More Responses to Questions on E-Cat Manufacturing

Figuring that the easiest way to get information about the status of E-Cat manufacturing is to ask Andrea Rossi I asked a few more questions on the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

1. Are you currently manufacturing the hot-cat reactors in the USA factories? A: also
2. Are you currently building hot cat plants in the USA factories? A: yes
3. Do the USA manufacturing facilities belong to your USA partner? A: yes
4. Have any of the prototype plants built at your Italian R&D facility been delivered to non-military customers yet? A: not yet
5. Will the first hot cat plant be installed at a facility belonging to your USA partner — or an external customer? A: External customer.

There has to be a certain amount of interpretation with Rossi’s one word answers. I am assuming that “also” as a reply to question 1 indicates that hot-cat reactors are also being manufactured outside the United States. AR’s answer to question 3 suggests that the E-Cats are being built in already established manufacturing facilities by people not directly employed by Rossi or Leonardo Corp.

I realize not everyone believes statements by Rossi, but I am working on the assumption that he is being truthful in his public statements and responses to questions.

  • Gerrit

    – How many ecat plants or hot cat plants is he planning to deliver in 2013 ?
    – How many ecat reactors are in a 1MW plant ?
    – How many hot cat reactors are in a hot cat plant ?

    little joke: Hopefully Rossi knows the difference between 1MW ecat planned and 1MW ecat plant.

    • In AR’s pronounciation, planned and plant are from different planets.

      • Dickyaesta

        Pekka, Nice play of words it would be complete if you use planet instead of planets ;), as for Rossi I think many times he reacts to his own words after reading others comments of them, like “ah that is a good explanation of what I was thinking…”

  • GreenWin

    Many thanks to Admin for posing these questions re the present state of e-cat “manufacturing.” It is probably better to call it “assembly” since at early phase product development, units are usually assembled by small teams.

    Slightly OT, there is a nicely compiled listing of LENR Conference Proceedings and Conference Listings now at Mr. Kirvit’s web site. Whilst perusing these entries I was intrigued by the Russian work at The 19th Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation… (The title goes on to include ball lightning – Russians are generously inclusive.)

    Into the presentations are papers on the Russian term for LENR, Cold Nuclear Transmutation, including discussions of metal loading and a bizarre discussion of CNT in tectonic faults (aliens beware.) More interesting is “Investigation of Radiation Effects at Loading Ni, Be and LaNi5 by Hydrogen” from Russian Academy of Sciences and Moscow State Uni.

    Leading industry research are the Japanese with their 13th Meeting of Japan CF-Research Society (December 2012) Included are transmutation verifications by Mitsubishi Heavy Advanced Technology, Toyota Central R&D, and “Verification of excess heat from PdDx irradiated by infrared laser” S. Ohshima (Toyota Central R & D Labs., Inc.) One other paper, “Quantum Nucleodynamics (QND: Nuclear “models” are no longer necessary” Norman D. Cook (Kansai Univ.), appears interesting.

    There is now so much data on hydrogen loaded metals (e.g. LaNi5) and the occurrence of spurious soft x-ray, gamma and neutrons – the new field of cold fusion is guaranteed. Makes for informative reading while the Rossi/Focardi team assembles the first commercial reactors, and the peers review their navels.

    • georgehants

      Agreed re. Admin, if that is the Russian term for Cold Fusion then they seem to agree with with us but feel the transmutation important enough to put in the title.

      • clovis

        hi, guy,
        they are searching, just like everyone else, one must not forget, this is a very very new field, and along with Dr. Rossi,they are all exploring, it is my belief that if you want to be on the leading front of this new thing you need to be exploring, with everyone else. the knowledge is out there for free, but no one is going to twist your arm,–smile

        • GreenWin

          Clovis, you may misinterpret my last sentence. I refer to “peer review” academia that has so disastrously failed in the case of cold, and hot fusion. When exploration leads to evidence and the evidence is ignored ’cause it did not come from a cabal-anointed priest – there’s a problem.

