuttal. I suppose there are probably many other exceptions, but, in general, there is a lot of open sourcing in the Wide World Web, and capitalism appears to have survived. My point is they can be complementary approaches to enabling progress in developing applications and distributing the technology.

    • wizer13

      Hehe, indeed

      As many these days would find capitalism counter-intuitive (as with the recent distrust of banksters) capitalism and free market have drive innovation through competition, and have helped many people get out of poverty. Okay, there have been many downsides, but there isn’t a perfect monetary system. Communism was at the very base an idea for an ideal society, but as Russia demonstrated, it crashed down.

      And Robert, I agree with you on that point : the idea will spread pretty fast once it’s on the market, but much more faster than going free open source. Going free open will only kill the project. Rossi is no idiot, just careful, and I think he knows much more than us how capitalism works.


      • Robert Mockan

        Competition to develop ones gifts and enable one to excel, should not be confused with gladiators fighting in an arena to the death.

        Rossi would do well to revisit his business model, if his goal is to raise the standard of living for all people. The “free market” can encompass much more.

  • G_Zingh

    Meanwhile the Rossi train keeps rolling up the mountain. Next Monday they start the safety certification process for the Hot Cat to prepare for production.

    Andrea Rossi
    October 13th, 2012 at 1:27 PM
    Dear Drew:
    The Report has been made very fast and skipping many passages, like for example elevation to the 4th of the room T, calculation of “epsilon”, errors of instruments etc. Therefore, to save time and be conservative, we cut the 30%. This was an internal test, our interest was to go to the essentials. Actually, I know that making an exact calculation of all the data the COP is higher, but let’s play it down. By the way: next Monday we will start the safety certification of the Hot Cat to prepare its industrial production.
    Warm Regards,

    • John

      Why would Rossi start safety certification when the hot cat is still in development? Seems like a waste of money to me, or a diversionary tactic.

      • Garry

        Having started many technologies being funded by VCs, sometimes they like to see the process through to conclusion to “burn” the pipeline and discover pain points. While at one level running an alpha project through to conclusion can be a touch wasteful of money, at another it’s can be useful so that the follow on beta technology or release to manufacture has a clear set of approval approaches.

        Of course, one has to balance to ACTUAL $$ cost versus the downside cost of the pain points you are trying to discover.

    • Omega Z


      Thanks for the Confirmation on Certification starting Monday.

      I posted a couple threads ago I thought I caught that on 22 passi but wasn’t sure. Google trans has it’s short comings.

  • telecommuter

    So, you’ve decided to forget about the claims of the 1MW unit and just move on to the hot cat?
    The 1MW unit is supposed to be for sale. Has anyone bought one? If the thing is so great, wouldn’t there be some info from some of the buyers?

    Seems like pure smoke and mirrors along with ‘don’t look over there, look here’. ‘Here’ keeps changing.

    • Kim G. Patterson

      I have complete confidence in Rossi,

      yet I to am wondering where are all of the

      endorsements of his 1 megawatt unit???


      • Max S

        let me guess ? there is no real customer yet.

        • Kim G. Patterson

          It appears this way.

          • Captain

            Admin, did U read/understand all videos online about Rossi’s Pordenone meeting?

            Did U understand well actual Rossi’s situation in respect to USPTO and consequent release of proper patents/brevets to protect his IP?

            Did U how many requests Rossi has actually for his 1MW ‘low temp’ thermal plant?

            Do U know how many of said requests Rossi is willing to satisfy? and why?

            Do U know what kind of safety measures/precautions Rossi has taken for that low temp plant?

            Do U know that Rossi in asking for US patents/brevets and certifications has choosen the hardest way for his products?

            Do U know Rossi’s intentions on eventually new investors in his corp?


            Who really understands Rossi, he has only to admire him for his job, generally speaking, and how cautiously but safely he’s proceeding on his way.

    • clovis

      Hi, Everyone.
      Frank, I agree, with you. And for those that keep saying that Mr. rossi
      is crazy, i say LIKE A FOX,– smile.
      Every since the beginning of the age of machines people have been trying to build a pmm (perpetual,motion machine). now like then people wanted it NOW.
      But as we here know that is (all) most impossible.
      So it’s either you have it or you don’t,
      Everyone sit’s around saying this is impossible, and hoping that it’s true, but not lifting a finger to help make it so.
      It’s so easy to just say he’s crazy, but if it is true then you don’t have to do anything , right. just wait and captlize on someones else’s hard work.
      I have been keeping a close eye on Dr. rossi’s progress and his actions,
      I have not seen anything alarming, everyone makes mistakes, hell he’s not perfect, but he knows who is, and he said that his hand was being guided.

  • ivan_cev

    I actually see a inconsistency in the proposed operation of the ecat.
    and I base this in:
    1.- Heat travel from hot to cold, or from high entropy to low entropy.
    2.- A COP of 11, under this condition the energy in the reaction is 10 times the energy in the input, so the reaction is much hotter than the heat created by the input.
    3. As a consequence of the direction of the flux of heat once the reaction as started it can not be controlled by a lower heat (input) as its flux will never reach the reactor.
    4. Once the reaction has started it has to run until exhaust the fuel, a control could exist but the control has to be independent of heat.
    (this is not an over unity device, is a device that ignite a diff kind of fuel. in that sense no diff of igniting wood or any other fuel, otherwise you will have to call your car an over unity device as uses a bit or energy from the battery to start the reactions, is not over-unity because the energy came from the fuel)
    5. As a consequence input power should be needed only to start the reaction to a high transitory COP (the conclusion will be different if the cop is low 1.2 or so like celani, but in this case the COP is huge).
    6. The last report shows average temp at 1050 c. This will not be possible if control of the device is done by heat. as the temp at the start of every cycle has to lower enough for the input heat to flow toward the reactor (direction of flow the input. input heat is 10 times less than the average output energy) so to get this average the peak temp will have to be to close to the melting point of nickel (average takes lowest. highest and the rest of values and gives a representative number according to the number of samples)

    My point is that there is not possible under the conditions to control the device by input power, so input power should not be needed except to start the reaction. and the control should be done using some other parameter.
    But Rossi insist input power is needed. so in my view the device presented does not behave logically.

    Please no emotional replies. use logic and physic principles to refute.

    • Chris

      “use logic and physic principles to refute” Yeah:

      As for 1 and 2, just try to get your thermodynamics straight.

      After that, you are making assumptions about the thing which have no base and I suspect are wrong. Unless it is due to your confusing heat and temperature.

