3rd Party Report: E-Cat at Least One Order of Magnitude Greater Than Conventional Energy Sources

Here’s the report.

http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf

Also published on Arxiv.org: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

Title: “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder.”

Authors: Giuseppe Levi (Bologna University), Evelyn Foschi (Bologna, Italy), Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér (Uppsala University), Hanno Essen (Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm)

From the Abstract:
Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources(Emphasis added)

  • jaques

    Is this a F&P moment in international media? Or what do you guys think?

    • daniel maris

      My guess would be no…but who can tell? The reason I say no, is because it is still couched in the terms of “unexplained phenomenon” – which is perfectly scientific but not quite the “new energy source confirmed” that one might like.

      HOwever, this is a very significant day I think for the “LENR community” across the planet – the thousands of interested people. We have now moved from what was essentially lay people’s interpretations of stray observations, demonstrations and Rossi’s comments to another level: we have here a proper scientific assessment of Rossi’s machine(s). We are entitled to accept that assessment as an accurate description, because we have no better. It’s really now for the scientists to argue it out. MFMP might be the next stop in terms of credibility if they can reproduce the Rossi process in some way.

      I maintain, as I always have done, that only a critical mass of satisfied customers is ever going to settle this dispute.

      • Peter Roe

        +1, all points. Very well put, Daniel.

      • Anthony

        “I maintain, as I always have done, that only a critical mass of satisfied customers is ever going to settle this dispute.”

        Yes, and at the end of the day that’s really all that matters. They’ll spread like wildfire once production starts so c’mon Leonardo, get the right certifcates and start rolling out those domestic cats !

    • Gordon Docherty

      More like a “all the geological indicators are VERY positive for the possible existence of oil – heck, there’s even oil at the surface” moment. In this sense, the e-cat has reached a very significant tipping point.

  • georgehants

    Well done Admin, beauty sleep over.
    —–
    Now the scientists on page can earn their money.
    Let’s have the clear “expert” interpretation telling us —-
    Is this Genuine.
    Can we now open our bottles of Pop.

  • Torbjörn

    “The article on arXiv.org is genuine and all writers provide the content.”
    Hanno Essén
    http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=560&p=25044#p25042

    • Gerrit

      +1

  • Ceon

    With the names of these respected scientists on the report, there is no denying this anymore. This is the evidence we have been waiting for. The world has officially changed.

  • AB

    For me this is proof because I trust the researchers that were involved (hats off to them). Common sense tells me that the reported energy values are high enough to make it unlikely that they were the result of measurement errors, even though admittedly I’m no expert.

    I’m wondering how the world will react to this. Replication elsewhere will be difficult since the secret catalyst is still unknown and will probably remain unknown for a while since it’s not possible to patent chemical or nuclear reactions.

    • R101

      “Replication elsewhere will be difficult since the secret catalyst is still unknown”

      Maybe someone should go rummaging thru Leonardo Corps rubbish 😉

      I think the catalyst actually is the frequency imposed on the power to the resistors which is possibly a harmonic of the resonant frequency of Nickel. I think this could vibrate the Nickel lattice enough that the hydrogen slips in and fuses into the lattice by the compression of the vibration.

      I’m no expert so I could be way off though 🙂

      • Pachu

        +1 for the (catalyst == waveform)

  • georgehants

    From Vortex
    Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat report published
    Alan Fletcher Mon, 20 May 2013 02:50:43 -0700
    I found an svg file with sample Rogone plots … and superimposed the Dec test on it
    Equations 34 and 35
    http://www.well.com/~af/ecat_dec_chart_130520A.png
    (Gee whiz : the COP came out the way we calculated it!)

    • artefact

      And Arnaud Kodeck on Vortex:

      “I am surprised by the date of publication: Pentecost.
      Pentecost means the descent of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles.
      Coincidence?”

      • Peter Roe

        I would think so.

  • Stew

    When will it be published in an international science magazine, as promised? Is the peer reviewing already in process?

    • daniel maris

      Looks like it will be published in Ny Teknik – I am not sure if that is considered a proper academic publication. Isn’t it more like New Scientist? Or maybe it does have a stronger reputation in Sweden…I don’t know. Can any Swedes tell us?

      • John

        NyTeknik definitely doesn’t qualify as the kind of magazine we’re looking for. Besides, they’ve already reported extensively on the E-Cat.

      • jaques

        It will not be published in NyTeknik as a scientific paper….NyTeknik will just write a news article about the report. NyTeknik is just a news magazine devoted to “technology”. NyTeknik means “new technology” in Swedish…

    • Tony McDougall

      I think I had AR giving the finger to just about every mainstream peer review journal and publisher.

      As soon as I get information about where the report will be published I will redact at least one of those names from the apparel!

    • Karl

      Should there been difficulties that risk to delay the publication, it is more important that this independent report is published. After this report it is clear that CF/LENR will be a winner and those initially behind will be the ones that write the history of the future. However, deniers and pseudoskeptics may still have time to jump on the CF wagon.

  • Peter Roe

    A brief summary of the paper:

    The report is authored by G Levi and E Foschi (U. Bologna), T Hartman, B Höistad, R Pettersson and L Tegnér (U. Uppsala) and H Essen (Inst. Tech, Stockholm). The project was financially supported by Alba Langenskiöld Foundation and ELFORSK AB, both of Sweden. The paper covers three sets of tests (one incomplete, no significant data) on two slightly different models of the hot cat:

    HT1 – the unit we’ve seen images of recently, consisting of an outer cylinder with a slightly protruding inner tube occupying the (as was) hollow core of the unit. The inner tube is apparently the ‘active’ part of the reactor, which leaves open the question of the location of the ‘charge’ in the hollow cored unit (Penon report).

    HT2 – the flanged unit, which apparently uses a more advanced control system but is otherwise internally similar to the HT1 type.

    We now know the ‘problem’ with the first set of tests (November 2012) on an HT1 unit, and why they needed to be re-run in December: “In that experiment the device was destroyed in course of experimental run, when the steel cylinder containing the active charge overheated and melted.”There were apparently a few other minor problems that were rectified in the December test.

    The (2nd) test on HT1 in December 2012 ran for 96 hours, using an IR camera to estimate heat output. The power input was reduced to a little over 1/3 of the power input that caused the first unit to melt, and the reactor design itself was changed slightly. It is descibed as having a ceramic outer cylindrical shell, concentric with which is another smaller cylinder. The resistances run full length in the space betweeen the two cylinders. The ends are seals by fabricated caps. Inside the inner ceramic cylinder is the reactor, a simple 3.3cm dia stainless steel pipe with end caps, containing the ‘charge’ of nickel, catalyst and H2 donor and/or H2 gas. The resistors were supplied from a Triac with a particular waveform, so it appears that the resistors act as both heaters and as EM radiative elements (my interpretation). The data from the 96 hour test indicated 2034Wh/h out (calculated) for 360Wh/h in, giving an average COP of 5.6 ± 0.8, althout this may be conservative given some of the working assumptions.

    The test on HT2 was carried out in March 2013 and lasted 116 hours. A ‘dummy’ or inactive unit was used as a reference control in this set of tests.

    The test procedure was similar, but with minor differences in set-up, including the use of a thermocouple, two IR cameras and stick-on white ‘dots’ of known emmissivity to help calibrate the cameras, and a different black paint. A rossi-designed control box replaced the Triac used with HT1 – this (the control system) appears to be the ‘mouse’, rather than any physical addition to the reactor. The control system seems to use a simple timed sequence to maintain the reaction between 285C and 312C, the heat output continuing and rising for a while in SSM after each heating event. The data from the 116 hour test indicated 816Wh/h (calculated) out for 322Wh/h in, giving an average COP of 2.6 ± 0.5.

    Both results confirm an energy output greater than any possible chemical reactions, by a very large margin. A further 6-month test is scheduled for summer this year. The report is quite positive, although there are undoubtedly a number of aspects – such as calorimetry based on calculated values from IR measurements – which will leave the findings open to possible doubt by those determined to find some.

    There is no indication as to why this report has been published on ArXiv, but as Rossi said that if there were problems with getting it into a printed journal, this would be his fallback route. It seems therefore that there were indeed problems, although we can’t know at what stage, or whether they were real or externally manufactured. Unfortunately this also means no peer review, which again provides an opening for the skeptics.