          • clovis

            Yes, hi green.
            I understand all to well what has happened.
            And i concur , I believe everything is on schedule, if i were to guess i would say that Dr. R is going to try and pull off a grand slam,3 party report,show a working plant to the press, along with honored guest, and have a coming out party, and get this party started, but it could be later on this summer, but it is coming believe it. no matter what the rest of the world thinks, they will have to anwser for their old greedy ways someday. i personaly woulden’t that hanging over my head,

  • artefact

    From MFMP / Robert Greenyer

    “The EU cell is running through a few random tests before being shipped back to southern France to be reconditioned for a brand new protocol. This future well documented experiment will be a pre-cursor to a differential set of experiments we will be conducting on both sides of the pond.

    We are preparing a mega blog to explain all, but it is game on today as we have just been told that Celani will supply all the necessary wires in order to run this experiment. Celani is so impressed by the engagement of the community here and this has helped to both inspire this new protocol and his willingness to see we have the active material to explore it.

    It is going to be costly to do, but we are very excited about this and we think everyone else will be too! We hope that it will be the perfect accompaniment to our Kickstarter, during which we hope we will show, through this set of experiments and others, that we can deliver the necessary lab rat and gain the finance to do it also.

    Thanks again to all those that have donated or otherwise contributed.”

    • Shane D.

      Following MFMP… it’s hard to tell whether they are successful or not?

      Seems like the first few days everyone, researchers and audience alike, were excited. A few watts here and there. Instant success. But after some probing questions from contributers… maybe not. Then it was back to the drawing board.

      Then again the MFMP guys got excited (high confidence level), and even mentioned meeting with someone that may buy their kit. But after some more questioning by observers… maybe not. So back to the drawing board again.

      Now there seems to be another building of excitement… or am I missing something?

      Basically, I don’t know if they have achieved “lift-off” -or not. Easy enough to read the charts and look to the last column for excess power, but apparently there are a lot of things that can influence that figure, and not all are “excess heat”.

      It’s surely been an eye-opener for this layperson. I thought they mastered calorimetry experiments 200 years or so ago. I thought this stuff was high school level. Instead, I’ve come to see it not only as a fairly complex science with no standard protocol, but also an art form.

      Anyways, I wish the best of luck to the MFMP people. Where Rossi has started to disappoint this believer, those like the MFMP have renewed my hope.

      • Hugo

        It is hard to tell even for them. There have been many suggestions about how to circumvent the ambiguity their methodology implies. More active material should theoretically help if there is a reaction. However easiest to prove that such a reaction exists at all would be a design allowing them to run the cell without any input power once a certain temperature has been reached. That would require a variable insulator or adaptive cooling in order to keep the temperature constant. Both are probably outside their financial means. I wish them all the best but aren’t particularly optimistic, especially because they have only got a little over $7,000 in contributions.

        • HeS

          @:”…. such a reaction exists at all would be a design allowing them to run the cell without any input power once a certain temperature has been reached.”

          Not necessarily. Maybe the current is needed as a source of new electrons (ions).

          • Hugo

            That’d be the second step in case heat alone doesn’t suffice. You can’t prove cold fusion doesn’t work but that isn’t what MFMP set out to do. They’re trying to prove it does, so any experiment doing that without any doubt (and running for long periods without input would do it) would ultimately mean a real breakthrough which nobody else achieved so far. People following MFMP and their open discussion probably realize that the problems faced here are exactly the same Pons and Fleischmann faced (or Piantelli or Celani or Schwartz or Miley or basically everybody not approaching the subject purely from the transmutation point of view like Iwamura) and are the major reason for main stream science not accepting them as definite proof for anything. And they do have a point. I seriously doubt Celani or Piantelli put even a tenth of the effort in their calorimetry as the MFMP crew have done so far.

      • daniel maris

        I agree, although very open about the process, they seem less than transparent about the conclusions. And yes – it’s amazing how “primitive” calorimetry is…or if you prefer, how much of an art as opposed to a science it seems to be!

  • What a weird twist discussion has taken here! What I think Rossi said was that other than the one in Italy, he has no actual plants of his own. If his partner is a publicly traded firm, I’m wondering why – presuming it’s not been filed – they haven’t filed an 8-K that would be required after any significant strategic decisions, such as a Rossi partnership would be. Possibly, it’s just that since we don’t know who the partner is, we were unable to locate the 8-K.

    • Peter_Roe

      Possibly the whole thing could be classified as ‘research’, with the argument (if it was ever challenged) that it is not known at this point whether or not it would significantly affect the parent company’s trading profile.

