Hopes High, Expectations Low

As often seems to be the case in the E-Cat story, after an announcement of something that is supposed to happen on a certain date there are more questions than answers. I have learned that it is smart to keep ones expectations low in times like this, as things do not always turn out the way one would hope.

Still, my conviction regarding the reality of E-Cat technology remains optimistic. I’ve personally been convinced of this for a long time, and although I would certainly like to see as much information about it as possible made public, since I haven’t learned anything yet that contradicts my conviction I’ll wait for as long as it takes — there’s not much choice, really.

Someone mentioned on a previous thread the report from last year that was published regarding the Hot Cat. To me, that provides solid evidence for the reality of the Hot-Cat technology. It was an early design, and the COP was not spectacular (it didn’t run in self-sustain mode), but it was signed off by a qualified professional. From various things that I have learned there are serious people, more qualified than me in technological matters, who are also convinced of E-Cat technology, and I think that Andrea Rossi has done very important work and is someone to be taken seriously.

I certainly understand people’s frustration and impatience regarding this whole affair. I, too have a hard time being patient because I think we are dealing with an extremely important technological advancement here, and I would like to see it put to use in the world to start dealing with many energy-related problems we face. But, I understand we are dealing with the reality of technological development, and business development, both of which take time.

So here we sit. E-Cat World is going to continue to follow the twists and turns of the LENR story. At this point, Andrea Rossi seems to me to be ahead of the pack, but I don’t doubt that he could face strong competition as time goes on. It’s all fascinating to me, and I appreciate the company here on E-Cat World. Who knows, we could wake up to a pleasant surprise one of these days!

  • John Loraditch

    Me too still waiting but the only problem I have seen in all this discussion is that at one time they found the copper inside the reactor was the same percentage of naturally occurring copper isotopes has anyone ever discussed
    that more

    • lenrdawn

      Same as with all the other things. Not finding any unstable Cu isotopes could mean:

      – There is a reaction but it doesn’t produce Copper. The Copper found in the sample was contamination
      – There is no reaction and the Copper found was contamination
      – There is a reaction and it produces Copper which happens to have natural isotopic ratios – which would be impossible to explain with current knowledge but the same is true for the whole process so… who knows
      – They messed up the measurements/samples/whatever

    • TQ

      Copper isotopes last a very short time.
      After a few weeks all copper would be normal I think.


      • Well, actually, your article says that copper has 2 stable isotopes, 63Cu and 65Cu. The others are writing that the ratio of these two is the same as that found in nature.

        • TQ

          The other isotopes that supposedly the transmutation would create, have half lifes ranging from nanoseconds to 62 hours, wich means that they would almost dissapear in a short time.

    • Robert Ellefson

      Rossi backed off his claims of transmutation to copper, and if I recall correctly, the latest explanation offered for the presence of the copper in the ash samples was that it was simply residue from the reactor chamber walls, removed when the ash was removed. I have no references for any of this, it’s all coming from a long history of tangled memories from my overly-abused “Rossi Says” mental notebook.

      • Omega Z

        Actually I believe they determined the transmutation to copper was a side effect & not a primary action. Also according to cures who used to leak info, this side effect was very minimal after improvements in the E-cat operation.

      • Bob

        Your tangled memories serve you well.
        The copper residue in the reactor ‘ash’ you mention was one of the main features which attracted my original enthusiastic support. Copper in the reactor products could only have come from a transmutation process and therefore from some sort of nuclear reaction,. at almost room temperature no less. How could you not get enthusiastic about that? So I did.
        When it turned out there was probably no copper produced I thought a closer examination of everything else I took at face value was warranted.
        The closer I looked the more disappointed I became.
        Although there are ocasionally small things that happen which give me some hope, they have always turned out to be nothing.
        Still nothing. And more nothing.

        • Rockyspoon

          I’ve read where Brilloin’s LENR reaction uses nickel only as a catalyst, converting the hydrogen to helium. This makes it possible to use the nickle for a long time with only helium as a waste product. They claim that’s the optimum reaction.

  • Matt

    Just for the records:
    we are waiting for
    – pictures of E-Cats being delivered to the US
    – Third party report in high level scientific magazine
    – please add…

    • artefact

      – visitable (by invited people) plant at a customers place

      • KD

        The customer is Rossi US-Partner, so it will be nothing new to find out.

        • Didn’t Rossi explain, 3 E-Cats, two to partner, one to customer? jdh

  • Zedshort

    E-cat believers never die, they just fade away.

    • “E-cat believers never die, they just fade away.”
      You mis-characterize the good people on this blog that remain positive when they have seen all the hardware that Rossi has built (with his own money), the testing of that hardware, and the testimonies of qualified individuals. A DISBELIEVER looks at the SAME information and sees nothing positive, because he/she is too inept to know what to look for or how to evaluate what he sees. jdh

    • Bob

      If cats have nine lives,
      the ecat will not die. It will just smell that way.

  • Are there new leaks upon the delivery operation of these 3
    Ecat Systems, except it already confirmation by A Rossi ?

    • lenrdawn

      Why would you say “new leaks”? Have there been any “old” leaks? I only recall one – and that wasn’t positive (the Swedish agency that found no excess energy).

      • Björn

        The leak from the hotcat test in august last year was another one and more positive.

        • Bob

          There were leaks in the original ecat test on 28th October 2011 but apparently they have been fixed now with new gaskets. Oh,.. you mean,.. information leaks?
          There are no gaskets that can stop them.

      • Omega Z

        They apparently worked those problems out, because it appears their still involved with Rossi.

  • Lu

    Andrea Rossi
    May 2nd, 2013 at 3:34 AM

    Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
    0- the photos of the delivery test will be published on this blog within several days, after the permission of the Customer


    Warm Regards,

    So maybe something to raise our expectations in a few days?

    • Matt

      I guess, he is really busy now finding blue containers standing by three in a row. Takes some days to find such…

    • Robert

      Probably not….”after permission of the customer”. Rossi is not as bad at the language as many think. He has certainly left himself an escape path and I expect him to excercise “the customer did not allow..”

      I do not mean to be negative, but over the past several announcements, I see a pattern. “Third party testing by university professors” does not mean that any university has authorized testing. It simply means that “some professors from some university is doing the testing” There is a big difference.

      Although I must state, I am very disappointed in this latest round of smoke screen tactics. He clearly stated pictures would be taken and gave no reference to customer approval nor upon arrival. He stated along the lines when the reactors were being loaded, pictures would be taken. (Several pictures)

      Also, I am deeply distrustful of the third party not being identified. There should be NO issue with stating that “tests have been concluded by persons x y and z and they are preparing the report to be submitted to journal A” A white paper on the submittal will be released at that time. AND then to have one of the testers to publicly state that yes, they tested and are in the process of writing the report. This uber secracy about the identities is very troublesome to me. I just do not see it in other areas.

      I am keeping my fingers crossed, but must admit, I am losing faith in Rossi. People like Roehner have made very specific claims that turned out to be complete fabrications. I do not understand how someone could do this, but it has been done in the past and will be done in the future. I hope Rossi is not one of them.

      If not for some reports from qualified people about Rossi, I would have written him off long ago. However, I am now even more concerned that I have heard of no encouraging reports from ANY of the professors and like that had leaked or reported information in the past. No more “Cures”, “22 steps”, Lewan, Focardi or even any information from his “distributors” such as Prometeon(?)

      Anyway, it is true Rossi owes us “web based sleuths” nothing. If I get riled up about this, it is my own fault. I can always simply stop visiting Ecat sites and stick to MFMP. I do not like what certain political commentators say and do not believe hardly any of what they say. I therefore do not listen to thier every word nor even visit thier blogs, radio stations or articles. Why would I treat Rossi be any different?

      I am the one that needs to make the decision to either pay attention or move on. Complaining incessantly on blogs does me nor anyone else good. Rossi certainly is not listening!