    So while this final publication is very welcome, and certainly confirms to more rational observers that Rossi’s ‘effect’ is completely real and measurable, I think it may be largely ignored in the ‘mainstream’ and I doubt that it will make a particularly large splash. But is is another huge nail in the coffin of the naysayers.

    • Peter Roe

      In my currently moderated summary of the report, the bit about possible EM from the resistors is retracted after a closer reading. The ‘waveform’ seems to refer to the programmed switching sequence designed to trigger bursts of SSM without causing overheating. So Rossi’s sleeping cat parable simply refers to a delayed self-limiting reaction.

      • georgehants

        Thanks Peter, If we Trust the participating scientists abilities and professionalism can you say that you believe Ross’s Cop 6 (approx) claims have been clearly vindicated.
        We I think can anticipate much incompetent confusion and even corruption from main-line science, but if this report, taken at face value shows high output Cold Fusion to be a Fact then the World is anybody’s Oyster that can find the Catalyst.
        It took Rossi twenty years to find —-
        Twenty years, one man, equals ten minuets for the thousands that will now be trying to find it.

        • Peter Roe

          George:-

          COP=10 with meltdown, COP=6 with possible occasional meltdown, or COP=2.6 with complete stability. IMHO, with a bit of engineering a completely stable COP=10 is possible using something similar to the HT2 design, maybe much more later as the design develops.

          These are passively radiating systems, so it remains to be seen how much heat can be extracted by cooling systems without quenching the reaction.

          Denial will continue for now.

          • georgehants

            Peter if this proves Rossi to be a Genuine reporter then we can fairly believe his reported current advances that seem as if he is miles ahead of the position in this report.
            In a simple way a Cop of Infinity seems on the cards.
            I have not opened any bottles yet, maybe later.

          • Peter Roe

            I drank a little too much at a BBQ yesterday, so I’ll keep mine corked for the moment as well. It is deserving of celebration though.

          • Job001

            Given the opposition, given the long dusty road, I’ve pulled a cork for such a terrific advance, admitting the opposition can “buy out” the IP, the company, the congress, the senate, and the president.
            However, it’s going to be too expensive now, IMHO because it’s going viral and global. Get on the bus or be left behind!

        • Ivone Martin FitzGerald

          Peter Roe and georgehants, behind the measured language I can tell that you are besides yourselves with joy.

          • Peter Roe

            We don’t do that sort of thing – we’re British.

          • Blanco69

            +1. Absolutely!

          • georgehants

            Ivone. You found us out.
            I will say that I am on cloud nine but trying to keep my feet on the ground after so many past up’s and downs.
            Wonderful day. (I hope)
            🙂

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      +1 Thanks

  • John

    There’s only seven names on the report. Rossi claimed “11 university professors”. Do you guys think that there may be another report on the way??

    • jaques

      They thank a couple of people as well for their contribution…

  • artefact

    Mats Lewan:

    “Two 100 hour scientific tests confirm anomalous heat production in Rossi’s E-Cat”

    “We plan to publish a follow-up report with comments in Ny Teknik soon.”

    http://matslew.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/two-100-hour-scientific-tests-confirm-anomalous-heat-production-in-rossis-e-cat/

    (fetched from last thread)

  • jaques

    Does anyone know if any of the researchers involved have an economic interest in the e-cat? Levi?

    • daniel maris

      Scientists often do, don’t they? but they are exposing their reputations to the shredding machine…you have to look at it from that point of view as well. They have every incentive to ensure they get this right.

  • Nixter

    I had hoped that Giuseppe Levi was involved, I don’t think he is in on the inner secrets of its operation, he is a colleague of Focardi and I suspect that Focardi does have insider knowledge, Levi was intrigued by Rossi and Focardi’s results and he suspected that they had found something big. Ever since then Professor Levi has been “hanging around” with Dr. Rossi and company in order to stay in the loop of this most interesting development. It makes sense that he would be selected to be involved with the study and ensuing report. The fact that Levi knows Rossi is not as important as the validity and accuracy of the report,everything else is secondary.

    The photo of the E-Cat going into thermal runaway is amazing, the E-Cat does seem to have a problem with being hard to control, but doing so is only a matter of engineering. The report looks to confirm much of what Rossi has been saying. He was worried that reports of the E-Cats lack of fine control would damage its reputation, but seeing the reactor going into full meltdown from overheating is powerful confirmation that his technology is real. All of this well documented and recorded by experts using state of the art equipment.

    The title and authors from the report below.

    Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder.

    Giuseppe Levi
    Bologna University, Bologna, Italy

    Evelyn Foschi
    Bologna, Italy

    Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér
    Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Hanno Essén
    Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

  • Karl

    This is to my judgement the most important piece laid to the Cold Fusion puzzle in 23 years time. The people behind this report, the verification and size of anomalous energy is equal to confirmation by customers running the E-Cat to deliver heat for whatever purpose. There is certainly no reason to believe that Rossi will not deliver. The question is of course when but I think it is not extremely important longer with this kind of verification. It will be much easier for us on the sideline to continue to take interest and support this important clean, safe and cheep energy solution. With this kind of verification it is really time to start to put large funds in this type of energy solution.

    • Peter Roe

      Amazing though – if you look around the snake-pits, they are already in full denial mode, jeering about the calorimetry and suggesting fr*ud on Rossi’s part. Amazing people – you have to wonder what goes on in their heads and why they seem to be so unable to process information that contradicts their certainties.

      Unfortunately, much the same kind of denial will take place in the scientific community, at least initially. I suggested a couple of threads back that the report would create few waves when it was released, and that is still my opinion. There will be a few who pay attention though, and these are the people who count. The naysayers will become increasingly irrelevant.

      • georgehants

        Peter, Let the gnarling and gnashing of teeth begin.
        I just want a fair analysis of the Evidence today that will lead me to fairly determine that a belief in a high output Cold Fusion phenomenon is justified.
        I wait for that fair conformation.

        • fortyniner

          George, this is Peter. I’m using another ID that I post under elsewhere, as my usual ID here seems to have been blacklisted for some reason (“Access has been blocked. You are trying to beat the system. Protected by: AVH First Defense Against Spam.”)

          Here’s what I tried to post:

          I am hoping that this is a true ‘preprint’ in that peer review and publication in print may follow at some point. Without this, it will be clear to other researchers who might otherwise have followed it up that this is still forbidden territory. It is noticeable (if AR is to be believed) that 5 out of the 12 ‘university professors’ didn’t want their names published in the report. Levi et al. are being very courageous from a career POV.

          • fortyniner

            Correction – 4 out of 11 university professors.

    • Redford

      There are big reasons to believe that Rossi will not deliver. Rossi tries to be both a scientific groundbreaking researcher and a successful industrial. Some achieved that but most failed. I think there are big risks he fails on the industrial level – which by no means should imply this paper isn’t the proof it seems to be. That is rather a matter for peer review.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Depends on who his US partner is and their commitment to LENR

      • Karl

        I have the opinion he has already delivered (and historic) with this confirmation. The rest for CF/LENR to prevail will just be finance, engineering planning. I’m sure Rossi (nor any one else) will not and can not stand in the way to block this process so urgently needed for mankind.

      • Job001

        Let’s make sure the peer review isn’t by extremely funding biased non-peer MIT et al PathoSkeptics as went after F&P, obviously in serious scientific embarrassing error.

        I admit my bias for honest bias free science is showing, nor have or want a funding bias either for or against any new science theory or research. Absolutely nothing stinks more than modern corruption, in all their ugly forms, IMHO.

  • Job001

    One could say that nothing’s ever “good enough”, however, this is a terrific advance.

    I pulled a cork and am sipping nectar.

    A toast to LENR and human possibility!

    A toast to all the CF, LANR, LENR, scientists scorned and reviled, and partial and true believers who made this possible!

  • artefact

    From Peter Gluck:

    “The report is a victory for LENR+ and perhaps it can prepare the press and the open-minded public opinion for even greater victories that will come this year.”