      • GreenWin

        Sounds right Peter. And as we have no idea of the value placed on Rossi’s IP, the JV may be structured with little or no cash, options, milestone stock purchases, etc. The entire enterprise is being kept under the radar.

    • Omega Z

      @ Joe

      Assuming that it’s a Publicly owned Partner, It would be My guess that this would all fall under R&D at this time.

      Until they have a fully constructed, tested & Verified Power Plant, there would be nothing that needs to be Officially Disclosed. I can only assume that would be in the Agreement with Rossi. Nothing is Finalized until then.

      My Guess would be we won’t hear anything Official about a Partnership until probably June or July if (Caveat)everything goes as planned. Snags can happen that could delay Official disclosure.

      Also just my Opinion, that if a 3rd party Validation of Rossi’s E-cat comes within the next couple months, this will have no effect on an Official Statement from the Partner. Not until a working prototype plant is in operation. Reason being that even if the Hot Cat works, there could be complications/difficulties in harnessing it to Generate Electricity. It may require a new configuration of the Boiler system.

  • Paul

    “also” in Latin means “accurate”

    • Stephen

      or maybe it’s an acromyn for something, a coded secret answer… A.L.S.O. = Andrea Likes Sth… I cannot figure it out.

      • Giuliano Bettini

        Etiam is the latin word for also.
        IMO as Admin said: “the hot-cat reactors are also being manufactured outside the United States.”
        Or better, if you prefer “the hot-cat reactors are also being manufactured in the United States.”

  • Ron

    Rossi’s Italian factory is in a warehouse of an Italian company named Teknia ( located at Via del Commercio 38.

    If someone can visit the place it will supply lots of information.

    • Alfons

      Rossis factory is located inside some ordinary storage-rooms from “TEKNIA”.
      The frontview of the TEKNIA main entrance:
      Their product portfolio here:

      • Ash

        Fascinating…I agree that this is definitely the location on the video. Of course, we already know there isn’t much happening at this location unfortunately, because Rossi said his ‘real’ factory was elsewhere.

      • powerpete

        How do you know Rossi’s unit is part of the Teknia operation? Looks to me as if Teknia is just his neighbour – it looks like the sort of building where the units are rented out to lots of different companies. Seems from the video like there’s a wall between the two.

        BTW, as someone else pointed out on here it’s interesting that there are a lot of solar panels on Rossi’s roof (but not on the Teknia unit):

        • Bob

          That’s interesting. There’s about a hundred kilowatts of PV cells on the roof of that unit.
          I wonder what all that would be used for since the SVT video didn’t show much going on inside.

  • Stephen

    You are working on a very risky assumption…

  • georgehants

    The Reference Frame
    Sunday, February 03, 2013
    High energy physics jobs: terror against formal theory
    And I think that the composition of the folks is scary. Even though the page claims to list “theoretical” jobs, I haven’t found a single person – among the dozens – who is primarily a formal theorist in high-energy physics – i.e. who mostly posts to hep-th. Correct me if I have missed someone. It’s not just about the attribution to the archives; none of the people in the list is clearly thinking in the top-down way.

    • Peter_Roe

      Morning George.

      “It’s clear to me that almost no one who is really responsible for this trend is listening to me; this is clearly done deliberately.”

      More indications that research is being controlled across the world in ways that ensure that random breakthroughs into new areas of physics do not occur. It ties in with a recent article in Nature that in effect repeats the 19th century view that everything important has already been discovered, and we should concentrate on ‘dotting the Is and crossing the Ts’.

      The only logical reasons I can think of for manipulating research in this way would be to (1) prevent the appearance of ‘game changer’ technologies such as cold fusion or (2) to prevent others discovering radical new technologies that (US?) military scientists are already deeply involved in, i.e., protectionism.

      Pekka Janhunen (who should know) said in the last thread words to the effect that human technical progress is currently slower than might be expected given our abilities (and the existing knowledge bank). This may be at least in part the reason why.

      • Although I cannot disprove them, (1) and (2) are not my favoured explanations. I would rather believe (3) in a collective dilemma that progress needs energy, but energy is bad. So some kind of pseudo-progress has resulted, and it irritates many.