      • robiD

        About “22steps”, Passerini the 30th of April wrote:

        “… I have confirmations that the reports exist from those who participated in the fulfillment”

      • “I am now even more concerned that I have heard of no encouraging reports from ANY of the professors and like that had leaked or reported information in the past. No more “Cures”, “22 steps”, Lewan, Focardi or even any information from his “distributors” such as Prometeon(?)”
        That concerns me also. Could it be that Rossi is asking them to hold off for a while? Would that ‘build up tremendous pressure’ that would be released in one big burst, with published 3rd party report and installed working reactor??? jdh

        • Robert

          I can hold some hope, but cannot really have much faith. For one, it would be really hard for everyone to keep complete silence. Previous post stated Passerini said “he had confirmation from those participating…”, but again no names. Why not? Even if they did not say what the results were, why would they not confirm involvement? If Passerini really has confirmation, someone is talking to some extent.

          Not to insult Passerini at all, but why have him state “confirmation” but not the actual testers? I see no logic in that. Passerini has no real authority or acknowledged expertise in this field. Having him announce confirmation does nothing but give skeptics fuel for the fire. Having Focardi announce the tests were made and a report is being written would be a major event. Or have Passerini provide a direct quote from Focardi. Even giving Jed Rothwell the names and some specifics so he could state with certaintity on his site would be a major plus. No trade secrets etc. need be given, just reliable confirmation from a reliable source of expertise, that the test was done and the report is truly being written.

          Again, not to belittle Passerini, I visit his site from time to time and like it. But this “confirmation” really does not add anything and really is NOT a confirmation of anything. I remember a poster last fall stating he had inside knowledge and that the report was “BULLET PROOF” as he stated. The report was never made available and for what we know, problems were seen and the whole test had to be redone.

          I do not understand Rossi. He seemingly wants to be in the spot light making announcements, but the announcements make him look bad! A simple list of names or confirmation from one “expert” that the test is as presented. OR simply ONE customer stating “yes, we ordered a reactor, it is being installed and we will let you know at an appropriate time”. NO IP needed, no secrets revealed, no skullduggery. Rossi is most likely not taken seriously in “general” because of his acting so much like many scams and fakers have done.

          Still keeping my fingers crossed!

          • “problems were seen and the whole test had to be redone.”
            That is what I hear also, Rossi doesn’t say but others have sail and that would explain some of the delays. There has been additional development also, which takes more time. In the end, we may see a really great energy reactor. jdh

        • I completely disbelieve in the possibility that there will be a lot of hoopla in the world press when the E Cat is unveiled in all its glory. That’s simply because I have talked to some of the reporters that broke the Fleischmann-Pons story back in 1989. They will never touch this idea again because they felt so very badly burned. I believe that quiet world-of-mouth will prevail eventually if the E-Cat is shown to work as advertised, which I believe it will. But don’t expect Second Coming headlines and the kind of noise such a device deserves.

          • “They will never touch this idea again…”
            I think you are right. ‘Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me.’ jdh

          • Rockyspoon

            And yet what Pons and Fleishman did wasn’t a setup or con. They had spent years working on it and $90,000 of their own money. They were pressed by the U of U legal beagles to make an announcement before Jones from BYU beat them to it (some NASA guy had violated a confidentiality and told Jones what they were doing).

            Then there was the problem of time–everybody reported back in two weeks they hadn’t been able to replicate the results but not a single call was made to P & F, who would have told them it took them 4 weeks to saturate the unit before the reaction even started! All I can say is “Duh!”.

            So if there are any “reporters” (and I use that term derisively) out there that botched that first story, tell them to stay home and don’t even bother. Apparently they didn’t do their homework the first time and I double they’d do it right the second time, either. Just shows you can’t fix stupid, even after 24 years.

      • Redford

        “Third party testing by university professors” does not mean that any university has authorized testing. It simply means that “some professors from some university is doing the testing” There is a big difference”

        Yes, and a very interesting one. In the scientific world, “university says” is worth nothing. The only thing worth something are publication with peer reviewed, and actual scientific argument. What the administration has to say is simply not a point, and actually administration generaly keep it shut and know its place. Administration claims are only based on… publication, made by scientist. It claims the prize, take some credit, but it doesn’t build it.

        BUT people who have interest in social science are perfectly aware of a phenomenon well illustrated by your point that is “submission to authority”. Most people genuinely think the important thing is a University saying “we support eCat”, so that authority greenlights the new paradigm. It’s entirely off compared to how things work, but lack of experience on the matter and expectations based on how we’re used to conform to mainstream media / politics make up for it.

        No university will tell “we believe in eCat” – that is a commercial product. University will only declare involvement in LENR which some are already doing, while they weren’t before. They may at a point admit some of their members have been studying eCat and used their labs at the university to do so (as already done) or will (as it unclearly is or is not the case currently with Bologna, Levi, NI). And that’s it.

        Once and for all, we need
        – replication (like 3rd party testing getting public, happy customer getting public, successful competitor, etc.)
        and that’s all. EVERYTHING ELSE is not prooving a thing. University claiming “it’s great” : worth nothing. Picture ? Nothing. Public exposition of something that isn’t monitored by third party ? Nothing.
        Look for the ball, people.

        • “Once and for all, we need:
          – replication (like 3rd party testing getting public, – happy customer getting public, – successful competitor, etc.)”

          • Rockyspoon

            …or a demonstrable, working unit delivering 1MW.

            I’m not holding my breath that any professional is willing to stake their reputation on a report while I believe some industrial engineer (especially if they can remain anonymous for a while) will convince management to install a unit with a guarantee and after a test period, share the limelight of fame when it works as promised.

            That’s how it works in industry when it comes to new developments, and I’ve been in industry long enough to say this from experience.

        • Robert

          I agree to a degree about “offical university” involvement. However I state my case as this… The University of Missouri has established an official department (using funds from a grant)headed by Dr. Robert Duncan. If Robert Duncan makes a statement, it carries a LOT more weight (both in Mass Media and the Scientific community) than if Aldo Prioa Phd, makes a statement. Both have advanced degrees, but the organization you are connected with AND your resume does make a big difference.

          True, a good test is a good test. (Also a bad one is also bad) However, if I, Robert BSME, conducts a well, validated test concerning a hereto unkown, unproven nuclear reaction (LENR), I can guarantee it will not get the notice in mass media nor the acceptance in science circles if there is not a respected University or large corporation behind me.

          • Rockyspoon

            And yet I’ve seen universities act like clowns when it comes to controversial technology—you never kknow what might happen.

    • daniel maris

      Yes, takes a long time these days to upload photos onto the web…

    • Omega Z


      This is exactly where it gets tricky.

      “0- the photos of the delivery test will be published on this blog within several days, after the permission of the Customer”

      Exactly what does this mean. It can be interpreted several ways.
      Pictures Rossi has taken already & will publish after the customer OK’s it.

      Pictures to be taken after they arrive & are tested after being setup at the new location. If the Customer approves.

      I’m sure others can come up with different versions.

      Me. I’ll just wait. Not in a hurry to get anywhere.

      • Bob

        It doesn’t matter really.
        The pictures of this reactor have been available on the internet for years now, some with Rossi standing inside it.
        Although we haven’t seen any pictures of it sitting on a truck. That will be different.
        Gee, I would love to see pictures of it powering the truck. That would get my interest.

        • Rockyspoon

          I dunno–a truck with such a large “engine” there’s no room for the load?

          Ok, just kidding…

    • Patrik

      Several days must be at least three weeks. It is the shipping time for the ecat, and it should be out of reach for Mr Rossi until the day the ship arrives at the destination port. Or is he talking of pictures from the shipping occasion in Italy?

  • Barry

    Six months now? He would have more credibility if he didn’t communicate so often. I’m a diehard Cold Fusion fan, but I feel Rossi has misused his audience and has become the “boy who cried wolf”.

    • “I feel Rossi has misused his audience and has become the “boy who cried wolf”.
      Barry, you hit the nail on the head. However, Rossi owes us NOTHING and we can take or leave what he is saying. Even though communications are inept, I am grateful for the ADVANCED information. I am very busy preparing for my participation in a possible THIRD WORLD ENERGY REVOLUTION and I am hopeful Rossi is real. jdh

    • Redford

      Quite possibly except he’s not a boy and we’re not villager. We believe what we want and we suffer alone the outcome. What we believe and what we don’t doesn’t change the wolf’s threat by a iota for him.