      5 actually is something I had thought in the past, until I reckoned that likely the self sustained mode consists in bringing it near a threshold but not too close, so as to avoid runaway, after which it would decay slowly enough until the input energy is again needed to reiterate. This is fully consistent with his talk about COP vs. stability and recent statements have supported it.

      • Ivan_Cev

        Heat is not equal to temperature, but they have a relationship, same heat in a small volume will produce more temp than heat in a large volume. in this case the volume is constant. Heat is the source of the energy, temp is the consequence of applying the heat to a mass in certain volume, under some condition you use temp to measure heat like in Roosi report.

        • Chris

          Not quite. Calorimetry isn’t nearly as simple as that. Besides, you had it backwards about entropy too. Mostly, you are neglecting that the thermal output is not just heating the device. Halt the flow and of course the thermal output would overheat the thing if it can’t be halted. According to the latest clarifications on Passerini’s blog, each single unit has a reserve of water to guarantee (I hope!) cooling for a shutdown.

  • Jim

    Troll crossing ahead.

    • Peter_Roe

      Now things seem to be moving we can expect quite a few more like ‘telecommuter’ I imagine, sounding like like worn-out records as they desperately try to head off the inevitable.

      • Rossi rolling, commuter trolling

        • Danny

          I cannot argue about the general approach to taking this technology forwards. We do not get everything we want in life. I find it hard to believe that an Open Source approach will be able to deliver this at pace – and frankly, I’d like to see this technology available tomorrow.

          Every year it’s the same old story for modern fuels. The winter comes – wholesale prices go up – energy companies immediately pass the costs on to the end users (in spite of the fact that what they’re pumping could have been bought at a cheaper price earlier in the year) – then when the wholesale price comes down, they hang back as along as possible before passing the reduction on to end users. John Humphrys on BBC Radio4’s Today program took the CEO of British Gas to task about this. The CEO could do nothing but waffle about the benefits they bring to promoting energy efficiency. It was a pathetic attempt to stall an argument where Humphrys pointed out that the difference between wholesale and end user costs had more than doubled in recent years.

          Everyone should be afforded heat & energy – without the fear of crippling costs and profit mongering . We’re not in the dark ages now.

          So – as to Mr Rossi. I don’t know whether he’s got something to deliver. I know little about the science. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone would dedicate them selves so publicly for so long with a view to deliberate deceit. I just don’t get the impression that he’s a fraudster. I’m inclined to think that he’s a genuine example of that rare thing – a genius prepared to change the face of the planet.

          With luck, this story will unfold and pick up in the mainstream news. Once 3rd party validation has come in – I guess we’ll all be looking to see if it’s the spark that lights this up.

          I’ll be the first one to switch off my gas when it happens.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            “Every year it’s the same old story for modern fuels. The winter comes – wholesale prices go up – energy companies immediately pass the costs on to the end users (in spite of the fact that what they’re pumping could have been bought at a cheaper price earlier in the year)”

            Everyone is free to buy futures and profit, if it’s such a sure thing. If enough futures are bought, it will result in a lower winter fuel price. It takes guts to invest, but no guts required to complain.

      • telecommuter

        Brilliant response!

        How about 1MW ecats? Were there any bought and delivered?

        Kinda simple question. Hard to equate to a ‘troll’ posting.

        • Peter_Roe

          It is a troll posting because you know that no-one here has any more information than Rossi has chosen to give out. Your purpose then is simply to try to introduce doubt, knowing that your inference can’t be conclusively refuted.

          Getting a bit bored with going round and round in circles on ECN then?

  • GreenWin

    The simultaneous discovery of the powers in human consciousness suggest this evolution in terrestrial energy has already entered “open source.” That is, we have been told that leaps in evolution are essentially forbidden without a catalyst. The catalyst here is perceived as a stubbornly independent altruist named Rossi. Who is driven as much by a desire to prove “authority” wrong as by idealistic goals. This is a curious composite of souls – tenacious, stubborn, emotive, remarkably clairvoyant.

    Rossi’s (to be confirmed) triumph then is that of the many. Not the individual disconnected from others. He has learned to leverage the wisdom of communal consciousness (much of it represented here) to advance this technology far faster and braver than could ever be done alone. As Da Vinci, Tesla, Edison, Fermi, Picasso, Churchill, etc. before, these are irascible people. Not congenial political glad-handers out to make a name. So we have gotten the “Rossi-circus” along the way. Fine with me. I greatly admire Rossi’s countryman Federico Fellini, who spent a lifetime making films about the natural circus of life. The two men are passionate artist/inventors, difficult, entertaining, and much the same.

    • Ivan_cev

      Greenwin, You are so wrong here, Rossy is not altruist, he is doing it for the dollar!
      Get some ice and cool down a bit.

    • GreenWin

      Ivan, you err first by not comprehending my comment. Rossi’s success is the result of collective conscience channeled through an individual vessel. Thus his motives are those of the collective. The meaning of altruism: 1. Loving others as oneself. 2. Behaviour that promotes the survival chances of others at a cost to ones own. 3. Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others [Italian: altrui others]

      If you doubt that Rossi and fellow LENR pioneers have pursued this vision at great personal and professional risk – you are overwrought. Consumer electronics, the internet, personal/business computers, software have all benefited modern life – and been brought to market for “the dollar!” Are we to consider the work of poets, artists, musicians, authors all “for the dollar!” without thought to sharing their spiritual or aesthetic insights?

      And when a great fortune is garnered and directed to the welfare of the sick and suffering as with thousands of private foundations, are we to denigrate those acts as profit based or shams?

      Fortunately, the new age of abundance will wash away such cynicism. It is old fashioned; a dying instinct to deny, delay and defend.

  • Garry

    Would be fun to start a betting pool as to when this will all “go viral”. My bet is after the US election… sometime in December. I think Rossi will have let enough real info out with 3rd party validations that the buzz will reach fever pitch.

    Need to get a big time celebrity to “tweet” it. 🙂

    • Tim

      Yes Tom Selleck

      And the company that will bring it to you AT&T


  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Good article Frank, I agree. I asked Rossi if the current third party testing has anything to do with his patent applications. He said “Yes”. So, maybe the third party test report will have a dual purpose?

    • Chris

      Interesting! I would only hope it makes his recipe fully public.

  • Filip47

    Without you Mr. Acland, I wouldn’t even have heard of the Ecat. Or at least not in a way that I would even have concidered taking it serious.
    Thanks for that! I think you have a ‘pretty’ important role in the whole story, making people sensible for LENR-technology. Scientists included.