    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/05/the-professors-have-published-hot-cat.html

  • John Bull

    All,

    We should stand in awe to the process Rossi provided. The amount of openness and possible interaction are unheard of. We have been in close contact with a new Tesla a new Edison, etc.

    Wow!

    JB

  • lenrdawn

    This is certainly very, very good news. On first read, I can only see three potential areas where problems may arise.

    1) Rossi promised publication in a peer reviewed journal and made it sound as if the people involved were completely uninvolved previously. (I know he never said it like that but it was my impression from the way he hinted at having absolutely no contact to them). Now it turns out that Levi is the lead author and the Journal (so far) isn’t peer reviewed. We’ll see how that goes down in the main stream – but having Levi in there at all will certainly not help.

    2) The setup is sufficiently described in terms of how they took the measurements and calculated energies. In any other paper that would probably suffice. However given the history of Rossi and the discussions around the e-cat during the last couple of years, one has to wonder why they didn’t spell out how and where they measured input energy, what was included and what wasn’t, whether they calibrated the input power measurement, whether the instruments used were provided by Rossi or by themselves and so on.

    3) They compare the typical heating and cooling curves of a generic resistor to what they actually measured and make the point that measurements, despite basically following the power on/off cycles, hint at a self sustaining behavior of the device. This is simply not true. Any resistance heater measured through a sufficient mass of any material will show a temperature curve similar to what they measured due to thermal inertia. Everybody who ever took a look at the output temperature curves of, say, a central heating system will be able to confirm that. The fact that it slipped through as a major point in their paper is a little dispiriting. It certainly wouldn’t/won’t survive peer review.

    • Peter Roe

      3) Thermal inertia almost certainly accounts for why the heaters are switched off by the control system before SSM is triggered. However it cannot account for the COPs, and seems to be a rather nit-picking observation.

      • daniel maris

        Thanks for that clarification.

      • lenrdawn

        I am simply pointing out that one of their conclusions is obviously wrong. Call that nit-picking if you like. Nobody forces you to discuss the paper in detail.

        • khawk

          If that was the case then wouldn’t the scientist have figured that out when they ran that same test on the “dummy” with no charge inside?

          • lenrdawn

            No, they wouldn’t. Read the report, please:

            “The electrical power to the dummy was handled by the same control box, but without the ON/OFF cycle of the resistor coils. Thus, the power applied to the dummy was continuous.”

          • khawk

            I did read the report. The on/off control cycle appears tied to the temperature gauge. When the device hits a certain temp, the resistor coils are turned off. Because there is no such temp gain in the dummy, the temp needed for the controller to turn off the coil is never reached. If this is thermal inertia, then the dummy would have shown the temp rise as well but it didn’t have a chance as it never reached the a temp high enough to turn off – why? Because there was no charge inside. We’re all just trying to figure this out real time – what a privilege!

        • Job001

          Don’t agree with the criticism, the statistical analysis they did is adequate.

    • daniel maris

      1. Yes. He gave that impression by omission. But it is quite something for prestigious scientists to put their names to this paper. It may of course be they have tried to get it published and been blocked. We know there is a censorship out there.

      2. These are fair comments. But in a sense we are entitled to assume unless proof is given otherwise that their procedures were sound.

      3. I think I understand your point, but probably don’t! This is where we need some scientific debate – it may be they have answers to the point you make.

      • lenrdawn

        1) I agree
        2) An assumption that will hardly make an impression beyond the bounds of this blog
        3) I’m talking about “What appears obvious here is that the priming mechanism pertaining to some sort of reaction inside the device speeds up the rise in temperature, and keeps the temperatures higher during the cooling phase.” I think that conclusion is wrong and the device would behave exactly the same with a “dummy” (except for the absolute values of temperatures, obviously).

    • Redford

      2) because it’s a common rule of a scientific paper: size limit. So you explain the keyest things but not absolutely all: you can’t get month of efforts, thinking, tries to fit in a few pages. This detail checking is left to peer reviewer, or may be raised in replies, or in personnal exchange.

      That being sad, yes. Peer review ? That would have been the real new thing.

      • lenrdawn

        Wish I had a dollar for every paper which was excused for missing crucial information using the “size limit” argument. A 20 line paragraph summarizing the effort and linking at supplementary material could have done it.

    • G_Zingh

      2) Maybe i am misunderstanding your point but what is ambiguous about their method and video evidence?

      “Electrical measurements were performed by a PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments with a nominal accuracy of 1%. This instrument continuously monitors on an LCD display the values of instantaneous electrical power (active, reactive, and apparent) supplied to the resistor coils, as well as energy consumption expressed in kWh.
      Of these parameters, only the last one was of interest for the purposes of the test, which was designed to evaluate the ratio of thermal energy produced by the E-Cat HT to electrical power consumption for the number of hours subject to evaluation. The instrument was connected directly to the E-Cat HT cables by means of three clamp ammeters, and three probes for voltage measurement.
      A wristwatch was placed next to the wattmeter, and a video camera was set up on a tripod and focused on both objects: at one frame per second, the entire sequence of minutes and power consumption were filmed and recorded for the 96-hour duration of the test.”

  • Thomas m

    Very good news and i am pleased with the people on the report especially Hanno Essén.

    But I have been thinking and, I am not a engineer. I know that one of the big things are that the e-cat will be perfect for distributed power system. but how do it, as we know more of the power from the e-cat, replace our local power plant that generates 478MW?
    What would the construction plan be and could the e-cat be used in such a operation to produce 478MW of power from one point, one power station?

    • Mop

      The world could slowly change to everyone mostly generating their own energy. The power grid would turn into a marketplace for everyone to sell and buy electricity.

      A lot of energy use is already distributed. I just looked up energy use in Germany with Google. One of the first results I found mentioned that in 2008 private homes were 30% of overall energy consumption. Of that consumption, the vast majority is for heating and warm water. Only 13% of a home’s energy use is electricity. This is a perfect use for the e-cat. The next time their heating installation in the basement needs to be replaced, people could install the e-cat instead of today’s oil or gas burner. That alone would change over 25% of Germany’s energy use to e-cat.

      If you have an e-cat in the basement of every house, you could put something like a Stirling engine on top of its reactor, and you’d also have electricity. The only reason people don’t produce their electricity themselves nowadays is because oil and gas have higher cost than buying electricity from the grid.

      • AlainCo

        I’ve made an article on tha subject, based on US article
        http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1497-About-Residential-energy-consumption-and-LENR-impact

        with an average 1900$/family in US.

        “Now if you consolidate all those data with a LENR revolution point of view you get :
        70% is heat or mostly heat (heating space and water, cooking, wet washing)
        13% is cooling
        17% is other electrical needs

        The idea if that finally:
        heat will be produced by LENR generator (even in washing machine, cooking devices…).
        cold will be produced by LENR reactor through absorption refrigeration
        electricity with turbines/engine (steam, ORC, or gas) or thermo-electric converters

  • Roger

    At last something to properly think about.

    From a brief scan of the report, there are several really interesting facts that can be used to determine the exact nature of the ECAT.
    These are just a few of my ramblings…

    Notice that it is loaded with nickel that is preloaded with hydrogen, there is no pressurised H2 feed. I guess the nickel is the small nano type stuff and I would also guess that to preloaded with hydrogen you need to keep expose it to high pressure H2 for a period of time and may even need to be heated. It might be that the nickel was used as an electrode in water electrolysis for a long while, however how you use nickel in powder form in such a case would be difficult.
    The charge as they call it has also some additive ie: the catalyst, my bet would be that this is some kind of moderator – could be boron or carbon (compound). As the device is nuclear in nature, it might be necessary to slow things (particle emissions) to achieve higher fusion rates.
    The resistors which are heaters that kick of the reaction are coils of wire. Now this is interesting because they are not antenna, if they were they would be just stips not coils, that is not to say they do not radiate, the oscillations will be low frequency as they are using TRIACs, I would say its not 50/60Hz ie: just mains freq but probably a few tens of KHz, But at a high voltage and hence high power. It will be be above audio range otherwise you’d really hear it.
    Now the resistors must generate higher temperatures than the reaction its self otherwise the unit would go into overdrive and become self sustaining. Maybe that is what happens without the moderator/catalyst.
    Given that the resistors generate 360 Watts of power and there are several of them then you could work out given the volume of the unit and its surface area, an estimation of the internal temperature that is required to trigger the reaction. From the report it would seem that the heating is required to keep the reaction going. This obviously makes the unit that much more stable and controllable, but at the expense of COP.
    As far as replication is concerned, which is something that appeals to me – to be honest I think Rossi should open source the whole thing, he’ll get a nobel prize and could live off media attention and notariety… This report is very useful. The obvious hurdles are H2 loading the nickel, the catalyst and the frequency of the heater resistors. All of which could be discovered with trial and error.
    So, lets get out there and make one ourselves….