      Limits of comparisons…

      • Barry

        I guess he didn’t cry either, but your missing the point. Rossi has made a lot of claims that have led to murky results. I wish him well and hope he comes through but I no longer trust his communications.

  • David F

    Did Rossi sell his pat ??????

  • lcd

    It doesn’t take six months.

    By now if results were true the scientific community would be abuzz with rumors. Scientists suck at keeping secrets. Unfortunarely the most likely explanation is that there was no independent testing done and Rossi simply lied about it likely to serve his patent purposes.

    Does this mean the whole ecat is a lie, maybe not since we at least have some corroborated third party info from dgt, but we’d all be fools to waste another moment on Rossi.

    I hope you guys that write him on his blog are a little bit harder on him.

    • artefact

      but DGT claimed to have the secret from Rossi…

    • Redford

      You really know nothing about the scientific world & publications.

      Time from submission to publishing, average 6 month-1 year, sometimes 2.

      Scientific community will only react to a)publication in a high IF revue, b) facts (product on the market). I really am puzzled to see things happen exactly like I expected. Does no one here publish or know someone who does ? Have you guys put all of your energy understanding physics and none at all how science unfold ?

      Of course, Rossi’s the main to blame, telling to expect the article that soon was silly. The only reason I forgive this is that it’s the opposite of what a good scammer would have done, so I think here’s another indication he’s sincere.

      Still, some people at least should know better. Publishing in a peer review implies careful verification, which is exactly why that’s a valuable way of doing thing. And this takes time, especially considering how polemic the matter is.

      • clovis


        • psi

          + one more.

      • daniel maris

        Since when does an independent tester have to keep their identity secret. There is so much silly “secrecy” involved with Rossi that it inevitably raises doubts.

        That’s why seemingly low level proof like pics and signs of other people being involved are important.

        If he does have the technology he is his own worst enemy, if he doesn’t have the technology he is our worst enemy.

        • Redford

          You’re missing practical sense here. Some research/industries creates polemic / public interest. Nuclear or GMO comes to my mind first. That’s why people working on it don’t claim it until they absolutely have to. Now eCat creates a different attraction – mainly positivie, but overwhelming. Moreover, LENR stinks and you don’t want to associate a solid name on it unless you’re really ready to defend your position.

          So getting public before publishing proof is guaranteed spam in the mail + bad press + possible immediate professionnal backfire for no… gain … at… all. Absolutely none.

          In a more general sense, you don’t claim partnership until communication asks for it. I am currently in the situation of not telling my companie’s partnership, not because we thought about it carefully, but because we didn’t think it at all. We just behave by default : don’t tell unless you need it and you’re prepared. Basic communication.

          So for me what clearly would be unexpected would be to have a partner reveal before it has a way to do it and defend against critism. Which is probably the point of this study anyway.

          • Bob

            I am not aware of any requirement for scientists to keep their identity secret when doing third party tests and repeorts UNLESS
            either the owner of the technology demands it of the scientists before the tests are carried out, or
            the scientists freely give such an undertaking to the owner of the technology to cajole the owner into allowing the tests to be carried out.
            I would put my money on the latter case.

            I also think Rossi would have put in a provision that the results could not be published without his approval.
            Since I believe that the tests would prove minimal excess energy then it’s unlikely the results will ever being published.
            One thing I am sure of, if the device showed a high COP the results would have long ago hit the headlines, even if the full report was still confidential.

          • lcd

            exactly bob, an abstract, something would have reared it’s head by now regardless of how long the official report would have taken.
            i repeat it does not take six more months for that to happen.

          • Redford

            “I am not aware of any requirement for scientists to keep their identity secret”

            Sorry but this is OT. That point is simply not relevant.

            1) Do you know any requirement for scientist to get public ?

            2) it’s apparently a paid report by “the partner”. When does private report go public “by default” in your book ?

          • Bob

            point 1/. No. there obviously isn’t any. But the point being made is, there is no obligation on the professors to keep their identity secret. Since there is no obligation I am surprised considering all the people involved no names have leaked out. Not impossible, just strange.
            Point 2/. With a privately funded report, it goes public when the people who paid for it decide to release it. I would have no problem with that except for the annoujncements of imminent release. Again, the point being made is that it’s strange with so many people involved, nothing has leaked out. I don’t expect the leaking of a full report, only a few words. But nothing. Not a peep.
            Politicians would kill for the ability to maintain that kind of secrecy. In fact, they probably do.
            So many things which are always strange for so long usually means something is not as we are led to believe.
            But you are probably right in that it is a side issue and not overly important to the final result.

      • Rockyspoon

        The problem I see with publishing a report like that in a peer-reviewed journal is finding qualified reviewers. Who is considered reliable enough that a majority of scientists in other fields will agree with the conclusions? And without such agreement, what has been accomplished?

        I have more confidence in Rossi’s work than doubt, but as you say, it could take a handful of months or even stretch into several years, especially on such a controversial topic.

        I’m betting Rossi’s commercial plants become operational and recognized before the paper is published. That’s why Rossi appears to be concentrating the majority of his efforts there.

  • Roger Bird

    I know that I can count on some of you geniuses to explain the Papp engine and the Rohner people. What is the big deal? Is the engine “violating” the conservation of energy “law”. I don’t mind if it is being violated since it was a bad law anyway; they should never have enacted it in the first place.

    Seriously, does the energy of the spark cause the gas to become a plasma and force the piston out of the cylander, and then the argon or hydrogen collapse back into a gas? Please tell me. Inquiring minds want to know.

    • Robert Ellefson

      The big deal is that Nobody Knows how the Papp engine worked, only that it did appear to work to more than one knowledgeable observer, and that Papp took most of his secrets to the grave.

      If you look at the current efforts to recreate the process, seemingly mysterious behaviors appear now and then, but really nobody has a clue as to how the actual Papp engines produced power. I hope Russ et al make some headway – this would make a good complement to LENR heat engines.

    • I am not a scientist but if a theory follows logic it am more
      inclined to believe a practical application is possible.

      From a logical perpective I see two flaws with the Plasma Erg
      product. 1) There is no explaination or logical reason to have a
      mixture of noble gases versus one gas. 2) For no loss of gas the
      chamber has to be sealed and this is not really possible in a
      mechanical piston chamber engine concept.

      I was astonished to find that almost no research has been
      done on this phenomenon.

      The phenomenon could be described as Arc Ionization of Gases.
      This results in a rapid temproary expansion and contraction of the gas in the presense of an electrical arc (spark pulg, welding etc).
      Not much is known, if there is additonal sub atomic energy release
      simular to cold fusion or TIG welding.

      The theory is that there is a exponential rate of gas plume expansion by an arc in proportion to the linear level of arc voltage.

      The very skilled and in my view intelligent Russ Gries has experimented with the plasma erg and popper theory and has had
      positive results. I have had communication with him during his

      There is one private study published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics for potential use in propultion:

      Stelu Deaconu, Hugh W. Coleman, and S. T. Wu. “Plasma Study on
      Ionization of Flowing Gases by Direct Current Electric Discharge”, AIAA Journal,
      41, No. 4 (2003), pp. 633-640.

      • Roger Bird

        I am not a scientist also, but I play one in from of my children. (:->)

        • Energy is neither created nor destroyed it only changes form. It is practical for machine work
          only if some of it is in inexpensive useable
          forms. Sadly most condescending types pull the
          wool over peoples eyes mis-using this truth by
          blithly quoting the law of conservation of energy
          out of context.

      • Bob

        In all the videos, take note of the large bank of electrolytic capacitors used in the experiment. (usually blue cylinder like things about 6 inches high.) Depending on the voltage rating there could be up to 100,000 microfarads of capacitance there.
        Energy stored in a capacitor is given by E = 1/2 CV^2
        if C is 100,000 X 10^-6
        V is 200 volts say,
        energy is therefore 2000 joules.
        This is then dumped into the firing cylinder.
        The resultant kick of the power piston is entirely consistent with this energy input without any requiremnet for extra energy from some exotic noble gas reaction.