        • georgehants

          Well Peter, Pekka, I think that one must not concentrate ones thought in any given area but let them roll across all of science.
          Every area is being controlled by irrational (to a clear thinker) denial and distortion of the most obvious kind and yet many if not most close their minds to the situation.
          Medicine, the Placebo and much more.
          Every day medicine reports that this and that effect leads to this and that medical condition, but irrationally medicine seems to not let it sink through, that the body is Holistic and very much controlled by the Mind.
          When a multiple personality disorder patient changes their personality they can lose or acquire conditions such as asthma etc etc. their eye colour can change facial features change etc. etc.
          All this is ignored and the mechanical steam engine interpretation is religiously forced onto many clever researches that are quite aware of the True situation.
          The problem with science is also Holistic.
          An irrational reliance on “opinion” as with Global Warming etc. etc. instead of following the only possible Truths, Evidence, research and then more Research and then question that Research.

  • Omega Z

    I would like to point out that quite sometime back that Cures stated that from time to time Rossi gives False information. Reasoning for this is to misdirect competitors & Snakes. Sadly, that also leaves us in the dark also.

    In Short, We should all be cautious.

    That said: Going from memory because I lost a lot of my Data- I Believe Rossi has a home in Ferrara about 40 minutes from Bologna. Ferrara is where Rossi’s present Operations are based.

    I Initially was thinking he moved his operations there because his Bologna shop had become to well known. Though that didn’t quite fit. Easy to track down the new location.

    Then I recalled that Cures stated in November that the Pioneering days were over.

    It’s now my belief that Rossi had his Bologna operation there because of the Presence of UNIBO & It’s testing Equipment. Along with Levi & other UNIBO personnel to help him perfect the E-cat Cores. To pick their brains of sort.

    Taken with Cures statement followed by Rossi moving to Ferrara shortly after, Leads me to believe the Core research is pretty well concluded. Rossi eliminated a 1.5 to 2 hour daily drive & can do the Boiler configuration closer to home. That & his partner will be doing most of the actual building of the Boiler at their facilities.

    I would note that most statements from Rossi are Focused on building the Boiler System. Any mention of Hot-Cat is usually questions from outside. It’s no longer a major focus of Rossi.

    Rossi’s moved on to the next stage. To Build a Power Plant. If he accomplishes that then he could consider his work done. Or he could continue on in a State of the Art research facility developing new versions of the Home E-cat & the possibility of Direct Energy Conversion. With access to the best minds in the world to help. Even if Rossi is hard to get along with, They would jump at the chance to work with him.

    • Peter_Roe

      Good analysis, Omega. That all feels about right.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Omega…..yes very good

    • Anonymous

      Puppets, snakes, and clowns:

      Maybe Rossi has hired the Democratic Republic of North Korea’s propaganda department to write his copy!

      • clovis

        that kind of crap talk will get you ban, so either shut up and use civil language, or move on,

  • georgehants

    Not a report you will find on main-line publications
    Australian Scientist Turns Climate Models Upside Down: Forests Drive Climate, Not the Reverse!
    Australian scientists have published a paper in the peer-reviewed and prestigious journal, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, that asserts that Earth climate forces are mainly driven by forestation and the related effects they have on water condensation and evaporation. “Mainstream” climate scientists, have long neglected to consider such a factor in climate models and projections.
    Needless to say, the paper is highly controversial, and deeply invested adherents to current modeling and “the settled science” are up in arms since their models almost completely fail to take into account water vapor’s influence on climate drivers such as wind and rain patterns.

    • Manuel Cruz

      It’s not controversial. Anyone that has cared to learn the slightest about physics knows that water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for 85% of the effect, while CO2 is less than 8% (wikipedia exaggerates the impact of CO2). Global Warming is just a scam because climate is random, is like setting the alarms off because after throwing a coin 8 times, the last 6 fell on tails, even though the next 16 after that extraordinary event reflect the usual behavior.

      Climate science is NOT a science, it’s a political agenda trying to pass as science. It lacks falsifiability, it has no predictive power, the models are measuring arbitrary data because nobody knows what data we have to measure, after the “climategate” scandal it was revealed that they “cooked” the data by applying arbitrary filters to it until the graph shown the result they wanted. The report about the himalayas melting was forged to get funds. After studying the math behind the “hockey stick” graph it was revealed that it would get that shape with any data input. The judges ruled that Al Gore’s “An inconvenient truth” had to include at the beginning a note stating that the science behind it was wrong.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Melting ice and super storms are a “political agenda”? I am not a climate scientist, but when 95% of the reputable scientists studying the issue tell me our climate is changing and it is the result of man made events, I listen. Why do I listen? Because if the 5% are wrong, the livability of our planet is at stake for my great grand children.