  • Chris

    If his secret were let out, he’s the only one who it would be a disadvantage for. Motivation to improve on it would not be lacking at all.

    There are and have been so many things people have sought to improve without it being their own IP protected by law or secrecy. These motivate people to find what isn’t already known, by giving them a privilege. The idea on which patents were introduced is a compromise between opposite effects and the idea of them is to replace secrecy with law. When whichever of these ceases, it isn’t a loss for all; it gives others grater reason to make improvements and further inventive steps.

    Competition is a good thing and, when it isn’t restricted or manipulated, it contributes to giving customers a choice of better products with better benefit to cost ratio. Competition is what brings on improvements, even when they aren’t something one could patent.

    Fluffy idealism is not at all necessary in order to believe that it would be an overall gain. In fact, a full understanding of how the market works suggests it. As soon as everybody believes the ecat is real, Rossi will be in for a lot more competition and this will incentivate him to improve as well. If somebody swiped his secrets it would bring this on quicker and better, it clearly would go only against his own interest.

    If instead he was granted international patent protection, it would make less difference but it would still be an advantage for details to be public. He could negotiate agreements with people who find improvements and some of these could be further inventive steps, thus patentable.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      “If his secret were let out, he’s the only one who it would be a disadvantage for. Motivation to improve on it would not be lacking at all.”

      That’s not true. The profit motive is what makes things happen. For instance, there are dozens of very useful drugs whose patents have expired. These cheap, very efficacious drugs are frequently ignored because there’s no profit motive in educating doctors and the public about them. A good example is metformin, a drug that was banned in the US for 30 years because it was not invented here. Tens of thousands of premature deaths occurred because of this.

      Almost no innovation occurs in a communist state marketplace. How many new products have been introduced in N Korea and Cuba?

      • Chris

        Your first two sentences only look like you did not get the rest of my post before addressing the cherry picked quote. This is tiring in a debate. The rest is simply out of place.

  • After all the years of long days and nights, immensely hard work and constant effort, why should Rossi give his invention away? Just like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, he deserves the fruits of his labor. You are very right on this topic, Frank – thanks! And let’s not forget Igr Rossi is one of many hard-working scientists who have achieved lesser degrees of success with the technology and are offering at as Open Source. I believe the IIS Pirelli high school Athanor device is one of those, as I think is the Peter Hagelstein/Mitchell Swartz/JET Energy device at MIT. I remind all that Prof. George Miley has a cold fusion patent on file, so anyine who wants to know how it works need only read that. This technology will not be denied to the world like so so many of its predecessors’!

  • buffalo

    alas,the light at the faaaar end of the tunnel flickers brighter.and i cn tell u that i have seen some truly astounding phenomena associated with nickel-H2 systems in my own lab,at room temperature,which keep my mind very open to these high temperature rossian claims.

    • clovis

      Hi, guy.
      Rossian, huh, i like it. it’s just more fun.i love being semi involved in new discoverys.
      you get to think up new words for things. like the new fire,
      I would like to hear more, maybe we should see how many new words we can come up with for this new tech, ,, anyone.

  • h_corey

    Don’t know if this was discussed.
    The PopSci article is out in the November edition.

    • Peter_Roe

      Any details please?

  • Tangled Connections

    For me it’s now a given that the Rossi technology in all the forms we’ve seen is real and about to be rolled out (probably slowly) for a number of industrial applications. This is great news for the environment and hopefully the world economy and I feel lucky to watch it unfold. What saddens and worries me slightly is that with every step closer we get to industrial units we seem to end up a step further away from a home unit. And when I say a home unit i mean the one I (and most people) instantly started to imagine as soon as i heard about the e-cat. The one that produces heat and electricity, self running, infinite COP.
    This was going to be the real disruptive technology with the potential to change power dynamics across the world. Now this goal seems lower on the agenda than ever in terms of RnD.
    There is the engineering challenge, high temperature steam might never make it into a home unit for the obvious safety issues, so a solid state version would be the only option and the technology is young and the efficiencies low but with the high COP’s possible with the Hot Cat it is a problem that will be solved.
    The real barrier will be the power companies. They will be happy to retrofit their generators with hot cats, charge us for the work and somehow justify keeping power bills at their already ridiculous levels. But they’re not so naive to allow the same technology in the shape of a self running home unit, take everyone of their newly upgraded, ever so expensive grid. They will resist this using everything at their disposal.
    I think the only hope against this scenario is Rossi himself. His endless creative guile may yet be the greatest defence against these ‘vested interests’. Let’s hope so! Still I wonder, If we are three to five years away from seeing a home heater only e-cat, how far are we from the dream of an off-grid unit?

    • The answer is simple: 10 Hot Cats bring in $15 million, while 10 E-Cats for the home bring in $10,000.

      • Voodoo

        Slightly Wrong,

        10 1MW e-cats = 1000 reactors = 10-13 mil. Euros

        equiv. 1000 home e-cats (1000 reactors) = 500 thousands, err 600 thousands, sorry 800 thousands, sorry 900 thousands, again sorry 1 mil., err 2,5 mil. (for Australia distributor) dollars.

        Still big difference for prioritizing B2B way.

    • Omega Z


      The home E-cat originally caught my attention, But as I learned more about it I determined it would be quite sometime before they become economical for home use. For many they may be beneficial as an Add on heating system. The End.

      Reasons. Heat to Electric is not Cheap even if the E-cat was free. Throw in maintenance costs like major rebuilds every 5 or so years & Oh well. There is an array of extras that just cost to much at this time. You also have the problem of peek demand. Either you use many E-cats or have a large battery system.

      The Hot Cat can be a major benefit because on scale it can be very cost effective deployed in a Local Grid arrangement. Municipal or neighborhood arrangements. Not all savings will be passed on to the Consumer. Profits will exceed the normal 8% to 12%. REASON: Someone has to pay for the dismantling of the OLD. THAT Be The People. No matter how you slice & dice it. We will pay for this. Subsidies, Surtax, Direct tax or additional %profit for the Utilities.

      The Utilities Wont have the money to pay for this themselves for 1 simple reason. Most of their profits are paid in dividends & for Utilities that is mostly low risk pension funds. Your 401K’s Etc. Their Real Assets is their infrastructure. Go to the Bank & ask for a mortgage on your home to tear down your home. Basically the Utilities lose their assets. No Money.