        I’ve watched many videos of these tests and I have never seen one which displayed any energy which was not consistent with the input energy being supplied to the system.
        Even the noise they make is entirely consistent with dumping a large electrolytic capacitor across a spark gap. There is no exposive sound at all, only the sound of an electrical discharge.
        You will note they never do many explosive cycles in these tests because electrolytics are quickly heated and destroyed by such use.
        On one test by John Rohner, he actually made the comment that the capacitors were getting warm. I can well believe they were.
        He should have continued a bit longer so we could see the whole lot explode.
        I would have been impressed by that. 🙂

        • I appreciate the interest in this thread.

          As far as the elemental gases are concerned there
          is an expansion as the ions of the gas are energized,
          that is an excited plasma state of matter.

          The one and only study of the aeronautical engineers

          “The working characteristic of a new hollow cathode, thermionic-arc dc discharge ionization device was investigated experimentally. Under typical operating conditions the device produces a steady, field-free plasma plume by ionizing a flowing gas column. Experiments were performed with argon, nitrogen, and helium, the typical discharge pressures being 0.2–0.6 Torr. ”


          “The experiments indicate that the stability and the ionization efficiency of the discharge are enhanced by a supersonic flow field. Flow surveys have shown that the more stable argon and nitrogen plumes were slightly supersonic in the range of pressure investigated while helium flow remained subsonic throughout. The important consequence to the supersonic flow is the development of a normal shock in front of the cathode filament.”

          Stelu Deaconu, Hugh W. Coleman, and S. T. Wu. “Plasma Study on Ionization of Flowing Gases by Direct Current Electric Discharge”,

          If Russ increased the voltage in a straight increment
          the power of expansion increased exponentially in the same space.

          Remember that the spark plug in a car has tens of thousands of volts.

          • Bob

            re the comment “If Russ increased the voltage in a straight increment
            the power of expansion increased exponentially in the same space.”

            Yes. Exactly as you would expect.
            If you increase the voltage then the power delivered from the reervoir capacitors increases with the square of the voltage.
            E = 1/2 CV^2
            E is energy in Joules,
            C is capacitance in Farads,
            V is volatage

            I have no argument on whether a plasma is formed or not. I agree one is. At those instantaneous power levels it would have to be.
            But then a plasma ids formed in neon tubes by the mile and we don’t sdeem to be heating the planet up with those. (Hmm,.. well maybe we are.)
            I do have an argument that there is an excess of power produced over what has been put into the system.
            So far I have not seen it.

    • dsm

      (continuation of the setting up of the cylinders from the patent)

      A method of precharging each of the variable volume power generating chambers may be carried out in a simple and effective manner, as follows: the variable volume chamber comprising the portions 6 and 7, together with the activating cells 20 and 21 in position, may be first filled with de-oxygenated water through the fitting 24 while the chamber is in its fully expanded position. A mixture of say, 60% neon and 40% chlorine is now injected into the cylindrical cavity until about 10% of the water is expelled. The contents of the cylinder are then cycled, agitated or otherwise mixed to cause some of the chlorine to become absorbed by the water.

      A mixture of 60-70% xenon with, say, 30-40% chlorine, is then injected into the cylinder until an additional 40% of the original volume of decomposed water is expelled by this second gas injection. The contents should again be cycled or thoroughly agitated.

      With the chamber now containing approximately 50% decomposed water by volume, a mixture composed of about 65% argon, 25% xenon and 10% neon is injected within the cylinder or chamber in a collapsed position until a sufficient amount of water is displaced so as to leave within the cylinder between 10% and 25% of the water. Thereafter, the cylinder is expanded to maximum volume position and the last named gas mixture is injected so as to create a pressure within the chamber of between 1 and 3 atmospheres. The injection fitting 24 is now securely closed and the gases therein are ionized by charging with 110 to 440 volt current for a period of about 6 hours; a longer time is required when the volumes are larger and lower potentials are used on the charging current. Ionization of the charge is conveniently accomplished by supplying the current through the terminals 20 and 23 of an actuating cell and adjacent electrode.

      At this point, it may be noted that the terminal posts 23 and 23’ extend as electrodes 30 and 30’ into the chamber and terminate in a pair of opposed platinum spark gap points 31 and 31’ adapted to produce a glow field under stated conditions of operation. The gap between the electrodes may be from 1/16 to ¼ inch depending upon the construction and size of the chamber. The two copper electrodes 30 and 30’ carry between them a collector plate 32 which may be made of a copper alloy containing magnesium, manganese and aluminum alloy containing some zinc sulfide or preferably from an alloy containing appreciable quantities of antimony and cesium. As shown in Fig. 3, the collector plate 32 is suspended from the electrodes by means of relatively thin insulators 33 capable of breaking down in the event the voltage across the collector 32 and its terminals 30, 30’ exceeds about 12 to 24 volts DC.

      Above the collector plate 32, there is mounted a glow coil 34 (preferably made of wolfram) which may be protected by a perforated shroud 35. One end of the coil is connected to electrode 30’ and contact with electrode 30 is by way of a thermosensitive, bimetallic element 34’ which disconnects the glow coil after the initial heating of the environmental gases has been accomplished.

      The collector plate 32lies in a plane between the two activating cells 20 and 21 as shown in Fig. 2. The preferred distance between the two activating cells may vary from ¼ inch to ¾ inch. It is important however that the spark gap 31 of the electrode assembly extend slightly below the bottom of the two activating cells so that when the cylinder or chamber is in its collapsed or minimum volume position, the spark gap extends into the aqueous medium of de-oxygenated water in the bottom of the chamber. Similarly, it is desirable that the extreme lower ends of the activating cells contact or are in very close proximity to the water in the bottom of the chamber when the chamber is in its collapsed position.

      Many virtually instantaneous radiations, reactions, changes in energy levels, changes in direction of radiations due to electron charges absorbed by the collector plate and electromagnetic field effects, luminescence and fluorescence, photon electronic absorption and emission, endothermic resultants caused by the release of chlorine from the water, exothermic results caused by discharges between the points of the gap, etc., take place in the chamber. The reversible reactions are controlled by the selection of the atomic constituents of the charge and activating cells and a unique supply of electrical energy. One form of such control system, adapted for use with any multiple of two variable volume chambers herein before described, is shown in Fig. 4.

      The patent link …


      • Bob

        A patent is no proof that something works.
        It only means that it was described in a manner that any person familiar with the art could construct the device.

        This is where Rossi’s patent failed.
        Others have since corrected that error and have filed patents for Rossis device even though they have not got one working either.

  • Sergio

    Here is a simple test to determine your state of mind:

    If you still thinks that LENR is a scam, you are delusional.

    If you still thinks that Rossi is a scam, you are not delusional.

    • Rockyspoon

      And if you are wrong on the second item, you aren’t informed.

      Not sure what that proves, but it is possible.

      I say wait and see–he isn’t charging you admission, unless the time you spend here is better applied elsewhere, but that’s something each of us must consider for ourselves.

  • Torbjörn

    The test/demonstration that was performed Oktober 6th 2011 provides solid evidence that the E-Cat works.
    Some of the people that became convinced after the test/demonstration:
    Me, Mats Lewan, David Roberson, Robert J. (Bob) Higgins, Jed Rothwell and Roland Pettersson.

    • Hi Torbjorn, thanks. Yes, that one too is another convincer for me.