        • clovis

          Hi, Bernie
          I remember coming in to L.A,Calif, and seeing a blueish black cloud hanging over the city, while staying in LA, you could literally rake that stuff off the windscreen of your car, now that is bad. haven’t been back in 20+ years i wonder if it as bad.

          • Lu

            If you saw a “blueish black cloud” you saw the marine layer, aka fog.

            LA has never been better thanks to all the things CA requires to reduce pollution.

          • clovis

            Hi, Lu.
            With all due respect, it was not fog, it was smog, the black crap I wiped of my windscreen each morning was not fog, but I am glad to hear it’s better there in la, I loved it there, we were mainly on the coast, working in the petroleum plant in el Segundo, very old plant very nasty,
            It was at that time handling the oil from the Alaska pipeline, and I have seen pure gasoline gushing up through the manholes in that plant,
            The soil was contaminated down below that plant for God only knows how far.

          • Lu

            The black crap you wiped off was jet exhaust fallout from LAX and possibly some fallout from the power plant and refinary next door. There is no smog along the coast as the offshore breeze generally moves it up against the mountains where it cooks.

            I live in Manhattan Beach right next door and have been a long time LA resident.

        • psi

          Bernie, with all due respect I encourage you to dig deeper and ask more difficult questions of the alleged “95%” (mostly a myth based on definitions of who is or isn’t a scientist – ask a geologist or a statistician what he or she thinks of “climate scientists”).

          • Claes

            Yes, please do ask.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Psi….OK, specifically what questions should I ask, I have asked every question I could think of and their answers satisfied me

        • GreenWin

          95% of reputable scientists studying the issue?? A similar consensus told us fusion in a jar at low temperatures was impossible. Bernie, consensus is not science. Only accepting the evidence and amending the theory is honest science.

          In 1475, 95% of all learned men and scientists (the Church) believed the world was flat; and that the sun revolved around the earth. It took a century for this consensus of brilliance to admit that Copernicus was right.

          • Claes

            Eh, so you’re saying that what most scientists say is usually wrong, and what somebody in minority says is usually right?

            I think you got this a little bit wrong somewhere.

            There’s a difference between somebody breaking new ground and the hordes of nutjobs thinking they’ve disproven Einstein at their kitchen table.

            Nobody pays attention to the latter, and none should.

          • GreenWin

            “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” ― Richard P. Feynman, Cal Tech.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Now there is some logic for you. Never believe 95% of the scientists because they were wrong in 1495. We are going to bet the livability of our planet on this kind of logic??!

          • georgehants

            If you could show some Evidence that things had improved with science in the last 500 years that may help your case.
            Shall we take the religious establishment view of Cold Fusion as an example of current scientific thinking.

        • George N

          Thanks to the scam of the tenure process, 95% of scientists are left wing liberals that are dependent on big gov funding. Of course they are going to recommend the gov to expand in their area of “study” — their self worth depends on it!

          • Claes

            Yes, better trust the corporations instead. We all know that their only mission in life is to provide us with jobs. The money their lining their pockets with is just necessary motivation for rending this service!

            We could put it like this: the private sector is full of neoliberal nutcases who would so dearly prefer to have $100 million than $99 million in their account that they’re willing to ruin both the planet and the people living on it for it.

            So we pump the planet full of our junk – and unless somebody can prove with absolute certainty EXACTLY what the consequences are – then we are to think that the more parsimonious conclusion is that there is no effect.

            How about you having to prove that your junk is harmless before you emit it?

            Or perhaps we can use the same logic on medications. Unless it’s proven – be explaining in detail the causal chain – (that 100% die from taking it isn’t enough since that is just statistics and doesn’t prove causality) – it is to be considered safe.

        • superstorm as unusual event are myth.
          few climatologist have resigned because they did not see any change in storm frequency and they were forced to lie… see Judith curry.

          and even if AGW is real, it is clear that we cannot yet see it. it is clear manipulation to push people to act …
          question is whether they are right and lying for our good, or wrong and lying for us to waste resources that could be used better.

      • Claes

        Is that so? And what about the moon landings and 9/11?