      MAYBE, In time the E-cats or some competitor will evolve where Home Chip units will become cost Effective. TEC units with 30% or 40% efficiencies that can be produced cheap. Super Lithium Air batteries with long life low cost. I think these will be available within about 15 years. With the Advent of the E-cat or other LENR products I would expect a hugh acceleration in their development. The Profit motive works every time. The Lithium Air batteries should be to market within 2 years but necessary improvements & lower cost will take longer.

      • Tangled Connections

        Thanks for the considered response Omega Z. Hopefully the necessary technological developments might happen sooner rather than later. If the heat to electricity problem can be overcome then the battery issue would be less important as the unit would self cycle and produce excess power when needed… I think!

  • Robert Mockan

    Rossi may be using simple hydrogen gas pressure cycling between the nickel catalyst and a hydrogen storage compound to control his reactor energy generation in intermittent self sustain mode.

    Both substances have temperature dependent hydrogen absorption and desorption characteristics.

    He would use resistance heating to initially heat the reactor to the operating temperature, that would be the 5 kW input.

    Heating also causes the hydrogen storage compound to release hydrogen, and the chamber becomes pressurized with hydrogen. (Perhaps using a separate resistance heater to do this?).

    The hydrogen reacts in the nickel to release heat, and the nickel gets hotter. When the nickel is producing heat the resistance heating of the hydrogen storage compound is turned down or off, and it starts to absorb more hydrogen as it cools.
    The hot nickel then starts to lose hydrogen as it diffuses out.

    This lowers the pressure of hydrogen in the reactor and the nickel heat reaction slows down. Then the cycle begins again, thus the intermittent operation using electric power in.

    By operating under the LENR power curve it would be inherently safe (and that point is COP=6?) because when the electric power is turned off, the hydrogen storage compound no longer maintains the hydrogen pressure equilibrium cycle. The nickel gets hotter, the hydrogen diffuses out of it, and it continues to be absorbed into the hydrogen storage, and the reactor undergoes a controlled shutdown.

    Since it also stops working if too much heat is taken out, it can also shut down if it simply gets too cold to maintain the LENR reaction.

    If we had detailed temperature and electric power measurements, we might be able to see the cyclic variations in electric power in and thermal power out to prove this hypothesis.

    Any comments?

    • Warthog

      Not fast enough control. Otherwise they would use a simple pressure regulator/valve. Electric heating control is far faster and more effective, and the equipment far simpler and cheaper.

      I don’t see why people have so much difficulty understanding this, as it is simple heat balance. The system is set up with a total COOLING capacity applied (variable by water/coolant flow rate). The LENR reaction heat PLUS the resistance heat is balanced with the cooling capacity. If the system begins to heat up, the resistance heat is decreased while maintaining COOLING at the same rate. The overall result is a virtually immediate drop in the LENR’s temperature.

      This is the reason Rossi likes “boiling” systems, as the phase change from liquid to gas and vice versa RAPIDLY removes large quantities of heat AT CONSTANT TEMPERATURE.

      • Robert Mockan

        Kudos! I sometimes surprise myself at how complicated I can make simple concepts. My sincere thanks for your reply.

        Now,just one more thing. I do not have an answer for this, but maybe you do.

        Why the COP=6 emphasis by Rossi all this time if the control feedback can be as fast as your description suggests?

        • G_Zingh

          Read this recent post in Rossi’s blog where he talks about the control system for the Hot Cat and having to choose between two options. It is possible that a new control system is responsible for the higher COP.

          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,

          • Robert Mockan

            I can think of one way to optimize the reactor for higher average temperature, if they are operating near the thermal destruct limit. They would have to go to a proportional control circuit with a sensor that measures some condition that occurs just prior to a change in LENR energy generation.

            The cheap and dirty way they would have used previously would have been measure temperature change in the LENR catalyst, after the fact, and use a step function turning the compensating electric power on or off to maintain a desired temperature range from the reactor.

            I draw these conclusions because we know from other researchers the output of these LENR processes (whatever they may be) are seldom steady, and often have wide energy fluctuations,
            that manifest as changes in temperature. That kind of coarse feedback would not provide adequate control if the reactor is already operating near its destruct limit.

            So, what conditions in the LENR catalyst may occur before there is an actual energy fluctuation?

            Need some catalyst! Come on, Rossi, just sell little vials of it for $10 so we have something to work with!

        • Warthog

          VERY conservative design for a brand-new system. Which also says Rossi is a darned good engineer…..that’s what good engineers do. No company will bring a new product to market with it’s full potential performance “maxed out”. “Under promise and Over Deliver” is the recipe for technical success in engineering.

      • The problem with boiling water cooling is that then the coolant facing wall is always at 100 C. If the reactor core temperature is constant (as one probably wants it to be) then the heat flux is also constant i.e. there is no possibility of control. The problem becomes worse the hotter the core is: if the core is e.g. 900 C, to modify the heat flux (cooling rate) by only 25% needs a 200 C temperature change in the core ((900-100)*0.25). The reason is Fourier’s law in the wall material, heat flux is linearly proportional to temperature gradient.
        The beauty of radiative cooling that the HotCat is using is that the cooling energy flux is a strong function of temperature (T^4).

  • Regarding Ivan_’s earlier post… Input ‘power’ could be used to limit the reaction ‘if’ it is not just its heating that’s relevant. Consider a fluctuating/pulsing current that could shake/rattle/roll and stress/distort the Ni crystalline lattice and its absorbed H. An input current could also supply free electrons passing through the lattice. If the reaction relies upon either of these, the input power could be used to control the reaction rate. While I’m having difficulty finding the references at the moment, I believe Godes has stated his belief that the LENR demonstrated by others are the result of his “Controlled Electron Capture Reaction” theory. Godes uses high frequency current pulses (input power) to control his reactions.

    • Robert Mockan

      A good suggestion, except for one detail.

      Rossi did a demonstration of the E-Cat using gas heating of the E-Cat ( a few months ago).
      Electricity was still used to power the controls (a few watts) but there was no electric power into the reactor itself.

      This would seem to indicate the E-Cat does not use electric power to do anything exotic, just to heat the reactor.

      • Ivan_cev

        Yes, I have asked that question to Rossi myself.

      • Omega Z


        I suspect it’s a matter of cold spots developing(stability issues) & the additional heat returns the balance. Reactivating non-active points Hence the same effect using NG.

        I noticed according to the report that the Hot Cat was in SSM 2/3’s of the time verses past versions being 50%. May indicate Core design improvements providing better control.

  • H. Hansson

    Very encouraging, now we just wait for third party tests on separate locations.