    • daniel maris

      Interesting appraisal Roger.

    • Jack

      I would expect that the resonant frequency to trigger the reaction might be caused by heating to a temperature that results in the correct phonon energy. As the nickel is heated the atoms in the lattice vibrate at a higher frequency. When the right frequency is reached the reaction starts. I do not know this, just a thought.

  • Owen

    What great news! This is the news LENR/E-Cat enthusiasts have been waiting for. Rossi didn’t let us down. He delivered as promised. It’s probably the biggest news in E-Cat World history, and certainly the biggest news I’ve read since following this breakthrough technology.

    This report will undoubtedly help Rossi successfully move his reactors into the marketplace. Step by step progress is being made — better designs, better results, better testing, greater validation. Rossi seems unstoppable now.

    • daniel maris

      I agree it’s the biggest news. The demos could be faked. But here several scientists with relevant qualifications from prestigious ancient seats of learning have put their names and their reputations to a detailed positive report on the E Cat.

      I am interested to hear what the scientists’ access was. IIRC Rossi indicated he was not part of the tests. But presumably they did work with Leonardo engineers.

      • Owen

        The pro-Rossi E-Cat evidence is definitely stacking up in his favor. This report is the clincher most readers have been waiting for. It seems to me anyone who takes the time to honestly check the facts will likely concur. What a story, wow.

        Remember what Roger Green said the other day about independent confirmation will tack zeros on to the end of license fees? I wonder how much the cost will actually go up?
        http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/roger-green-on-e-cat-licensing-pesn-interview/

        • Gerrit

          Also important to note that we now know that Rossi was telling to truth about the 3rd party testing. So we can happily assume he is also telling the truth about his US partner, plant shipments, etc.

  • Pachu

    They were fed by a TRIAC power regulator device
    which interrupted each phase periodically, in order to modulate power input with an industrial
    trade secret waveform.

    !!

    • lenrdawn

      To be fair, they added:

      “This procedure, needed to properly activate the E-Cat HT charge, had no bearing whatsoever on the power consumption of the device, which remained constant throughout the test.”

      Sadly they don’t really say how they verified that.

    • lenrdawn

      double post

    • Ric Werme

      Triacs and SCRs are standard power switching components and are used in pretty much any dimmer light switch. A variac might be preferable and would prevent a little RF radiation but a control system for that would be tough. Something like a UPS with approximate sine wave output might be okay, but I’m not familiar with off the shelf components. Cheap ones probably use Triacs or digitally switched FETs anyway and put out more RF internally.

      Not worth bolding, not worth even one exclamation mark….

  • Andre Blum

    It may be interesting to watch (again) this old (pre okt 2011) interview with Giuseppe Levi: http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/08/guiseppe-levi-conducts-video-interview-with-steven-krivit-about-his-testing-of-the-e-cat/

    • Karl

      Agree, it was very obvious that Levi was honest about his judgement of the detected phenomena. It was clear already in this interview that Steven Krivit had an agenda to debunk Rossi.

      • Alp

        I find it difficult to understand why Levi did not repeat his original experiment with detailed controls and calibrations and offer it to Krivit and publish it in main line journals. Even recently when Josephson asked him about that by email, Levi didn’t even reply.

  • Charles

    I hope Rossi has a cave already set aside in which he can hide for the next few years. Paparazzi and assassins will both be equally threatening.

  • Thanks everyone for the comments — we had big storms last night and we lost power for a number of hours. Internet spotty at the moment. I must say that I think that today is a important day, and I thin this report is an important milestone in the cold fusion story and will probably bring more attention to Rossi and LENR in general. Both growing support and opposition wouldn’t surprise me.

    • daniel maris

      Yes it will certainly work both ways!

    • John Bull

      Frank,

      Tip to the hat.

      You hard work is highly appreciated. I hope (and i cannot imagine other visitors of your great site think differently) you can keep it up and that you will benefit someday (in any from) as a result of your straightforward approach.

      JB

      • Andre Blum

        +1

        • Roger Bird

          +999

    • Owen

      The [economic] value of your blog just got some zeroes tacked to the end. We’ve crossed the tipping point for sure. Now the evidence is all but undeniable to anyone who honestly evaluates it. Congrats for all your good work.

    • Redford

      I am sorry I can’t join the cheers. We already had some peers supporting Rossi – what was new here was the perspective of a published peer reviewed paper that is an absolute condition to get scientific community involved. What are the news on that front ? Why is it not published in a regular scientific journal first ?

      • Hampus

        It seams like the article just got made, while they wait for a journal to accept it they have chosen to let it be free. I think this was a great idea, the faster we get the word the better. I have heard that it might take 6 months for a paper to be published maybe more when it’s about cold fusion. The world can’t wait that long.

        Now we know that Rossi is telling the truth and we can enjoy watching him build up his company and the factory that might be ready this summer.

        • fortyniner

          It’s possible (probable, I’d say) that they got rejected by their 1st choice journal. As resubmitting would involve starting almost from scratch, with a new set of referees and possibly a new batch of quibbles and maybe even new experiments to deal with, they may have decided to call it a day and just go for ArXiv and an article in Ny Teknik (plus probably others in OilPrice and so on).

  • Sergio Poletti

    This is the first day of a new era.

    Congratulations Dr. Rossi

    • Joaquim Procopio

      Totally agreed !!!

  • Pachu

    This is the step i was expecting for good, lot of important questions answered, new questions to come, posted in arxiv as it has to be.

    Im very happy with it, still a lot of thing have to happen but this is the path, i hope Rossi keep in this way.

    Gratz to all the involved who read this blog.

  • Stew

    The “third party” report is quite a disappointment. Those 11 professors are the 7 usual suspects, the report is not peer reviewed and it will not be published in a proper science magazine. The old Rossi game, big promises and lukewarm results.

    • AB

      What makes you think that it will not be published in a proper science magazine?

      • MaxS

        typically they do not publish work that has been published already elsewhere, like in the internet

      • khawk

        It seems to me that arxiv is a decent pre-print publication route for peer review and commentary. It also seems that report questions should be for the examiners – not Andrea Rossi

        http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

      • Redford

        True, everything’s possible but I’d be surprised to see a high profile journal publish it now. Anyway, that still is the true question. What journal is publishing this?

    • Gerrit

      – “7 usual suspects” – plain wrong. I have only heard of 3 of the 7 authors of the paper before.
      – “11 professors” – plain wrong. the 11 researchers _and_ professors consist of the 7 authors of the paper + 4 supporting researchers, who did not (co-)author the paper (for instance Bianchini).

      wise up !

      • GreenWin

        + 10!! trols will be squirming to Deny Delay Defend (the pspyops credo) to debunk what they fear the most. He he!

    • Betuswonkel

      I do not agree. Don’t think it is that strange that people who already have shown interest in Rossi’s device have conducted the test. Rossi said it was not his own initiative but at the request of a couple of professors. Furthermore, considering he is keen on keeping his catalyst a secret it seems to me that he would only led people who he trusts conduct the tests. I do agree that it is to bad it is not published in a peer reviewed magazine. However, that process can take months and the test have just recently been complete. Maybe they wanted to get the results public a.s.a.p., a revised version might still be published in a peer reviewed journal later.

    • Fibb

      Yup, this is a big disappointment. And it looks really, really bad imo.

  • Gerrit

    This is too good to be true, so it can’t be happening 🙂

    • fortyniner

      It isn’t – according to the congenital skeps on wavewatching.net/fringe!

      It is (sort of) according to ecat news, which has awoken like a zombie from its long decease. Said skeps don’t seem to have noticed yet, but I’m sure they will catch the scent on the wind.