  • Zaghlool

    Well, definitely once the mass production of E-Cat reactors starts in the market the prices of the Hydrogen,Nickel,and water will rise up to the sky.

    • clovis

      hi zaghool,
      No problems, those are amoung the most plentiful materials on earth, and e-cat uses very little of these in any case.

      • Hugo

        Exactly. Nickel production is about 2 million tons per year for all sorts of things, so a couple of tons (fully recyclable) for energy production won’t make much of a difference.

      • long time ago I made the computation
        few yearly % of nickel production is enouf for planet energy, assuming and e-cat of hyperion consume few grams of nickel per 6 month for 5kW…
        in fact if you follow what Defkalion says, whar Rossi said NOW, what Brillouin says, it seems that Nickel is not consumed… transmutation seems more accessory reaction, than the main one. main one seems like HHHH fusion….

        • Omega Z

          I’ve read 1% to 3% of annual Nickel production would be needed.

          But that would only be until everyone had an E-cat. After that it appears to be pretty much 100% recyclable.

          Other metals may increase for several decades. Titanium for 1 but even that will eventually come back down.

    • Guga

      I believe there will be a 60000% tax on LENR ready nickel. At least in Europe.

      • Twice that in the UK, then. Plus VAT of course. And Green Energy Duty, naturally.

        • GreenWin

          That should cover the tea and biscuits for Auntie and the Bebe…

          • PeterRoe

            … if there is any left over after taxpayers foot the estimated 70 billion quid bill for burying the piles of lethally radioactive crap the nuclear industry has already dumped at Dounreay.

          • GreenWin

            Peter, the latest estimate for Hanford WA site cleanup is $100B – not complete for 30 years!!

            I sincerely hope Toyota and Mitsubishi develop a fissile waste mitigation industry.

        • Hampus

          It would be fairly simple to just illegally import enough nickel for a life time consumption, soo I don’t believe taxes are going to be that high. The best thing with cold fusion is that it works with many different materials? Maybe I have enough material right now on my lawn to fuel my future cold fusion device?

    • Jackob

      I believe the same amount of water will be used again and again after being condensed –same as the fridge with ferrion gas.

  • Claes

    So is this becoming a forum of climate deniers, conspiracy theorists and crackpots? I’m seeing quite a number of them these days?

    Challenging science is hard since it’s usually correct. If you think natural science is wrong and you’re right, YOU are wrong 99.9999% of the time. You’re most propbably a crackpot – period. Don’t flatter yourselves by identifying with the tiny fraction that turned out to have something to come with in the end.

    If Rossi delivers then he’s a hero. He will be a hero because he delivered something, not because he was in miniority or because he was saying this or saying that.

    • georgehants

      Hello Claes, that is the most crackpot illogical ranting I have heard for a long time.
      You must believe that science is correct and Cold Fusion does not exist.
      And of course the Earth is flat just like science believed etc. etc. etc.

      • Guga

        Flat earth is a bad example. Mathematicians have shown that it is round more than a thousand years ago. People who had different opinions mostly for religious reasons really can not be considered scientists by todays standards.

        • georgehants

          Guga, you are correct but if science today acts in the same way as those religious zealots then it is time to change things do you not think.

      • HHiram

        The Ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth in around 230 BC by comparing the different length of shadows at noon between a city in Ancient Greece and a city in Ancient Egypt. His measurement was accurate to within 15 percent.

        Columbus, like all sailors of his era, knew the Earth was round. He just thought the Earth was much smaller than Eratosthenes’ estimate, and so he thought the distance to Japan from Europe was manageable – and that another continent would not be in the way.

        • GreenWin

          Unfortunately the orthodox priesthood (e.g. Bishop Iranaeus) dismissed Eratosthenes, along with heretical gospels, and teachings of the ancient mystery schools. The few who thought the world might be round, or revolved around the sun, did so silently in fear of life and limb .

      • Claes

        So here we go again. Because the establishment believed that the Earth was flat when it was round – that means that anything that you say and that science doesn’t agree with must be true?

        That’s what I object against. I will repeat this: do not flatter yourself too easily by identifying with certain rare brilliant minds.

        I’m the first to admit that science is full of conservative bores, that its structure makes it increasingly hard to challenge status quo, and so on.