  • Tony76

    @GreenWin who said:

    “The catalyst here is perceived as a stubbornly independent altruist named Rossi. Who is driven as much by a *** desire to prove “authority” wrong *** as by idealistic goals. ”

    This is a great insight and explains Rossi’s behaviour. Though I disagree with his approach, I now understand it and accept it.

  • Omega Z

    “and other minds will be fired by Rossi’s work”


    I would add:”and other minds HAVE BEEN fired by Rossi’s work”

    Many who were only halfheartedly working with LENR or hadn’t worked with it in a while because they had reached an impasse in Energy gains have been reinvigorated.

    The Athanor, Abundo’s- Hydrobetatron, Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, Celani’s Reactor. All these have been directly affected as have many others to numerous to list because of Rossi’s E-cat. I believe it’s had an Impact on Governments & Government Agencies. Universities around the World. Some of these may have never come about. Others would have lingered further down the road. At the very least, Rossi’s approach has had the effect to cause many of these Entities to take a wider view or approach to advancing the technology. Leading to bigger gains & additional knowledge.

    As Rossi has stood upon the Shoulders of P&F, So to do these entities. Rossi if nothing else has been an Inspiration to others.

    Note also that many of these Entities have been present at Rossi’s Demo & had direct contact with him. And Others directly affected by them.

  • Re: Open Source – there are many examples in the software world of open source and proprietary technologies existing successfully side-by-side. In addition, the open source technologies are quite lucrative for those who take the trouble to understand and support them. Apache, Linux, PHP, MYSQL come to mind, to name only a very few.

    Now there are open-source hardware technologies emerging, like the Arduino electronics systems, the various makerbots, quadcopters and fixed wing drones and the impressive number of Kickstarter-funded open source hardware projects.

    Considering the ongoing proliferation of LENR and related energy sources under development, some of which are already open-source, I believe that these technologies will develop along both proprietary and open source lines, with neither being any the worse for it.

    In my opinion, the underlying reasons for this are two fold – first, technology cannot be successful without know-how, and vice versa. Second, know-how is as marketable as technology, and even open-source technology is marketable to those who do not have the know-how to exploit open source products.

    Back to Rossi’s Report; I disagree with the idea that there are still questions regarding his math. Rossi’s only sins in this regard are very minor, in that he did not catch all the typos and his long equation is clumsily stated, but still correct arithmetically.

    There are at least two typos, one where he gives the results of his long equation as Wh when it should be kWh, but then he corrects it on the next line, and the other where he gives the total energy (after a 30% reduction) as 3.268 kWh when he clearly should have written 3,268, given that he had already explained his rules for the use of , vs . in numerics.

    Indeed his calculation of COP would be nonsense otherwise.

    So I think it is unfair to carp on about his math when it it is only his proofreading that needs work.

    • Hampus

      One old but good example of open source is Calsbergs, the founder of Calsbergs belived in the sharing if information so when he discovered the most efficient yest, he did not keep that to himself but shared it with the world, that way others could perfect it and we would help each other. Calsbergs is now one of the biggest breweries in the world and it all started with “open source”.

      The yest is called Saccharomyces carlsbergensis and is used in nearly every beer today.

      • Peter_Roe

        I did my final thesis on the genetics of S. carlsbergensis as suitable ‘feedstock’ was conveniently available from the brewery next door to the college. I wonder why I chose that subject?

        P.S. – As a ‘bottom fermenter’ it is only used in lager-type beers including ‘white beers’ (my personal favourite!).

  • Brad Arnold

    This site is called “e-catworld,” so that ought to tell you who is the real “father” of LENR in terms of commercialization. BTW, “commercialization” means profit, not giving it away to satisfy some people’s misguided sense of justice and morality. Let me remind people that the steam engine was around since B.C. (i.e. power generated by heating water to a vapor), but the technology wasn’t harnessed and spread wide because people were slaves who didn’t have the option of working for themselves for profit. A true evil is enslaving people for the “public good.” Profit or money is not distasteful unless you are a moocher.

    • Stanny Demesmaker

      That’s why 1/3 of all corperate profit comes from the financial sector. Which produces nothing besides “profit” and the impoverishment of the general people. And the 1% is richer then ever. I don’t believe this system will go much further.

      But Rossi is right, his way is the only way to let this technology avance enough before it can beopen sourced and we finally can leave the dark ages which we are trapped in for to long.

      • Peter_Roe

        Agreed absolutely. The dismantling of the corrupt financial structures that currently control the world would do more for humanity than almost any technological development.

        • telecommuter

          My perception is there are many greedy, overly egotistical people in the financial industry.
          At the same time, without the financial industry, not much else runs.

  • Francesco CH

    Here Daniele Passerini with the Hot Cat prototype in his hands:

    • Francesco CH

      Look at the pictures!!! Look at the pictures!!! Look at the pictures:

      Thanks to 22Passi

      • Peter_Roe

        Sorry Francesco – it’s a black cylinder with end caps and four terminals. I recognise Passerini, Proia, Rossi and Stremmenos. Am I missing something of significance?

    • georgehants

      All this fuss over that.
      If you found it in the road you would think it has just fell off the silencer of some old car and kick it to the gutter.
      It’s not the clothes you wear but what’s inside that counts.

    • Filip47

      It’s art!

    • Peter_Roe

      When you see the thing it becomes apparent how thinly spread the 20g ‘charge’ must be. I suppose much of the mass must be to allow even heat diffusion and avoid small fluctuations, but for me it also seems to argue against the thermal control idea (more thermal mass = less precision of heat control). 2.4kW of electrical heating could be squeezed into a much smaller volume, as for instance immersion heater elements, so the extra mass must serve another purpose.

      There seem to be a couple of options for placement of the charge (including hydride);- a thin tube at the centre of the assembly, or a small annulus between two tubes (perhaps the visible outer tube and another just inside). The former would be easier to construct and would allow retention of heat by the core, the latter would be more consistent with the preceding design but might be subject to uneven heat distribution. I suppose a ring of thin tubes embedded in the heater’s ceramic carrier, each containing say 2-4g might also be an option, or the twin-walled core visible in the first unit may simply have been retained behind the end caps.

      • timycelyn

        Peter, I’m having a senior moment!

        I’m pretty sure I’ve read that it is an annulus, if I remember correctly this came out in some of the description round about the time that leaked picture taken by ‘Cures’ of the hot cat appeared.

        But where……I cannot remember. Sigh….

        ps replied in our other conversation, but am ‘in moderation’.