      • fortyniner

        Pathoskeps are now appearing in some numbers – drawn like flies to sh*t by the resurrection of the undead blog.

  • Andreiko

    My cop of glad is infinite ((THANK YOU)) Dr. Rossi.

  • Michele

    i read the paper, no fast neutron emission was measured?

    • Roger Bird

      No. That is a good thing. If there were fast neutrons detected, it would prove a nuclear reaction, but it would greatly decrease the value of the E-Cat. The presence of fast neutrons proves a nuclear reaction. The absence of fast neutrons does not disprove a nuclear reaction, apparently.

    • fortyniner

      No radiation measuring instruments mentioned, but I hope they had at least a portable geiger counter just to make sure. Radiation, EMR, helium etc. will all need to be measured as soon as someone else cracks Rossi’s secrets – maybe MFMP.

  • The oil price is currently dropping a little bit

    • lenrdawn

      I don’t think this paper will change anything in terms of acceptance in the main stream media, science or politics – let alone having an impact on the oil price. There still are too many things which involve believing in Rossi (and by extend Levi) being trustworthy to convince anybody who wasn’t already convinced anyway. So Rossi was right when he expressed that in the end only his business and his customers count.

      • Gerrit

        we are at the tipping point. I think that from now on we’ll see an increasing acceptance in media, science and politics.

      • GreenWin

        “So Rossi was right…” All along.

      • fortyniner

        Strange that you had a go at me when I said almost exactly the same thing recently (‘a very dark view’ or similar).

        • lenrdawn

          You misunderstand my point (I assume it is Peter talking under a new nickname?). I think it is perfectly ok that main stream media and science ignore this paper. It isn’t conclusive for the reasons I mentioned earlier. The possibility of fraud is still very much alive, afaics. I don’t want to rain on the party though. Have fun and enjoy the moment 😉 (I mean it).

          • fortyniner

            Yes, it’s Peter. I’ve had to use a new identity as the old one got blocked for some reason.

            I don’t agree that it’s OK that science and science reporting ignore this report, but I do think it is inevitable. As for the rest, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but IMHO it is beginning to look a little dogmatic. And I am enjoying this development (for more than a moment I think) in a quiet British sort of way, so thanks.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Finally, and worth the wait it seems.

  • Gerrit

    I think this report will be discussed in the upcoming meeting with the european commission on June 3rd in Brussels.

    I also noted in the acknowledgements of the report: “Financial support from Alba Langenskiöld Foundation and ELFORSK AB, for the Swedish
    participation in the E-Cat test experiment, is gratefully acknowledged.”

    So the swedish ELFORSK AB is fully aware of this report.

  • Barry

    Being a bear of very little brain, perhaps those of you in the know can answer a simple question, did the COP test out to be a resounding plus?

    • Andre Blum

      yes, plus 6 in december, plus 3 in march.

      • Roger Bird

        And a really HIGH COP in November, so high it melted the unit and they couldn’t continue with the test. (:->)

    • fortyniner

      COP=6 for the ‘old’ type hot cat (H1), COP=2.5 for the new H2 type with ‘mouse’ control system designed to limit output to safe levels. The COP=6 is probably a slight underestimate, but is probably the safe upper limit for this design (an earlier one melted!).

      I’ve posted a summary of the report below (as ‘Peter Roe’ – I’ve had to change my identity).

      • Barry

        Yahoo, thanks guys.

      • Andre Blum

        Peter,

        Does this mean you are 49? Or do you like sailing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/49er_(dinghy)

        • Roger Bird

          Perhaps he is from California.

        • fortyniner

          Born in ’49 (19.. not 18..!) and still panning for gold.

          I think I may have found some today.

  • Andre Blum

    It was Hanno Essén who uploaded the article to arXiv.

    From the wikipedia article on Essén:

    “He is member of the Editorial Board of European Journal of Physics since September 2006”.

    Does anyone know if that would be a good platform for publication?

    • Redford

      If one of the author is a member of the board, not really, no 😀

      • Andre Blum

        good point 🙂

  • jaques

    I contacted Hanno Essén asking him if any of the researchers have an economic interest in the e-cat. Essén answered that none of them had such a interest (that he was aware of). He also told that all the cost for the study was financed by external sources.

    Remember that Essén used to be heavily involved in the Swedish Sceptic Society – that means he eats fraudsters for lunch – and he likes it too.

    • Tyler

      Hanno Essén was actually the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society until April 2011. That seems to be about the time he saw his first testing of the ecat… 🙂

      tyler

      • AB

        Are you suggesting that he quit or was removed from the SSS due to his visit to Rossi?

        • John

          Clearly he converted to “non-skepticism”

          jk

          • Roger Bird

            A lot of the time skepticism is good. It keeps all kinds of absurd claims from being believed. But skepticism is bad for explorers and discovers, otherwise nothing would ever get discovered. Skepticism is also not an excuse for putting people down and calling them bad names.

          • artefact

            “Skepticism is also not an excuse for putting people down and calling them bad names.” good one

        • jaques

          There where some heavy outbursts from the hardcore sceptics att SSS about his involvement in the e-cat. But he is still involved (and has a position as the contact person regarding quant physics and perpetual motion machines.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I might remember wrong, but I think that it was Kullander who was with the SSS rather than Essen.

      • C.T.

        Looks like you are correct. PESN.com is saying it’s Kullander according to this article:

        “One of the guest observers was Hanno Essen, associate professor of theoretical physics at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. He is also the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society. The other guest observer was Professor Sven Kullander of Uppsala University. He is also chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Energy Committee.”

        http://pesn.com/2011/04/07/9501805_Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Validated_by_Swedish_Skeptics_Society/

      • John

        Pekka,

        from Essen’s Wiki:

        “Hanno Essén, born September 27, 1948, is…. a former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_Essén

  • Barry

    May 20th, 2013 at 1:25 AM
    Dear Todd Burkett:
    I Thank you. This is one of the most important days of my life.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Thank you Dr Rossi and thank you Frank, All hope restored. I propose a toast (what’s a good time?)

  • I posted the link to the report in a few german forums with many hardcore sceptics.

    Yet, after 5 hours since my posting, there is all quiet.
    Good sign, they don’t know what to say 😉

    • John

      Haha, that’s gold Jerry. Gold!

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Love it, isn’t the silence from the skeptics golden!

    • Owen

      They’re waiting for talking points from their handlers. Meanwhile they’re sitting around thinking “Oh sh*t, this could be the end of our paychecks from big oil.”

      • GreenWin

        And the utilities. This Report was likely referenced by President Obama at his private meeting with utility execs on May 8th.

        • Roger Bird

          The timeline is right for this. It would also be right for a lot of things.

      • Redford

        I am perfectly certain that 97% of the hardcore skeptics are genuine and ‘honnest’ (as in “they’re lying to themselves too”). Skeptics are something perfectly natural in a social group and at a general level they help balance group decision just like optimistic enthusiasts do. As long as you remember that no one is right all the time, and that actually nearly everyone is at least a bit wrong all the time, it’s fine.

        Anyway this kind of thing – they don’t believe it for one second. That’s how a system of belief works. And yes, most scientific minded (including people here) are not any less part of a system of belief than your average citizen. Actually those who refuses to admit that (because they estimates to follow a scientific, ie “true” path of mind) are are even more vulnerable to bias than the norm ^^

    • artefact

      Can you tell me which one?

  • SteveW

    Usually being quite cynical about the mainstream, even I don’t think this report will be able to be “contained”. This report cannot just be brushed off as some kind of scam. I just wonder what were the circumstances of it being posted on the internet now rather than being published in a peer reviewed scientific journal later(thanks to the internet). This is definitely the tipping point. The media and government will not be able to maintain any sense of their fake credibility by not reporting this. This is the point of ignition. Cheers to Rossi and congratulations to all following this develop. I see E-cat news is even back from the dead.

    • Redford

      Without peer review it will stay contained. With peer review, maybe not, but even that is not sure. There has been peer review publications of finding of nano thermitic component in 911 WTC’s dust that have never been contested on a scientific level. Nearly no media mentioned them.

      You have to pay more attention to social science if your interest is about this news getting mainstream. This clearly is not a question for nuclear physics =)

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    This is indeed a beautiful day even though it’s raining in my part of the world.