        But what makes it stick out from other endeavors is that THERE IS A CHANCE to break through. In these “open minded” forums there is no way of budging anybody from their position – they are correct BECAUSE nobody believes them (nobody believed that the earth was round – hence they are also right since nobody believes them).

        But what science should do is not to throw everything overoard as soon as somebody says something new – it is to be more generous with allowing SOME space to new things.

        • georgehants

          Claes, I am glad you see some of the faults with science, if you stop using all the false rhetoric and concentrate on those and many other faults you may help to ensure that such horrific corruption and incompetence is removed.
          Or are you happy for it to continue.

          • Claes

            I’m fighting it, but I try to be careful to walk the tightrope. One can easily fall down both sides of it.

            In my experience, the best people in science are usually found one step down from the top. The more famed “top scientists” are usually careerists who can package any opportunistic junk so that it makes Science, Nature and PNAS. They never turn out anything of lasting value.

            People who are really interested and curious about what they do are not as visible. They’re busy doing serious work!

          • georgehants

            Claes, in your comment I think there are some very important points.

    • GreenWin

      Claes, with LENR / cold fusion a proven phenomenon you are witnessing the latest failure of consensus science. It is an important lesson. It teaches that regardless of political and social agendas, the cult of consensus (95% sheeple science) has lost to independent critical thinking. And in spite of the $$ billions spent to convince humans AGW and climate of fear is real… few but cultists believe it.

      Same with consensus physics which shortly will be humiliated to learn a small group of critical thinking scientists have discovered and harnessed a force consensus shrieks is “impossible.” It is all good. Old thinking will retire or be forced to amend. A new open form of science (honest science) will emerge, and knowledge monopolies and cartels will collapse.

      The age old orthodoxy will need to temper itself, and accept a new, diminished role in knowledge evolution and education.

      • HHiram

        Trust me, scientists hope you’re right about Rossi. But understand: this sort of situation is an *extreme* exception. Claes is right. If you go up against consensus science, you will be wrong 99.999% of the time.

        And if Rossi’s e-cat turns out to be real, no one will be happier or more excited than scientists.

        You might want to check out Thomas Kuhn’s classic book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” to build a better understanding of how this whole process works.

        • GreenWin

          “And if Rossi’s e-cat turns out to be real, no one will be happier or more excited than scientists.”

          I posit that e-cat may simply be the first unorthodox science that has broken through the orthodox iron curtain. I doubt that Johnnie Huizenga, Bob Park, Ron Parker, Ballinger, Murray Gel Mann, or thousands of scientists working on… hot fusion, fission, fossil fuel recovery, smart grids, solar, wind, geothermal will be “happier;” aerospace, military and some industry scientists will celebrate.

      • Claes

        What we’re seing is independent critical thinking? In Rossi, Focardi etc – YES! In people thinking that is counter what the establishment thinks is true? Eh, no.

        Note the difference here. Rossi and all those others are making tremendous efforts. Crackpots just take an outsider position, flatter oneanother with having unique insights, and are generally unbearable to be around. Especially for people who do work and are confronted by real problems.

        • georgehants

          Claes, crackpots I think try to defend a establishment thats faults are proven beyond debate.

    • Jimr

      Just two days past the UN has finally admitted the sun has a significant effect on global warming. Big change for them.

      • GreenWin

        “[Results] do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate,” reads a draft copy of a major, upcoming report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

      • Claes

        There you go! Demonstrate the plausibility and the community will listen to you. Yes, it’s hard, but that’s how it is.

    • Guga

      I believe 99.9999% is much too high for most cases. Though there are some basic principals in physics that have withstood falsification just so often that this number might be correct or even higher. And LENR seems to be in conflict with some, which makes opposition quite understandable. It seems though there may be explanations for LENR phenomena that are in accordance with what is known. Time will tell.

      This is all perfectly normal. There is no good reason for excessively criticizing science. Science can accept new knowledge over time, in contrast to religion.

      • Claes

        It depends on who you count into the statistics. If the general population is counted in I stand by 99.99-something 🙂

        If serious people on the fringes of science is counted in, then I agree the figure is much too high.

        I’m a scientist myself, and I’ve stuck my chin out by not dismissing LENR! I just can’t say that “I believe in it” – but allow for a substantial probability that they’re on to something, and that there is something important that science has missed here.