        • Peter_Roe

          Tim, you may be thinking of the discussion (actually mostly me sounding off) that took place on this blog in August/September after Hammerskoj (who sadly doesn’t seem to post here any more) spotted a thin line visible at the end of the inner tube in the photos. All speculation of course – I don’t think there was ever any confirmation, at least not here.

          • timycelyn

            Mmmm…. I’m sure I saw it somewhere else. 22 passi or somewhere…..

            That’s the trouble with following this too closely on too many sites.

            Ah well…

          • Peter_Roe

            Interesting. If you come across it again, maybe you could post the link?

        • Peter_Roe

          Tim – my reply moderated as well. I’ve no idea why. Hopefully it will emerge in due course.

  • Francesco CH
  • georgehants

    Wonderful day.

  • Francesco CH

    From left to right, Daniele Passerini, Aldo Proia, Andrea Rossi (Christos Stremmenos is on far right – look at his unmistakable white beard):

    (Courtesy of 22passi)

    • Nice photo, Proia looks scared 🙂

      • Peter_Roe

        Maybe it’s Rossi’s hand being so close to his throat.

      • Voodoo

        Proia probably realized that Mr. Inventor want another 2 months delay.

    • Peter_Roe

      4 separate terminals on the device indicate an internal configuration that differs from the first version, despite the similarity of the overall dimensions.

    • clovis

      great picture, Francesco

  • georgehants

    Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago, Reveals Quietly Released Met Office Report.
    Global temperature changes
    The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
    The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
    This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

    • georgehants

      Now if some keen scientist where to put up an equal graph showing the CO.2 atmospheric content for the last 20/30 years I think we would all have a good idea of Global Warming based on Evidence and not opinion.

      • Peter_Roe

        Unfortunately ‘AGW’ has taken on a life of its own and contains as much vestment as any other fixed paradigm that provides power, prestige or money to its proponents. Politicians in particular have known for years that this is a straw man, but it is far too useful to even think about giving it up. It will continue rolling for a few more years I think, before the complete lack of underpinning facts finally leaks into the general consciousness.

        • GreenWin

          Wait… AGW is not real??

          • Peter_Roe

            Apparently it’s as real as you want it to be!

          • MikeP


            **Mankind does impact the environment, just not in the way AGW states. The world did warm from 1850-2008, but dominantly not due to AGW.

    • Max S
      • georgehants

        Max S, why do you ask me to explain.
        I have simply put up a link and commented that I would like to see a similar graph for CO2.
        If you wish to explain, please go ahead.

      • N810

        Well on the other hand the Anartic ice sheet has been steadily growing…

      • Peter_Roe

        This ‘arctic ice thickness’ thing seems to be about the only argument left to global warming believers. The Northern ice has been thicker in earlier times – and it has been thinner. The sources you cite are all part of the controlled press – so what else would you expect from them. A couple of links in exchange:

        Probably a waste of time supplying them though. This seems to be an issue that is more influenced by propaganda than by fact. I will not take this discussion further, as it is a topic that is actively discouraged by Admin.

        • Max S

          If you do guys don´t want to discuss it then why do you post and comment on such “off topics” ?
          Just allow me the remark that outside the US global warming is considered by the vast majority of experts involved in climate research as a fact which is backup by substantial evidence. And because of this alternative energies such as solar (and LENR in future) are seen as CO2 free viable alternative. The big oil lobbyists will of course deny global warming and spread counter arguments so they can continue with business as usual. Cui Bono. Ever thought about this ?
          But I agree the discussion won´t be resolved here, so let´s stop this and focus on other things.

          • GreenWin

            the vast majority of experts involved in climate research as a fact which is backup by substantial evidence…

            Just the evidence used to prove unicorns and tooth fairies.

      • This site is rapidly becoming georgehants private soap box.

        • georgehants

          Hello zedshort have you been banned from ECN.
          You could always dazzle us with your answers to my comments.
          I don’t think I have ever seen you put together more than a one sentence attack.
          Takes all types.

          • No, I have not been banned. Why would you think that? I don’t intend to dazzle, just to put things into perspective. And I don’t attack people; the very worst I do is to provide them with a mirror.

          • georgehants

            Zedshort, I strongly suggest you start by turning the Mirror on yourself before others.
            Perhaps you can advise me when you put something “into perspective” and I will rush over for that unique happening.
            Thank you.

      • Gosh, I wonder how much energy it takes to transform that much ice at zero celsius to water at zero celsius and if that could explain a plateau in the earth’s temperature?

    • georgehants

      I always like Facts and Evidence —-
      Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

  • georgehants

    There are a few comments on economics on page.
    Can I make the point again —-
    The only factor showing the success of any system is the length of the working week and the length of the working life. (total man hours worked)
    As productivity rises, that must be turned into more free time for people or we are being hoodwinked.
    Only basing everything on productivity of necessary and reasonably desired things and removing everything else such as finance and profit will the World progress.

    • Stanny Demesmaker

      You’re correct, but discussing about a new economic system is mostly taboo. People are very close minded about that.
      Our current economic system is collapsing, every country is suffering. Isn’t that a example of failure of the system ?

      It’s not only about the debt burden, there are just not enought jobs for the people. What economics miss is the part of automation, technology goes expontantial, it doubles in power every few years. People can’t coop with that curve. In 10/15 year, 80% of the jobs can be automated.

      I think, we will need alot of misery before we are going to change our system. But maybe can the introduction of LENR change that.

      • phlatbeer

        Stanny Demesmaker on October 15, 2012 at 11:11 am
        “Our current economic system is collapsing”… do you not think that that collapse may be synonymous with the ever increasing probability of LENR being tamed on the one hand and the markets realisation of potential devastation of some sections of the current financial system due to LENR’s ( or whatever the phenomena may be called) evolution on the other? I believe, I would by now, be moving funds to hedge against the probability of LENR’s second rising. Also, I would hate to think the present global monetary outlook was just because of too many greedy snouts in the trough, only but that’s more than likely true.

        • Peter_Roe

          Too many very greedy leeches sucking the host dry. Not quite Keynesian theory but it seems to fit the facts.

    • b4FreeEnergy

      I would love a workweek of 16 hours but how to organize this for the entire human population? Yes you can automate a lot of things even producing food and basic needs for everybody but there will be a lot of work left to be done by somebody and that work will not be attractive to most people. How will you get anybody motivated to do those nasty jobs if everybody else is laying on its backs enjoying life?

      This is not at all saying that the current system is ok and should remain as it is as long as possible but how do you see this changing into a better system?