    I am so happy the report is out now and is confirming excess heat. For me the report was make or brake in my belief of Rossi (though not my believe in LENR). This makes it much easier for me to accept his statements about his work even though most of it cannot be verified. He does seem to be a man of his word.

    Also, this report may keep my family and friends from thinking about delivering me to the insane asylum (:>)

    Still I suspect it will be some time before we see the first big LENR powerplant. Lately I got the impression that the ecats are more in a laboratory state instead ready for production. Until that time I wouldn’t be surprised if mainstream ignores it. And that makes me angry. The benefits of CF are so great that the world should put all it’s resources towards this goal. Mankind needs this new form of energy so we can evolve and maybe make this a better place for everybody.

    CF is a confusing topic: now i’m angry and happy… 🙂

  • The party is happening at LENRConnect. Join us in the chat room!

    • GreenWin

      THANK YOU FRANK and all the steadfast “believers” here and elsewhere! George, Peter, time for that bottle!!

      • Roger Bird

        Why celebrate this event by pour a toxic poison down your throat. I will be toasting with a glass of kefir while listening to Marin Marais. (:->)

        • GreenWin

          Didn’t say bottle of what, Rog 🙂 That’s by personal choice.

      • fortyniner

        GW – I’m still a little hung over from a friend’s barbie yesterday, but I’ll manfully force myself to open my fizzy in an hour or two.

        P.S. Change of ‘identity’ forced by spam blocking s/w – Peter.

        • GreenWin

          Happy to hear this Peter. Perhaps the barbie was precognitive and you began without us plebes. At any rate, please toast along with George and I, we all deserve it!!

          And comments re report specs will be interesting too!

  • Congratulations Franck and all you other Rossi enthusiasts.
    Love / DB

  • What if

    Evrika.

  • Chris Hansen

    OMFG. The report talks about COPs of 5.6 (+-0.8)
    That’s amazing. Amazing.

    • Redford

      Actually COP is not really relevant, considering it melted. When it melted, COP was way, way above 6. The real thing we should focus on is stability, and security. Which is what Rossi is saying for years now.

  • artefact

    Jed Rothwell on Vortex:

    “I sent a note to Andrea:

    ‘I am especially pleased to see this in an open source library. I think I will copy it to LENR-CANR.org. Please tell Prof. Levi I intend to to that, if you get a chance. Congratulations to all of you.’

    This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field.

    – Jed

    • Roger Bird

      This is one of the most important papers in the history of the world.

  • Felix Fervens

    POP! Goes the champagne cork!

    • Owen

      Jed Rothwell on Vortex: “This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field.”
      http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg80333.html

      Now I’m waiting for Ed Storms to chime in.

      • Roger Bird

        This is one of the most important papers in the history of the world.

        I found the paper to be very readable. I was surprised. It was very gratifying to be able go through it all an pretty much understand everything, except some of the heavier equations.

        • Redford

          A lot of scienfic papers are actually pretty readable. Sometimes you skip some part with some “sure, what they say”, but the general meaning is generally clear to the layman.

          • Roger Bird

            I usually just skip to the conclusions. I doubt if the 96% of the population less intelligent than me can easily understand most scientific papers.

      • Owen

        Artefact beat me to it. Jed Rothwell also says some very interesting things about COP and how it’s not a big issue. Rossi’s rather low COP measurements are partly based on the limitations of testing equipment.

        “I have never had the slightest doubt they will be
        able to achieve any temperature up to the melting point of the host metal, and any COP they find convenient.”

        http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg80336.html

  • Dana

    The report states that a 6 month test will begin in the summer of 2013. The official start of summer is less then a month away. I am sure interest will grow exponentially.
    I noticed shutdownrossi.com is not responding.

  • Roger Bird

    Gravimetric = Of or relating to measurement by weight.

  • Enduser

    arXiv is the accepted Pre-publication place for the vast majority of scientific papers today. It’s where research goes before being printed in peer-reviewed journals.

    • Redford

      Ok, interesting info. I was wondering…

    • Chris I

      And many items get no further. I’ll wait and see if this one does.

      • Redford

        Sure but I was afraid it implied no publication. The fact that it doesn’t (just double checked with my searcher of a wife) is at least info. But agreed the big news I am waiting for is not there yet. And I expect it to take more time than that.

  • Chris I

    So we finally see it! I’m not sure how much this will further the acceptance of rhese things. They will be accused of bias and some are already marked as corrupt by the scam. They conducted the work on Rossi’s quarters and qpparently didn’t even assemble the setup from the start. The form of the report isn’t fully in line with research publications; I don’t know if it will get approved by referees of well reputed peer reviewed journals.

    Don’t expect too many of the skeptics to see the light.

  • GreenWin

    Corks are POPPING over at LENRConnect! I might even be a bit tipsy!

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Who, when and where for the “six month test this summer” will be very interesting to watch develop.

  • Fibb

    Fibb on May 20, 2013 at 7:06 am

    What I sent to Rossi, for those that missed it earlier:

    “I’m not impressed that your recent customer is your US partner, your 3rd party scientists are your insiders and supporters, and you are funding your operations with license fees gathered by Mr. Green. It all seems rather incestuous. My apologies if you are for real, but the optics are not currently favourable. I hope you will appreciate the feedback and I wish you luck.”

    Those of you throwing a party should wake up. I’ve been a long term fan of Rossi’s but I’ve never had more doubt than I do today.

    • John

      “What I sent to Rossi, for those that missed it earlier”

      And not a single f*** was given that day.

    • Barry

      Chill out and have a glass with the rest of us Fibb.

    • Robb Cundick

      While the publishers of the report may indeed have connections to Rossi, they are nevertheless university scientists who are putting their reputations on the line. They would suffer no less ridicule than Pons and Fleischmann were their work found to be faulty in some way. Thus, your implication that their friendliness to Rossi somehow casts doubt upon their work seems rather silly.

    • Redford

      I am sure you work generally with people you don’t know.

      In my view you’re using a jabber you don’t really get. Incestuous is journalist slang for conflict of interest. I can’t see any in that case (it’s certainly not a career boost for those searchers who indeed do take some risk with little reward here). Either you can see one and correct me, either you can’t and I suggest you to remove the word “incestuous” and apologise to Rossi, to show that you’re not a troll and indeed value intellectual honesty and ethics. Or you can not to do that, also proving something, although less flattering for you…

      • Fibb

        my original reply to you was nuked.

        Rossi needs to apologize not me. there is no independent study here. these scientists are not a legitimate third party.

        the optics on this are really unfortunate. nobody wants Rossi to succeed more than I do. the fan boys need to grow up.

        • Warthog

          What? You maybe expected him to invite Krivit??

    • Warthog

      Oh please! None of the listed scientists are “insiders and supporters”. They are simply those who have not automatically denigrated Rossi’s work, but acknowledged the data as they found it. There is NO indication of any “footsy” by anyone mentioned.

      • AlainCo

        It is clear that no physicist not having already accepted the existing evidence of LENR, will accept to “look into the telescope”, since they had necessarily refused to read all the thousands of papers that let no doubt.
        If one accept the fact that LENR is real one have to admit that people who do not believe in LENR are simply uninformed, incompetent or refusing to see facts.
        Latest honest uninformed scientist who accept to see LENR is maybe Robert Duncan of Uni-missouri.
        maybe pettersson, and essen have been convinced by facts, recently, but sure they have seen the reality…
        necessarily someone aware of LENR, competent and honest, have to support LENR.
        so asking a physicist that is not a LENR believer, is like asking a DNA test to someone refusing to accept DNA existence.
        Typical of patho-skeptics to ask impossible things as evidence…
        they will also ask peer-review in a magazine that have an official policy to reject any LENR paper, like Nature, Science & similar gang.
        They will also ask Rossi to free his trade secrets, or similar impossible things.
        No hope science accept LENR before the first profit announce of a LENR company, or at least the first research grant…
        This is why the vision of Defkalion research effort, of LENR-Invest, is not a good idea but a requirement.