      • Bob

        We really need some more engineers on this site.
        The test on 6th October was nothing more than a demonstration of the thermal conductivity of brass compared with the thermal conductivity of the brass / water interface at the hot end of the heat exchange. And of course as everybody knows, brass conducts heat much better than the brass to water interface. The COP could have been faked to any value Rossi wanted by merely increasing the velocity of the coolant water flow rate. The temperature at the point he chose to be measured would ALWAYS be hotter than the water inside the outlet pipe. That’s how heat exchangers work. If there is no temperature difference then there is no heat exchange.
        As it happens, the demonstateion of a COP of 6 was required so the flow rate to achieve this was around 600 litres per hour. A slower flow rate would have resulted in a lower COP and a more accurate test, but that was not what was wanted.
        What possible justification was there for such a ridiculously high flow rate in the coolant resulting in such a small temperature increase? None at all other than as a prop to the trick.
        You can reliably take it that the 6th October 2011 test DID NOT provide any proof that the device works as claimed. It did exactly the opposite.
        Am I sour about that? Yes, just a little.
        I wished half of the year away, from April to October waiting for that promised proof only to be given a far less than convincing magicians trick.
        At my age, I can’t afford to wish away even a week.
        I wont be doing it again.

        • Patrik

          You are probably right. I work with heating appliances, both laboratory prototypes and testing of commercially available appliances. Often is the information on e-cat tests not sufficient for a thorough analysis. I know that I have been confused by the simple valves etc that are used. They are for plumbing and not in revolutionary heating appliance prototypes. The instruments are also a little too simple for the task. Something is strange.

        • Torbjörn

          If you’ve read the entire report by Mats Lewan you should come to the conclusion that the E-Cat works. There is no point to comment your statements if you have not read the entire report. There are several ways to figure out that the heat produced was greater than the input power.

          • Bob

            I read it. I read it a number of times in case I misinterpretted something. I watched the videos many times and that’s where the trouble started.
            I even emailed Mats Lewan and discussed a critical point. Much to my surprise he answered me but I considered his explanation was not correct. I didn’t take the exchange any further. He seems like a really nice guy but in my opinion, on this one point he was wrong. His opinion versus mine, and I was not there. He was. I appreciate in some respects that give him a slight edge, but also it puts him at a disadvantage in that he was swayed by the personal performance of the magician, and there is no doubt he can put on a great performance.
            But I know what I am seeing when I watch the videos and the videos do not lie on the basic points.
            The silly part is, If Rossi did not point his finger to the exact place on the heat exchanger and say something to the effect ‘I placed the temperature probe right there’, we all would have been none the wiser. For those who are not at least a little bit familiar with some engineering principles the significance of this detail might appear to be irrelevent. It is not. The accuracy of the whole test swings on this one point, and the simple fact is, it was seriously mislaced to the extent that the test results were meaningless.
            I could take that as an innocent error if it wasn’t then compounded by the ridiculously high coolant flow rate. I can only conclude this combination was solely for the purpose of producing the required result, which was, a COP of 6.

            Apart from this serious error the rest of the performance was a 9 out of 10 show and quite believable.

    • Curbina

      The reality of LENR and the possibility of gaining pratical use of it is beyond doubt, in spite of the naysayers and pseudoskeptics. What is annoying is how long it takes to become a widely accepted and used technology. Hopefully in a not so distant future we will one day awake to a new LENR powered world, meanwhile, we keep waiting for it.

    • K

      Yes, Indeed.
      I’ve been there too. 100% evidence ! It was not mostly the hot water that convinced the professors, but more the measurement of periodically occurring gammas and the full control Rossi has on the effect. That caused the biggest wow-effect ! The earlier experiments often had runaways with clustered and molten Nickel as a result, destroying the reactor.
      The single problem that exists in this whole history is that the patent officers refuse to do their jobs.

      • Torbjörn

        Did you observe gamma radiation yourself?
        The reports from Oktober 6th dosen’t mention measurment of gammas. Perhaps Rossi wanted it to be kept secret? I guess Rossi didn’t want to convince everybody at that time.
        For example he only showed the reactor to a few people after the testing.

        • K

          Radiation measurements and recordings were done by an expert in this matter, and were interpreted by the professore.
          Nothing was really hidden. Everybody could do, say and ask whatever he wanted.

          • Torbjörn

            In that case it is strange that we never have heard of the periodically occurring gammas until now. If you know more about the radiation then please tell us more.

          • Bob

            There isn’t any more.
            There has never been any measurements of gamma radiation. All the measurements have shown that there aren’t any.
            Rossi himself testified to the authority in Florida that there was NO radiation in the reactors at all.
            In that statement I believe him.

          • artefact

            Celani made gamma measurements at the Jan. 11 demo and got readings above background at startup and shutdown that convinced him.

          • Bob

            For a power output of 5 to 10 kilowatts there should be gamma radiation detectable in the next room. It was claimed that the heating effect was due to the gamma radiation being absorbed by the shielding and that heat then transferred into the cooling jacket.
            5 kilowatts worth? I don’t think so. A few milliwatts maybe, if any at all.
            And anyway, Rossi says there is no gamma radiation so how can you argue with that? 😉

          • artefact

            “Rossi says there is no gamma radiation so how can you argue with that?”
            Only Rossis wife could! 🙂

            It is an outside reactor measurement. The detectable amount belongs on the energy of the single photons. If all photons are of relatively “low” energy you detect nothing on the outside with propper shielding. Obviously (at least in 2011) some of the rays where of higher energy to pass the shielding. (slightly abouve background). I think it belongs on the stability of the reaction if higher energy rays are emitted or not. (DGT said?) And the measured amount belongs on how the most amount of energy is emitted. If it is something like a forced beta decay, the energy emitted could mostly be electrons, positrons, neutrinos and antineutrinos. We don’t know. Now one said all produced energy is high energy gamma.

      • Torbjörn

        “The single problem that exists in this whole history is that the patent officers refuse to do their jobs.”

        Yes the patent examiner didn’t show up that day, apparently he/she had more important things to do.

      • zvibenyosef

        The patent office job is apparently to protect the interests of the Coal, Gas and Oil industry, and to preserve the budgets of big hot fusion science projects, which will always be 20 years away from viability.

      • Stone

        Mr. K, “very persuasive” and “full controls” as showed in this test?
        I suggest to You to watch this video in particular from minute 3.00 to the end:


        What does it look like?

        • K

          It looks like Mr. Rossi is ageing very fast.

          • Shame on you skeptics, you are: “ageing Mr. Rossi very fast!”
            Be kind to him, he is trying to save the world for all of us, our children, and grandchildren! We should encourage him to continue. jdh

          • Stone

            Mr Herrera, are You part of a group of worshipers?

          • “a group of worshipers?”
            No, I am singular, are there others like me? Good.
            All that REALLY MATTERS is that E-Cats are producing heat and can supplement and replace current energy devices, for the betterment of mankind. jdh

          • Stone

            Mr. K, I hoped to have a serious technical discussion with an engineer. I was wrong, you’re just a humorist. Okay, It was an illusion.

          • K

            Mr Stone, I earn a (fair) living on independent technical consultancy.
            Which does not mean that I know everything.
            One thing that is allways important is the money.
            Mr. Rossi wants to keep things cheap. My aplogies if I have offended you by avoiding this discussion.

        • Bob

          I’ve mentioned this demonstration before.
          You will notice at about time 3:00 onwards, when Mats Lewan moves into the next room to check the outlet bucket, the bucket has about three litres of water in it all supposedly out of the reactor, and yet it is not even steaming, even though the reactor is pumping out 5 kilowatts into 3 litres of already hot water.
          An electric kettle is about 2.2 kilowatts It takes about 7 to 8 minutes to boil 3 litres of water. ( from 20 eg C to 100 deg C. 484 kilojoules per litre of water) After that, if you disable the auto switch off it will blow out large quantities of steam and boiling water, very much more than that in this video.
          Also, in the video, the pipe supposedly supplying all this steam and condensed steam is not bubbling at all until Mats walks into the room. Why not? Rossi said that the reactor was operating in a “stable” mode. He felt the need to repeat it a number of times just to make sure the point was made.
          And yet, although he said it was “stable”, the video clearly shows he was tinkering with the power supply box when Mats returned to the room, coincidentally the same time that the steam appeared at the outlet.
          Whether the divice works or not, it is abundantly clear the device shown to Mats Lewan as NOT fuctioning on the day he went to see it.
          I find it unbelievable that if he had a device which had been heating his factory for two years prior to that, he would not have been able to show Mats a working reactor.
          And if for some justifiable reason he could not, he should have said so.