      Free energy for everybody decoupled from the grid as a human right would be a nice first step but I don’t see it happen. Even if it would be allowed there will be a lot of people without a job suddenly …

      It’s a nice idea and I agree life should not be about working all the time but how do you see this getting realized?

      • georgehants

        b4FreeEnergy, thank you, The logic and facts of what I say are indisputable, which is where to work away from.
        Now, it becomes a matter of, if people are willing to continue to be taken for a ride, to simply maintain the rich and powerful as the rich and powerful.
        Forget economists, politicians, popes and opinion experts, we must all open our eyes and look at the Truth.
        While we follow Dogma and authority in such opinion as, Cold Fusion is impossible because I am an expert and I am telling you, so forget FACTS and forget EVIDENCE just think what I tell you to think.
        Then nothing will change and telling people, to fear being out of work etc will keep us all under control.

        • b4FreeEnergy

          Ok but it’s not as easy as that, fact is that if I tell my boss I’ll only work for half weeks (he will most likely look for my replacement) from now on, I need something to make that possible for me because if you like it or not, the fuel for my central heating and the food in the stores will not suddenly become cheaper and I still need it if I want to stay part of society we live in and not want to move somewhere into the jungle and foresee in my own needs.

          Apart from that even if I could manage to do that, it certainly is impossible if everybody suddenly decides for that way of living.

          So it’s not so much fear I guess but the simple fact that we’re trapped in the system we have. You cannot easily change it or get out without creating a huge chaos at the same time. Again not saying that our current system is ok but how to change it into something better without creating world-wide chaos?

          I’d like to hear the brilliant and enlightened mind making that system change a smooth transition for everybody!

          • georgehants

            b4FreeEnergy, Ha, so would I.
            Got to start somewhere and not being easy does not I think change the Facts.

      • telecommuter

        LENR is not free. It’s cheaper.

        We already have an example of a previous change – the introduction of electricity. It was a much more dramatic decrease in the amount of human/animal power needed.

        What was the result of that time?

    • Bruno

      Assuming that Rossi’s Ecat is for real, the world would be better off even if it doesn’t bring about a shorter work week (at least for those working 40 hrs/week). Saving an extra $1000 – $2000 per year will certainly help poorer people. I’d be happy with less pollution, more money staying in my country and less money going to Middle East states that sponsor terrorism & jihad. Energy would become one less resource for nations to go to war over.

      With regards to working a shorter work week, I’m of the belief that work is good for the soul, that it builds character. I’m not talking about slaving away 70-80 hrs per week in miserable sweatshop type jobs. I’d like to see the need for THAT eliminated. What I’m saying is that most people would waste the extra time if they only needed to work 16 hours per week. I guarantee you, the majority of people would not use the time to improve themselves (liking learning a language or getting a new skill). Some would, of course, but the majority of people would waste their time on excess leisure, watching TV, playing video games etc…

      • georgehants

        Bruno, you said —-
        “Some would, of course, but the majority of people would waste their time on excess leisure, watching TV, playing video games etc…”
        Going by the U.K. Olympics etc. and wartime, when society gets going the number of decent people willing to donate time and effort, I think would be pleasantly surprising.
        While people are kept down worrying about how to pay the mortgage bills etc. the establishment have total control.
        That is why money and finance is made to look as if it is the only way.

        • Anthony

          Well said, George.

          Mind you, when I was a kid back in the ’60s we were told that by now we’d all be working 15 hours a week because robots and computers would have taken over, so we’d probably be part-time teachers or doctors, and brilliant golfers or yachtsmen – yeah, right !

    • Profit is nothing more than a measure of the suitability for survival of an establishment in the current business climate. There is nothing evil about profit provided it does not result in a monoculture. A monoculture of one type of plant or animal is not healthy in that a disease may spread. Finance simply redistributes resources to profitable uses. It too can grow to unhealthy size and cause trouble when they start to create debased currency in the form bad debt packaged with good debt or worse still create unstable structures like some derivatives. Unless they are watched with a sharp eye, they will destroy themselves and us with them.

      • jjaroslav

        The only real change will be in the amount of ‘work’ being used to make and deliver energy….not a small number, but most of us are doing things outside that realm.
        There will huge opportunities for those converting energy systems. ….and lots of work…in manufacturing, raw material sourcing and converting for metals & plastics, health, food, logistics, information & media ….
        all still necessary

  • georgehants

    From Physorg —
    Breakthrough nano-technology solar cell achieves 18.2% efficiency, eliminates need for anti-reflection layer October 15, 2012 (—Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have produced solar cells using nanotechnology techniques at an efficiency – 18.2%—that is competitive. The breakthrough should be a major step toward helping lower the cost of solar energy.
    Read more at:

  • theBuckWheat

    “The exciting thing about E-Cat technology is that it holds the promise of making possible a much more equitable and prosperous world.”

    E-Cat cannot bring about a more “equitable” world any more than free uranium could. What it promises to do is greatly lower the cost of energy, but it cannot lower the cost of transmission lines, service technicians or compliance with government regulations.

    At the peak of summer’s heat, my own monthly electric bill was about $200. Suppose my utility switched to E-Cat and it dropped to $100. Over the course of a year, I might save what, possibly $1,000. While that is great, such a reduction is not going to make society more “equitable’.

    We could say just the same about government policies that have caused gasoline prices to double. Would society be more “equitable” should a change there cut the average driver’s gasoline costs by $1,000 a year?

    You will never find the social justice you seek. It doesn’t exist. And it has nothing to do with how valid Rossi’s technology may or may not be.

    • Voodoo

      Dear Wheat Buck,

      with technologies like: E-Cat, Hyperion and HephaHeat,
      ALL powerplant utilities will bankrupt or in state subsidized Zombie regime within 6-8 years timeframe, even if they buy and deploy these new technologies.

      I analysed this hundreds hours. It is unavoidable.

      • NJT

        Hi Voodoo, You can’t also mean even hydropower? I don’t think that will happen to this source because their production/maintenance/operation costs are generally very low on the older dams. Maybe over the course of 50 years or so this (LENR/FPE) could eventually allow for these dams to be removed, but in the next 6-8 years it will not happen. I live in a state that produces much hydro power, the dams have been fully amortized many years ago and power production cost is less than two cents per killowatt hour…

        • Voodoo

          I was involved in exactly your’s mentioned situation with hydro powerplant survivability question.

          Generally, you are right. This sector will survive longer then coal fired and nuke powerplants because of lower cost and so called sunk costs.

          Governments may decide for some emergency back-up reserves and hydropower is ideal.