    • khawk

      Wow – you need to back down Mr. Fibb – you know not what you are saying.
      Do you think that Rossi could have paid for all of this research and device development on fees generated by Mr. Green? And all for the purposes of a larger scam? I’m convinced that you do not have a grasp of the cost for this kind of R&D.

  • Roseland67

    Page 28, if found to be repeatable and accurate,
    (Sorry, the skeptical engineer in me),
    sums it up,
    This is incredible, absolutely incredible

  • Leo Kaas

    A Modified Speech from Independence day…
    Good morning…. Good morning. In less than an hour websites from Ecat World and New Outlets around the world will be launching the largest energy revolution in the history of man kind. Energy, that word should have new meaning for all of us. We can’t be consumed by our oil dependencies anymore we will be united in our common interest perhaps it’s fate that today is the 7 th of September and we will once again be changing the world. Not in medicine or government, but in science we will once again change the ways of modern life it will not be called a”crack pot science” it will not vanish with out a fight it’s going to live on, it’s going to survive today we celebrate E-CAT day!!

    • John

      Amen! Welcome to Earf!

  • Robyn Wyrick

    This is very big news.

    It is not peer reviewed yet, but it is a third party report. It’s not “Rossi says”, but instead, confirms with 3rd party testers what Rossi has been saying for months.

    I am not a drinker, but if I were, and were it not morning out here on the East Coast (US), I would definitely pop open some wine.

    I personally have no problem whatsoever the Levi and others who have been close to Rossi are involved. What matters is that they performed independent tests with apparently professional standards, and are willing to stand behind their results. I can’t ask *much* more from a 3rd party report.

    Having it peer reviewed isn’t in their control, any more than in Rossi’s. But I hope to see that. Still, seven signatures are a pretty good start IMHO.

  • artefact
  • Enjet

    At this point, there is little doubt e-cat is for real. I wonder what will the establishment do next. Are they going to ignore it first, and then after it gains more momentum, discredit this and “persuade” the government to take it down once the majority of the mass is deceived? In China, the water-to-oil saga in the 1990’s ended with the inventor being sent to jail, even after lots of publicity in the main media and support from a lot of very famous scholars, some of them are even the foremost ones in the whole nation, two of them are the leading scientists of the nuclear bomb project in China (venerated as the fathers of nuclear bombs of China).

  • Torbjörn

    “The article on arXiv.org is genuine and all writers provide the content.
    Hanno Essén”

    http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=560&p=25044#p25042

    “No, as far as I know no one has a financial interest in the
    invention. Also the measurements and the trips were financed by
    independent sources.
    regards
    Hanno”

    http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=560&p=25114&sid=3df51fa705752aac6ab8dbca762ad046#p25109

  • GreenWin

    “…a density of thermal energy of about 6.1·10^7 Wh/kg.” Oh my!!

    • georgehants

      GreenWin, is that good?

      • artefact

        61 MW per Kilo of powder. But I think they say this is the lower limit. It should be much more.

        • GreenWin

          I take it by weight of the entire reactor artefact – but have not studied closely. Either way, that is astonishing energy density from a device devoid of dangerous radiation.

      • GreenWin

        There is no known chemical effect that produces this density of energy. They are careful in this report to not claim it to be “nuclear” choosing instead to leave that to the theorists. It does confirm without any doubt that Dr. Rossi and Dr. Focardi have a viable new source of energy just as they have claimed all along.

  • Andre Blum

    I am trying to get the story slashdotted.

    http://slashdot.org/submission/2673447/independent-report-published-on-e-cat-cold-fusion-device

    please vote (by pressing +) to increase the chances of getting it published.

    Thanks
    Andre

  • Kim

    We have arrived!

    The rest is just waking up the
    rest of humanity to a new fire
    and a new day.

    Glorious.

    Respect
    Kim

    • GreenWin

      +10 Kim!! Glad you are here to enjoy!!

  • Gérard2013

    Here, finally, recognition and scientific preuve.Publié by pairs of the existence and relevance of this new energy.
    Cold fusion can not be denied and all hopes are now allowed.

    As the technology of reverse osmosis system is a water purification and proves its relevance on a large scale.

    Fusion or LENR energy is the solution of large-scale energy crisis for today and tomorrow.
     
    Regards to all

    In french

    Voici enfin la reconnaissance et la preuve. Publié par les paires scientifique de l’existence et de la pertinence de cette nouvelle énergie.
    La fusion froide ne peut plus être nié et tout les espoirs sont maintenant permis.

    Comme la technologie de l’osmose inverse est un système de purification de l’eau et prouve sa pertinence a grande échelle.

    La fusion ou énergie LENR est la solution a grande échelle a la crise énergétique pour aujourd’hui et demain.

    Amicalement a tous

    • Redford

      It’s neither reconnaissance nor proor – some of both certainly but the whole monty need way more than that. A publication in a peer reviewed for starters. But even that is just a step on a long road.

  • Barry

    Hey Roger (or anyone else who wants a good laugh) have you ever seen this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uX0vcU4iedQ

  • Marcel

    This is incredible good news. Let’s spread it. This should probably also clear the names of Fleischmann&Pons. I never understood why the scientific community was so sceptical about a phenomena that they did not understand. Escpecially because it had the potential to change the world (like the e-cat has). I think that those guys who rejected the phenomena should be held responsible for the enormous ammount of time and money lost. If all the money that went to nuclear fusion research would have been spent on LENR research, future generations probably wouldn’t be at risk of irreversible climate change.

    • NJT

      Agreed, The so-called political scientists who held this from the world for over 20 years need to be held to some degree of accountability…

  • John
    • Felix Fervens
      • John

        Thanks, done.

      • John

        Yeah, wow, it’s a bloodbath. We need more troops!

        • GreenWin

          Not really needed John. reading these comments demonstrates the very slow, begrudging acceptance pattern that all disruptive breakthroughs bring. These guys are LEARNING!!

          • Bento

            LENRNING!!:)

          • NJT

            They may have to take two giant steps backwards to 1989 in order to make it one giant leap up to the present day! Hopefully they will make it – someday?

        • GreenWin

          Here for example is a good comment by someone calling themselves BadIdeaFairy:

          “Even if the results published in this paper are true, it will rightly take many more experiments by other researchers before they are widely accepted, but the phenomonon of LENR has been maligned as “junk science”, despite decades of accumulating evidence showing that something real is happening. The nature of this phenomenon may not yet be understood, and it remains far from proven that one could ever make a working LENR reactor of any sort, but it is within the realm of real science and is absolutely worthy of serious research.”

  • NJT

    This is the best news I have seen in a long, long time and it comes to the world just in the neck of time!

    Congratulation’s to Mr. Rossie and his team…

    • GreenWin

      It is certainly a pain in the “neck” of a lot of the old school. 🙂

      • NJT

        Good, let them take two aspirins, go to bed and sleep on it. They may awaken to a new world around em – if their brains can handle the input?

  • Dave

    I might have gotten excited about this report if the test had been done by a real *independent* 3rd party rather than a group of Rossi’s friends. It only takes one person to rig an experiment.

    • Redford

      It is independant by all science standard. Research does indeed work by group of people, like most human activity. As long as there is no “interect conflict” (and I know of none here), it’s fine. But there’s also a need for… peer review. Will we have one for this article? I hope we do. Peer reviewers are indeed preferably picked among non member of the little band, although speciliasiation and agendas make it often impossible to avoid. Not sure it’s the case here, thus.

      Also, published & peer reviewed, still isn’t “true”. By “true”, people means “accepted by the group or the authority (generally both)” wich can or not be “truth”, but don’t expect direct connexion =) Many published papers directly contradict other published papers.

  • GreenWin

    “A greater heat than is possible to explain by chemical reactions. Report from a group of Swedish and Italian researchers after two measurements on each of four days with the controversial energy reactor E-cat.” Mats Lewan, NyTeknik

    Google translation: http://bit.ly/12PnrvP

  • georgehants

    Tests Confirm Anomalous Heat Production in Rossi’s E-Cat
    By: Owen Geiger
    http://www.naturalbuildingblog.com/tests-confirm-anomalous-heat-production-in-rossis-e-cat/

  • georgehants

    Sci-Tech: Independent tests of Rossi E-Cat LENR systems show “anomalous heat energy production”
    http://hobbyspace.com/Blog/?p=2357&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    • It seems to spread through the net now 😉

      • buffalo

        yes barty.like a shockwave

  • Visitor

    I’ve thanked Rossi on JOUNP.