          • Bob

            oops! an error in the figures above.
            To heat 1 litre of water from 20 deg C to 100 deg C is 4.185joules X 1000 X 80 = 334.8 Kilojoules.
            It makes no difference to the point being made but before someone negates the whole argument for the sake of that point, I correct it.
            Sorry. I blame old age. 🙂
            (I can do that now)

          • Omega Z

            I believe the E-cat heating the Factory has been misrepresented. Not on purpose, but on technical grounds.

            A more accurate representation would be as in supplement heat. Working in conjunction with a primary heat system.

            I believe it was Focardi who 1st mentioned he saw the E-cat heating Rossi’s factory.

            FACTORY: Yes, Technically Rossi can call it a factory because they assemble & test product there, But in my region, I’d call it my workshop.

            These are Regional differences found everywhere. Throw in language variations (At least 4 major language differences) in the way we use the order of nouns, verbs, subject Etc, It’s remarkable there isn’t more confusion.

            It would be nice if Rossi had a PR person, BUT, In Rossi’s Eyes, That’s Not his primary purpose. The E-cats are. We’re just get to go along for the ride.

            I’d note that Rossi also tends to represent something as Done when it is still in process. In His mind he may consider it done even tho it may need tweaking.

            How many have been asked if something was done & you respond, Yes, but I still have a few details to take care of. I didn’t just Lie. But it’s also not factual. It’s a matter of perception.

          • Bob

            Yes I agree with you that the ecat was almost certainly not the only source of heating. Rossi never said it was and there was no necesity for him to do so.
            However, the fact that an ecat was said to have been operating for two years producing a useful energy output has to mean that one should have been available to show a science reporter who had come for the express purpose of seeing one in operation. If it was not available on that day then set a day when one is available. It is an inexcusable error to show something not working under the pretence that it is working.
            From the video of the event, it was not working.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer


    • John Littlemist

      Just a reminder, here’s list of the persons who were present during the demonstration of October 6th, 2011


      * Andrea Rossi
      * Sergio Focardi
      * Enrico Billi
      * Christos Stremmenos
      * Paolo Soglia
      * Damiana Aguiari
      * Enrico Campari
      * Ennio Bonetti
      * Stefan Helgesson
      * Paul Swanson
      * Niclas Sandstrom
      * Hahn Magnus
      * Stefano Riva
      * Nicola Parenti
      * Tomas Johansson
      * Giuseppe Levi
      * Roland Pettersson
      * Loris Ferrari
      * Pierre Clauzon
      * Koen Vandenwalle
      * Alessandro Passi
      * Daniele Passerini
      * Roberto Sgherri
      * Domenico Fioravanti
      * Mats Lewan
      * David Bianchini
      * Sebastiano Zannoli
      * Edward Jobson
      * Maurizio Melis
      * Andrea Granatiero
      * Massimo Brega
      * Raymond Zreick
      * Irene Zreick

      • Stone

        Do you know how many persons between those had really make any energy measurement of the 1MW plant?

        From my knowledge the most of them were mere visitors not even involved in the test or any verification.
        This list it means nothing.

        • “This list it means nothing.”
          Trained ‘eyes and ears’ can help spot weaknesses in the set up or testing of the E-Cats. So what have they said? jdh

          • Stone

            They performed a visit to the 1MW Plant after test conclusion.
            What did they could verify or say really relevant?

      • Bob

        This impressive list of names was selected entirely for the purpose of providing intelectual collateral. None of them were involved in designing or setting up the test. Had they had some input to the procedure the results would have been far less impressive.

    • Stone

      Mr. Torbjörn, You spoke of “solid evidence…”

      Are you able to provide a solid proof that in the pipes of 1MW plant flowed only steam (not simply superheated water or mixed)?

      What about proof (measurement) of the electric energy consumed?

      • Torbjörn

        I am speaking of the Oktober 6th test not the Oktober 28th test.
        The proof exists in Mats Lewans data.
        120 W input, atleast 2kW output power (heat) during three and a half hour.

        • Torbjörn

          I remembered wrong, the input was 115 W. Mats Lewans article:

        • Stone

          Well, about 6 October can you explain why the flux of water was mantained so high that the thermal gap between probes was quite comparable with the accuracy of temperature probes?
          Can you explain why about the secondary circuit of the heat exchanger the “hot” probe was installed so close to metal body where the primary circuit collects the steam produced?

          • Torbjörn

            “Well, about 6 October can you explain why the flux of water was mantained so high that the thermal gap between probes was quite comparable with the accuracy of temperature probes?”

            Are you suggesting that the probes had a measurement accuracy of 5 – 10 C? Yeah right.
            My theory is that Rossi did not want to convice too much. (Less competition)

            “Can you explain why about the secondary circuit of the heat exchanger the “hot” probe was installed so close to metal body where the primary circuit collects the steam produced?”

            Probably because it was easy. Roland Pettersson estimated that the measurement error because of this placement was up to 20%. Remember that the heat originated from a 20x20x1 cm reactor. (One out of three reactors)

            By the way, try to explain how the temperature inside the E-Cat was still 114 C after three an a half hour in the self sustained mode.

          • Torbjörn

            convice = convince

          • Stone

            Mr Torbjörn,
            “Probably because it was easy. Roland Pettersson estimated that the measurement error because of this placement was up to 20%”

            Is it just his rough opinion or he is able to provide the evidence using a model and calculation considering the hardware geometry and the thermal conduction factors?
            In case he is able to provide something, I can submit immediately his data and his model to a group of engineers expert of thermodinamics and thermal conduction of materials.
            Moreover was so difficult to make an hole in the yellow plastic pipe, 50cm far from the heat exchanger (thermal loss is insignificant), and to insert the temperature probe into to measure correctly the hot water temperature?

            If I understood well, about the issue of excessive flux of water You reply is:
            “My theory is that Rossi did not want to convice too much. (Less competition)”

            Well, he conducted this test as a scientific demonstration and a scientific demo has to be conducted in an appropriate scientific way, not to hide something to someone otherwise the purpose has been failed.

            “By the way, try to explain how the temperature inside the E-Cat was still 114 C after three an a half hour in the self sustained mode.”

            If it’s true that really no electrical energy was applied to the system during SSM, to exclude any thermal time constant it’s necessary to extend the observation period to 6-8 hours.

          • Stone

            Sorry Mr Torbjörn, I forgot to full reply…

            “Are you suggesting that the probes had a measurement accuracy of 5 – 10 C?”

            Read well the Report, the average temperature delta was just 4.2°C.
            The temperature probes accuracy was optimistically:
            2 times (+/-0.4% + 0.5°C) or pessimistically
            2 times (+/-0.4% + 1°C)

            If You not believe me, see the technical data at links below, relevant to used instruments:




            Has anyone of the professors present to the demo performed the calculation of total measurement uncertainty?
            What were they doing?

          • Bob

            The positive result did not come from any error of the temperature measuring instruments. That error was small.
            The big error was in the assumption that the water INSIDE the brass fitting at the HOT end of the heat exchanger was THE SAME temperature as that of the brass fitting the probe was mounted on.
            IT WAS NOT.
            It’s a simple limitation of the process of heat exchangers. The outlet water simply cannot be the same temperature as the fitting it flows through at the hot end of the exchanger. If it is then no heat would be transferred.
            So how big was the error?
            Enough to account for the entire quantity of claimed excess energy.

          • Torbjörn

            Mat Lewan wrote: “Given the doubt of the accuracy of the measured temperatures, conservatively ΔT can be considered half a degree less than the lowest value revealed, 4.7 degrees (at 18:53).”

            “It should also be noted that after half an hour of water flow, before starting any heating, the temperature at the inlet and the outlet of the heat exchanger still showed a difference of 0.5 degrees centigrade, the outlet water being cooler than the inlet water (at that time, the primary circuit was still empty as the E-cat was still filling up).”

            @Bob and Stone, read the report and understand it, or don’t.