          For future standard business there is one cardinal problem:

          There simply will no customers. Big customers will have own self-sustain devices (for example Hot Cat mini-powerplants) and common folks will have hundreds applications with HephaHeat and so.

          Think about this crushing detail: even one small systems with low efficiency (conversion heat to electricity) will have half cost to what are today transmission fees.

          Even if hydropower sell their electricity for zero, with transmission fees, VAT, losses etc. this will uncompetitive business.

          Others will bankrupt within 6-8 years, with special clauses about if lowering rating their bonds redeemable within 30 days to banksters, such businesses will bankrupt within 4-5 years. And hydropower within 7-10 years (or in cocooned Zombie regime).

          • NJT


            It will take some time for enough users on LENR to replace the present grid system even with a willing government, etc.

            To produce enough units for every household and business in this world even over any ten year period would be very extraordinary indeed if not almost impossible to achieve!

            Dams will always be needed, to some extent or another, for flood and irrigation control, so why not use the excess water energy to produce cheap backup electricity as they are there anyway? Why waste that clean, cheap energy resource?

          • Voodoo

            There will no customers.

            80 years back folks buy ice from ice businesses and ice traders.

            Today even poor households have own fridge, even if it is uneconomical and ice from ice business would cost 2 cents/piece

      • telecommuter

        You didn’t respond to the OP’s point about the effect on society.
        Even if coal fired plants die quickly, they will have to be replaced by LENR plants => net not much total effect on an economy.

        • jjaroslav

          Looking forward (just a little) we see the probable de-centralization of energy sourcing. Evenually little generators in every room for every device. Medium term is the uliziation of more and more localized infrastructures to provide energy.
          Regardless of the medium to long term effects, there is the near term crush to be expected on all the markets once this is ‘real’. And at that crucial point we will begin the deflation and realignment of the energy economy … in itself all pretty scary….

          • telecommuter

            Are you kidding me?

            Who’s going to pay for and install all those decentralized units?
            What is the cost to run and maintain the units vs the cost from the local power company?

      • Chris

        Utilities will have to change. Very much. Even very radically.

        If their management has foresight and does the right thing, they will survive even when they have passed their prime. It has happened to other industries.

    • zvibenyosef

      There are parts of the world today where people have been forced to strip the land bare of any kindling to get firewood for cooking and heat. This destroys the top soil and ruins it for agriculture. They develop lung disease from having to breathe the smoke. Millions of people are dying for lack of access to clean potable water. These are just a few of the problems facing people today which could be solved with this new technology.

      • telecommuter

        Any specific example?

  • tappanjack

    An imagined conversation overheard at the latest conference:

    Attendee: Dr Rossi how are you doing?

    Dr Rossi: Oh okay except lately it seems I’m always up to my rear in biting snakes and snapping alligators.

    Attendee: Why do you suppose that is?

    Dr Rossi: I’m sure it’s because I waded into the swamp and now I am draining it.

    PS: Pray for Dr Rossi’s safety and success.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    The article mentiones a COP of 12, but it has been discussed that a COP of 20 is more likely due to the conservative measurements by Rossi. Exactly how interesting is a COP of 20?
    Do I understand this correctly that if I put 1000 watt into the device and I get a return of 20000 watt of heat output?

    Considering a 30% efficiency factor when converting this output to energy, would this give me 20000 / 100 * 30 = 6000 Watt of electrical energy?

    Also, what would I have to do with the residual 14000 watt of heat? In the summer when I don’t need the extra termal energy but all the electrical energy, would this heat go into the air?

    • Robert Mockan

      It is more interesting because the numbers for useful electric power work out better. In each case below assume the reactor system (includes heat conversion to electricity) generates 6000 electric watts total using your 20,000 thermal watt and 30% example.

      The useful electric power is what is left after the reactor takes what it needs to operate.

      COP=6 provides 2667 watts (of useful electric power).

      Look what happens when you just increase the COP.

      COP=12 you get 4333 watts.
      COP=20 you get 5000 watts.

      In each instance the power percentage of the total is similar to the reactor power system mass to the total. That means if you have a 400 pound system mass, at COP=6 only (2667/6000)*400=177.8 pounds of the weight is doing good. The rest of the 400 pounds is dead weight.

      Now supercharge it with COP=20. Same fuel, better engineering, everything else the same.

      Now (5000/6000)*400=333.3 pounds of the 400 pounds is doing good.

      Think COP=6 like a car with a heavy low power engine. It runs, but the acceleration sucks. You are embarrassed to be seen driving it. But when supercharged with COP=20 the acceleration is off the charts, (and all the girls want a ride!).

      (In a car of course we need more than a stinky little 20,000 thermal watt reactor).

      To summarize,

      COP=6 is like BO, COP=20 is sexy.

      And the rest of the heat? It gets dumped into the air most likely. It will be interesting to see how that problem is solved. Cooling towers in the back yard?

      • Voodoo

        No, folks will use waste geat for heating their swimming pool and greenhouses.

        • Dickyaesta

          and walk in iceboxes, Rossi’s extra heat outside, cool inside or am I wrong in that

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Thanks for the explanation Robert. Really appreciated. Also like the alternate universe spock in your avatar 🙂

        Now it makes much more sense: The less electrical energy I have to put in, the more electrical energy comes out. Much more efficient with a higher COP.

        I do wonder what will happen with all the extra termal heat energy when this will be deployed on a worldwide scale. The 14000 Watt is Watt per Hour? That would mean 14000 Watt * 12 (half a day unused heat energy) * 182 (half a year) * 3.500.000.000 (half the earth population) = Watt of heat that is being dispersed every year in the atmosphere and being very conservative at that. Can anyone tell me if this is enough to seriously add to global warming?

        (* The dot is the european notation and does not mean comma)

        • David R

          All of this waste heat already exists with current electrical generating plants, both nuclear and fossil fuel.
          Replacing these won’t affect the waste heat load.

  • Don Witcher

    The Popular Science article on Rossi and LENR is now available on the news stands in the November issue. The title of the article is “ Andrea Rossi’s Black Box” Its an extremely good read and gives interesting insights into Rossi’s persona. Unfortunately it is somewhat out of date since the saga it documents ends just before NI week. I think that the reporter would have drawn different conclusions about Rossi given all the events since NI week but thats the problem with paper publications. Also Popular Science has no reference to the article that I can find on it’s web site.

    It has some great insights into skeptic thinking in Italy including specifically Ugo Bardi, Giancarlo Ruocco and Antonio Polosa. Their statements about LENR and Rossi are quite revealing.