        But it’s not going to be “truthers” that bring this transitions, it’s going to be hard working and serious people.

        • georgehants

          Claes, who are these “truthers” that you dislike, could they be people who look for the Truth.
          You may find that a crime but in science only Truth and Evidence are important and “opinion” is worthless.

    • psi

      Hello Claes, you should be careful about your methodology. How much time have you spent actually investigating all sides on the so called “global warming” issue? Not much, as I would take it from your remarks. I am uncertain whether Andrea Rossi has what he claims he has. I am quite certain that Michael Mann et alia do not.

      If you want to debate the science of anthropogenic global warming, I highly recommend this website:

      • Claes

        I haven’t. What I do is simply to use my judgement, and the fact that I personally know lots of people working with climate issues. I work so to speak in adjacent areas – so I’m in an energy and environment department. The notion that they would be in on some scam is sort of silly to me. Especially given that climate deniers tend to think scientists are corrupt while Big Oil is an oppressed underdog fighting desperately to survive.

        Personally I think the argument was made a bit in the wrong way from the beginning. One can never be certain about anything, the question is whether there is a substantial risk with something or not. If there is, then we need to think about acting on it.

        There are all sorts of good reasons to get rid of fossil fuels – just pick your favorite really. Do you like stuffing the pockets of sheiks? Of Hugo Chavez? The US hates Chavez still they’re on their knees for him when it comes to the oil. Do you like (if you’re American) the fact that you need to spend horrendous amounts on the military to maintain a degree of control over supply routes? Do you like how oil companies enter agreement with oppressive African leaders who guarantee the safety of the operations by bombing and starving their population only to live in obscene luxury?

        Fossil fuel is a curse. Personally I’m quite convinced about anthropogenic global warming. You may not be. But you probably have to give it a certain probability still – as I will have to give a certain probability that it’s not as bad as they’re saying. But if we weigh it all together, to be on the safe side, getting rid of it would still be good.

  • Stuey81

    Why MFMP having so much trouble confirming excess heat? If its so hard to measure, what makes anyone think they have achieved excess heat? Unless something stuck out as really out of the ordinary? Whos not to say the hydrogen loading doesnt consume more energy to make, than it releases during the so hard to measure effect?

    • Stuey81

      Id really like to know what is the total amount of energy consumed to create a H loaded wire. Stuey

      • daniel maris

        That’s a v. pertinent question which I have wondered about. I don’t know why they aren’t skipping straight to nanopowders.

    • Matt

      My opinion is, that while the MFMP Team does a fantastic job to minimize all sources for error, Celani’s setup was relatively sloppy and simple. I don’t believe in his 20 Watts of excess power. And unfortunately the closer the MFMP comes to a perfect setup with reliable calometry, the more any excess heat vanishes, as far as I can tell.

      • RichyRoo

        That would really suck.

      • Hugo

        There will always be something at least measured as excess heat when they’re doing long runs with this experiment. It is like a light bulb. Few people know that light bulbs are getting hotter and hotter over time. Not because there is some radioactive component but because microscopic condensation on the glass reduces its IR transparency over time and the near vacuum inside slowly vanishes and changes the thermal conductivity until it finally burns out after a couple of years. The current MFMP experiment would show excess heat for any 60W incandescent bought at home depot. That doesn’t automatically mean there is no LENR effect. It simply means it will be almost impossible to prove with this kind of a setup.

        • Matt

          That`s why they now have built an insulated steel tube.

          • Hugo

            … which doesn’t change the principle problem. Merely the IR transparency issue is reduced in magnitude but still present. As a tradeoff, they’ll have to deal with thermal conductivity issues interfering with spot temperature measurements on a broader scale than what they have now with only glass.

      • Omega Z

        MFMP’s device in the U.S. is different from Celani’s setup.

        Their using a different type of glass. Their Intent was to be able to take it to higher temps once they obtained results comparable to Celani’s device.

  • GreenWin

    The researchers at the U.S. Air Force Research Lab, Advanced Concepts for Launch project, appear to have tested a LENR device (slide 34.) This was 2009; reasonable to think they’re much further along now.

    • Lukedc

      Quite interesting.
      It would be exciting to know stage they are at now with testing.

  • Michael

    What happened to the certification issue? Are the reactors built (answers on questions 1 and 2) without any known certification? It seemed so important a while ago.