          • Stone

            Mr Torbjörn, it’s better that You read well the Report:
            For example at time 11.18-11.22, before to switch any electrical power, the three temperature probes set to measure cold water showed:
            Tin 25.3°C
            Tout 24.6°C
            T3 25.6 °C
            All probes measured same cold water and the difference was 1°C. This isn’t the max example of uncertantly of temperature measurements, it’s just one of possible inaccurate values.
            At time 12.52-13.02, even if the hot water was already inlet into the heat exchanger (T2 >60°C), Tin was incredibly more hot than Tou of about 0.8 °C and T3 (pratically stable from time 11.52 to 25.6-25.7°C) more hot than Tout of about 2°C!).
            Are you able to explain technically these anomalies a lot greater than 0.5°C you wrote?

      • “The long period of relatively constant heat production following deactivation of the E-cat main internal core heater suggests significant excess energy. Accurate determination of that energy cannot be established due to imperfections of the test setup.”
        So mister Stone, some test/analyis positive, some undecided – no need to be so NEGATIVE about Rossi and his E-Cats. jdh

        • Stone

          Mr. Herrera I would like to be not completely NEGATIVE, a doubt can be acceptable, but in this Blog people continue to speak of “solid evidence that the E-Cat works”, this solid evidence doesn’t exist.
          Persons that read here and aren’t technicians could think that all has been proved, it isn’t true.

          • ” a doubt can be acceptable” Yes, you are correct.
            “solid evidence that the E-Cat works”, this solid evidence doesn’t exist.” Actually, very convincing evidence exists.
            Stone, balance your commentaries. There is reason to expect Rossi will succeed with a commercial energy reactor. jdh

          • Stone

            Mr Herrera, I’m not interested to the commercial aspect but only to the scientific one and from this point of view solid evidences doesn’t exist.
            If You have them show to all but not just opinions, pure technical evidences.

          • You are right Mr Stone, all we have are opinions – until we get a 3rd party validation and an installed E-Cat for everyone to see. As for “scientific aspects” Rossi is not trying to provide proof that he has achieved ‘cold nuclear fusion’. He is trying to demonstrate that he has a working reactor ready for industry.
            Perhaps I have had it with nit-picking Skeptics who “disbelieve” and are trying to prove that Rossi is a fraud and only hot fusion scientists can be trusted. jdh

    • lenrdawn

      “The test/demonstration that was performed Oktober 6th 2011 provides solid evidence that the E-Cat works.”

      How can a demo possibly be “solid evidence” for anything? They could all have been faked pretty easily.

      • A “test/demo” is NOT ‘solid evidence’.
        I have watched many magicians do a demo to convince me…
        Should I accept they have magic powers? jdh

      • Torbjörn

        Fake it yourself if it is so easy.

        • lenrdawn

          What is your point? Of course I could fake it if I wanted to – so, I assume, could you or anybody with just a little technical skill and imagination. This is extremely trivial compared with making white tigers disappear or bending spoons.

    • captain

      Thanks Tor!

  • Redford

    “Someone mentioned on a previous thread the report from last year”


    Now the question is: why was I the only one ? Proof value of pictures = 0.1. Proof value of september report with 3rd party experts putting their name on it = 10. Levi spending 17h with eCats = 7. We need 100pts to have it a commonly accepted fact. And people are getting crazy over the 0.1pts line….

    • Silvio Balatelli

      the disagreement starts with the value of the Sep report. Supervised by Rossi and his people, on Rossi´s premises. This does not add credibility unless you assume Rossi does not play foul. Certainly not a document of high scientific value if you consider the possibility that Rossi could have manipulated the experimental setup…..My score for this is 1.5, not 10.
      Levi is the best quality support so far, yet the question remains how good is Levi. At least his appearance was poor when the the steam issue came up.

      • Redford

        It’s not supervised. There’s one (1) Leonardo guy involved to operate the core which is absolutely normal. There are 2 other, non Leonardo (actually one Bologna and one independent expert) directing the report.

        The document scientific value is establish by peer validation. While the document needs peer review (the current process) it shall be observed that in itself, it indeed is a peer validation of Rossi’s claim. Every person failing to put this into consideration is clearly bypassing an important fact.

        Levi is less important for me because he’s one and they are two. OTOH he really put his face on this. But the two independant names put on the september report are playing their reputation and, as expert, their wealth on this. This has to be counted. Either it’s true, either they will suffer severe backfire professionnally (actually, even if it’s true, they’re still exposed already).

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Admin…..thanks for the article. It is my opinion Rossi has allowed us, via his forum, to witness invention and all of its frustrations and changing conditions, firsthand. I think Rossi made the statement that he tried thousands of “catalysts” before he found the one that worked. That kind of dogged determination requires a very positive person, not worrying about what didn’t work. I for one, can forgive his positive, can do, sometimes overly optimistic nature.

    • Bernie, I fully agree. I hear people talk about how Rossi should stay quiet, etc. — but we have had a unique opportunity to interface with someone who has put his whole heart into a very important invention. It’s very unusual and very interesting. I have no hard feelings towards the man at all if some of the things he has said haven’t panned out as he had predicted.

      • KD

        From J-O-N-P

        Robert Curto
        “http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802&cpage=6” l “comment-688792”
        Dr. Rossi, please Google:
        $1 billion transmission line.
        Click on:
        I was having some fun with these numbers, but I don’t have all the numbers.
        You may or may not want to play my game.
        It will take 3 years and 5 billion dollars to build a 6,000
        MW Dam.
        Amount of loan for Transmission Line, $1 billion.
        Cost of Line $1.2 billion.
        Length of line 385 miles.
        Transmission Line to move electricity from Dam to City.
        Cost of 6,000 MW:
        Dam, $5 billion
        E-Cat, ?
        Amount of Land:
        Dam, ?
        E-Cat, ?
        Cost of Transmission Line:
        Dam, $1.2 billion
        E-Cat, Zero
        Electricity produced during 3 years of construction, Zero.
        During that same 3 years, E-Cat
        will be producing 6.000 MW per year.
        Cost of Fuel per year:
        Dam, Zero
        E-Cat, ?
        Cost of maintenance per year: Dam. ?
        E-Cat. ?
        Cost of shipping:
        Dam, Zero
        E-Cat, ?
        So maybe the Dam is less espensive ?
        The way I understand one billion.
        If you had one pile of one million dollars, it would take one thousand piles of one million dollars in each pile to equal one billion dollars.
        Robert Curto
        Ft Lauderdale, Florida

      • Peter Roe

        I have no hard feelings towards the man at all if some of the things he has said haven’t panned out as he had predicted.

        Thats how I felt right up to the latest non-show. Rossi was wildly optimistic over suggested academic publishing speed, and may well have met with unexpected delays on other occasions. The date of ‘delivery’ probably was a misunderstanding not of Rossi’s doing – although not for the first time.

        The difference with the photos, in itself a small thing that would probably not in any case have been particularly conclusive proof of anything much, is that this would appear to be something that was entirely under Rossi’s control and didn’t depend on any external factors – and yet still it didn’t happen.

        The promises were quite clear, the shipment supposedly took place as arranged, no conditionality had previously been suggested, and yet casually and without explanation the goalposts moved and suddenly pictures would be available in three weeks, IF the customer permitted.

        Rossi seems to want those who follow his blog to believe many incredible things, that because they are so far ahead of actual evidence, require an act of faith to accept. For me, although objectively the issue of the pictures of the despatch is a matter of little importance, I’m afraid that this failure to carry out such a simple promise is just one step too far, and Rossi’s credibility has taken a massive hit as a consequence.

        Obviously my reaction to this even is entirely a personal thing and of no external significance whatsoever, but I just thought I would attempt to clarify what might otherwise (and may still) be interpreted as petulance.

        • georgehants

          Peter, totally agreed, people have been asking for pictures for a long time, he knowing this only had to request permission weeks ago.
          Our Mr. Rossi seems to not care about his supporters any longer.

          • Barry

            I agree with both of you. My trust in Rossi’s claims have waned and I’ve lost faith in his communication. He has it in his power to show us but instead he puts a lot of energy in murky verbiage. If he wants secrecy he should just remain quiet.

            I hope he presents something real but from here on I’m siding with the Missourians (show me state).

          • Ah shucks, gentlemen, me thinks thou protests too much. Rossi just released some pictures.
            Why be so hard on Rossi, when he is trying to ‘save the world’ and give us safe, cheap, abundant energy for us, our children, our grandchildren, etc. Rossi WILL SUCCEED with his E-Cats! jdh

  • jonas

    Still, this market is worth so many thousands of billions of dollars so if Rossi has this thing going, whysimply not show it to someone, get all investments in the worl and go. It is trivial to validate. I could do it in afew days in my basement. The only thing that happens is more waiting and “now we are almost done”, secret investors and factories etc. Why? EU invests 50billion dollars now until 2035 or so in building a fusion reactor. I think they would be intereste in putting those money elsewhere if they had a coice. Anyways i keep following this e-cat 😉

    • ” It is trivial to validate” jonas, there is NO waiting. While independent validation group was testing and validating, Rossi was working on development and manufacturing his E-Cats. Validation is confirmation at a scientific level, that the E-Cats are producing heat as claimed by Rossi specifications. jdh

  • We can all agree,Rossi COMMUNICATION sucks. There may or may not be ‘fusion’ going on in these reactors and Rossi is NOT claiming this is fusion. The debate is about whether the E-Cats are producing enough energy to go commercial. Maybe we will find out soon. jdh

  • andreiko

    Alles wat hier onder geschreven wordt is niet waar.

    Rossi bestaat niet.
    De professoren die betrokken zijn in de e-cats bestaan niet.
    De containers en al het andere wat we gezien hebben is van rubber.

    Kortom ,alles wat we gehoord,gezien , en gelezen hebben over LENR is
    uit de duim gezogen.

    Oja deze deze site bestaat ook niet.

    Ik ga lekker olie aandelen kopen!!!

    • b4FreeEnergy

      Je kan net zo goed een boodschap in het Russisch zetten … Begrijpt ook niemand een snars van!

      • Roger Bird

        Also Dutch: “You might as well put a message in Russian … also understand no one understand a word!”

        Not quite as much fun as the previous message.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          Am fear nach dèan cur sa Mhàrt, cha bhuain e san Fhoghar.

          • Roger Bird

            Irish: “Time not describe man in Mhàrt, s e in Fhoghar permanent.”

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          Socraichidh am pòsadh an gaol.

          • Roger Bird

            Irish: “Socraichidh time of the marriage relationship.”

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            Marriage kills the heat of love.

    • K


      • Roger Bird


        “You can use Google translation”

    • Roger Bird

      It’s Dutch:


      Everything that is written here is not true.

      Rossi does not exist.
      The professors involved in the e-cats do not exist.
      The containers and everything else we have seen is rubber.

      In short, everything we heard, seen, read and talk about LENR is
      sucked from the thumb.

      Oh that this site does not exist.

      I’m gonna go buy oil shares!


      I like it a lot, but I don’t agree with it. (:->)

      • Andreiko

        Thank you (:->)

  • Roger Bird

    So, I have investigated the Plasma Energy Cycle theory and demonstration of Bob Rohner and Dannel Roberts. It looks awfully real to me. It looks to me that the energy comes from the radioactive thorium, so the Theory of the Conservation of Mass/Energy is preserved. But why isn’t there more interest in it. Do people just prefer being lied to by Rossi? No, I have not lost interest in LENR or even Rossi, but it is very impressive to watch the video: http://www.particlemechanics.com/discovery_plasma_energy_cycle.htm.

    I cannot find a forum devoted to the Plasma Energy Cycle.

    • Because the Ecat already works and is commercially

    • robiD

      Don’t get confused about the energy balance in those kind of demos. A simple calculation shows that the electric energy used for electric discharge is by far greater than the mechanical work needed for lift up a 10 kg weight object for a few cm.
      The intriguing thing is that it seems (but I would need an independent confirmation) that there isn’t any increase in temperature in the cylinder, and this suggests that the expansion doesn’t follow the gas law PV=nRT.
      On the other hand until someone doesn’t make a reliable measure of the energy Input/Output balance, it seems useless to me try to develop that technology for electric to mechanical energy conversion since there are electric motor that already do that work with good efficiency.

  • Linda

    Today was obviously another slow news day. If tomorrow looks to be another slow news day, perhaps we could discuss the Bergius Process Hypothesis, and get some constructive contributions to that topic. This is vital, because the MFMP team is going to be introducing acetoneto their device soon. We need the input of many minds here. Thanks Frank 🙂

  • Andy Kumar


    It is about time we aligned our hopes with (low)expectations.


  • RenzoB

    Daniele Passerini wrote the following comment on facebook:
    “I am honestly convinced of the existence of the “third party report”, because I know a few people actively involved in his set-up; they have confirmed unambiguously that the experimental trials did indeed take place.
    From the rumors I have gathered I would like to append that:
    i) Rossi’s statement that he has no control on the timing and/or delay of report is true;
    ii) hot-Cat has received a very good rating.”

    • RenzoB

      In my opinion if Daniele says he personally knows some people involved in its setup it means someone from the university of Bologna is involved too…

      • artefact

        most probably

      • AB

        Levi is a friend of Passerini.

    • lenrdawn

      How is Daniele Passerini’s track record with rumors like this?

      • artefact

        Your question implies that you know of other statements refering to rumors by him. You could answer yourself.

        I personaly trust him very much and think he is very honest.

        • RenzoB


        • Bob

          I agree.
          The only problem is the original information probably comes from the top, and so far the top has a record of being somewhat less than reliable.

    • It seems to me that when Rossi does or plans to do something in the USA, he writes about it in his blog more actively than if he does it in Italy. Work made in Italy might therefore have a somewhat larger relative role in Rossi’s activities than what one would judge by following JONP.

  • artefact

    From PESN:

    Live Interview with Andrea Rossi Coming May 7


    • If the Smart Scarecrow hosts the interview, I hope his server and the Chatango chatroom can handle the volume!

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Can anyone explain to me how this “SuperWave” might be applied to a reactor?


  • elasticbucket

    Seems the horse is corralled, but the trainers having a tad of difficulty getting the saddle on.

  • Stanny Demesmaker

    So many negative reactions lately, the only thing that is in doubt is how commercial ready Rossi’s reactors are at this stage. I have no problem to have a little more patience. When you check in each day you don’t see the HUGE progress that has happened in the previous 2 years.

    • Gerrit

      yes – a lot has happened in the past 2 years, not only for Rossi, but also in the LENR field as a whole (like MFMP, SKINR, NASA, NRL)

      All this has taken the LENR field to a higher level and simultaneously raised the expectations.

      Unfortunately, currently, it seems there is little tangible evidence for progress.

      Did Rossi already publish the photos of the shipment ?

      • artefact

        He said he will publish them in the next days. He will talk to the customer which photos they allow to release. (Their reactors)

    • Bob

      You’ve got to be kidding. HUGE progress?
      The ecat shown delivered (again not) to his “customer” is the same design as it was two years ago. One of the most obvious modifications it needed was to change the design to allow fast recharge of the reactor modules. It still looks like a one month job just to get into all the modules, let alone do any recharge work on them.
      I would have expected by now that the reactor core would be a screw in cartridge or something similar which can be exchanged in situ.
      Rossi has recognised this in one of his recent comments where he states the recharge will be accomplished by replacing every reactor module on each recharge. I can’t see that as being the cheap power we were hoping for.
      As for proof that anything actually works? We still have none. That’s not progress.

  • From my discussions with ‘Stone’ I realize there are three groups here:
    1. those evaluating Rossi hardware for ‘scientific proof’ of cold fusion
    2. those evaluating Rossi hardware for production of heat and/or electricity, ready for commercial applications.
    3. skeptics who find all discussions of CF/LENR are nonsense

    So, I am with #2 group and urging Rossi to continue and succeed! jdh