    Here, I want to thank you Frank for your great job with keeping us attached, informed and intrested till we arrived to this historical event.

    Thank you Frank!!!

    • Fibber McGourlick

      Congratulations Frank and thanks.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Fig. 9. “Ragone plot of energy storage” Can anyone help me out, where would nuclear power be on this scale and where would this E-cat fall on scale?

  • orsobubu

    This seems to be a big step for science and a big personal achievement for Rossi, which he long deserves. Readers beware that this will not automatically imply so a big improvement for mankind. Capitalistic economy surely depends on science, geography, etc but it is – above all – a social relationship. Technological revolutions – as always in history – require also a social revolution (the logical next one: communism) to adjust the social structure up to the new productive structure. Without it, in a capitalistic system, the overproduction capacity will generate a fall in the profit rate due to the impossibility to sell the products, expand the workers’ number and relative extracted surplus value, with the result of more general crisis to cope with.

    • buffalo

      @orsibubu..give me a break.this is not the time for a politic discussion.

    • Kim

      Human Value will now rule.

      Human Productivity????

      Respect
      Kim

    • Marcel

      This is a very important point!
      Our society is not ready for free energy.
      This technology could be a blessing for our lives and the climate, but without proper management (or social revolution) it will probably be a curse!

    • zbiges

      @orsobubu.Please a little slower, buddy. You’re right, writing that this invention will change the economic and social system, but for sure it will not be a communism. I don’t know where you live, but here in Poland (where I live) you would have been laughed at this suggestion. I agree, however, that changes will occur, and soon.

      • orsobubu

        zbiges, “communism” in eastern block countries was, indeed, a state capitalism: banks, wage work, money, market…; never in the world did exist a communist society, aside from prehistorical ages (please see Amadeo Bordiga works). Communism is just a program for the future; in Russia etc it was a false bourgeoise ideology to subdue the proletariat, just like free-market today in USA. Now the possibility of communism is coming a little nearer. Aside from this, I never said that ecat = communism, I said that a revolutionary production system needs a social revolution, or it will mean a powerful way to precipitate an economic and military crisis.
        Capitalism simply has not the capabilities to manage such an enormous productive potentiality, because it would require generating more and more wage workers (surplus value = capital) without end, while – at the same time – these new technologies are more and more productive and automated. So only a military confrontation could destroy to ridivide the thinning profit cake, just like in world wars, when the economic space to grow the respective economies was exhausted.

        • zbiges

          orsobubu. I know what is communism, and I also know what it is state capitalism.
          Only objected to your statement:

          “(the logical next one: communism)”

          I believe that the system of state capitalism is as inhuman as communism Karl Marx, or vice versa 🙂 and I cannot agree that:

          “Now the Possibility of communism is coming a little nearer”

          because humanity is not moving toward communism.
          Besides, I agree with you.
          greetings

  • Brian

    I was very skeptical that we’d ever see this. I’m glad to be wrong.

  • buffalo

    it matters not where the report goes now.peoples eyes will focus sharp on this baby now.

  • MK

    Victory dance done 😉
    Imagine you could have looked over Galileos shoulder….
    We are just witnessing one of the greatest advancements of mankind, the beginning of the energy age! Thanks to Andrea Rossi and all the great minds that did built the base for this. 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

    • Kim

      Every Human on earth just recieved
      a new option.

      Kim

      • MK

        Definetely, lets celebrate!!!!!
        Champagne, Whiskey, Cognag, Schnaps, Sparkling water 😉 , whatever is yours.

        • artefact

          Drinking a “paulaner” beer but I eat a nice pizza.

      • GreenWin

        Every Human can now learn that we live in an abundant universe and energy is just as abundant as the stars that fill it.

  • georgehants

    From Science 2.0
    Is Cold Fusion For Real ?!
    The results of a third-party investigation of Rossi’s E-CAT reactor have appeared on the Cornell arxiv, and the conclusions of the tests are at the very least startling:
    http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/cold_fusion_real-112511

    • Pachu

      Tommaso Dorigo is an Italian main stream physicist, member of LHC experiments at CERN and former member of Tevatron, is a skeptic so what he wrotes has good value.

      While he warns he still think is a scam the report made enough to he write again about the e-cat.

  • Hank Mills

    I will have to read this report in detail.

    • Miles

      I’m not a physicist. If you could break the report down for the non-science folks – that would be great 🙂

  • Slabadang

    Cingratulations all e-cat fans!

    Today we can skip the “do you BELIVE in e-cat” and turn to “now we know”. All the herrassining besserwissers have a dark day today confronted with thier prestige stupidity lack of ableness to think out side their narrow box.They look really stupid today and some of them have to change their names totally flawed and we will all remember thier intolerance and lack of respect for new tecnology!

    Cangarts all and Congrats all humans on this beautiful planet!!

  • Herb Gillis

    I have never been more delighted to be proven wrong!
    Has the smut-stream Media picked up on the report yet?

  • georgehants

    Can all of science now see the worth of their establishment “expert opinions” and premier journals. (comics)

    • Robyn Wyrick

      Well, I respect your sentiment and frustration with the establishment, but I wouldn’t say that is suggested here.

      Innovation is not the same as Revolution, and what Rossi has achieved is revolutionary. Revolution, by its nature, looks beyond the well known, of which “experts” are the keepers and protectors.

      The vast majority of Innovation generally comes from expanding on the well known and well supported. The gatekeepers of “expert opinion” provide a scaffolding on which most innovation occurs. We just need to know that expert opinion gets things wrong and always has.

      What I hope comes from this (aside from a kicka55 energy source that changes the world for decades to come) would not be a repudiation of the value of expert opinion, but rather an understanding of the limits of “experts”, and the essential role played by outsiders.

      Cheers and a good day.

      • RGCheek

        The gatekeepers seem to have had a bit of calcification over the last few decades.

        But in the end, they should embrace this technology; real scientists are like that.

    • AB

      May I remind you that the scientists who made this report are part of establishment.

      The enemy is dogmatic thinking and conflicts of interest, or more specifically, the likes of Bob Park, and MIT plasma lab who falsified data to discredit F&P.

      • GreenWin

        MIT’s plasma program has been terminated as of today’s news. Hopefully MIT’s Regents will see light enough to ask Dr. Hagelstein to head a new fully funded department to research and develop LENR.

        They will be lucky to keep him. He will likely receive offers from every major energy player in the business.

        • Barry

          Amen.

  • freethinker

    Wanted to cheer with the rest of you all earlier today, but work came in the way. Now sitting in my private chambers, savouring my 40 yr old Glenfarclas single malt, I have the time to reflect.

    Not wanting to take up too much space, it suffice to cheer three times for Andrea Rossi, the winner of the day. The paper will be a landmark paper, a divider of time, between then and what is now.

    After that a few moments silence in honour of an absent hero, Martin Fleischmann, I again put the glas to my lips, saluting the living heros still out there battling on the side of Truth.

    Congratulations everybody. I believe a new era is about to dawn.
    But don’t forget that the battle is not over yet. I guess this will trigger some activity from (pato-)skeptics.

    • georgehants

      Just in case anything goes wrong I have just opened a bottle of Tesco Champagne.
      Hopefully I am being far to over-cautious.

      • freethinker

        🙂 But at-least it sparkle. The sentiment is right.

        • Barry

          Cheers guys.

  • David Kaiser

    For more than two ! Years I was following this story – no one believed me. I was ridiculed. And now I AM speechless. WOW !

    • zvibenyosef

      I feel the same way, I am almost embarrassed to mention it again to all those folks who followed it for a while, and then gave up on it.

  • Jerry Jones

    ecat news sent out a email congratulating Rossi, AFTER unmercifully criticizing Dr Rossi for months before closing down, Paul Story has NO CLASS.

  • Jonas

    Man – a six month test..?! There’s no hope for getting one next winter either, then?

    BUT, of course I’m jumping with joy, still! Gonna have a Grappa, italian ‘schnaps’ now for dinner, I think that’s appropriate. 🙂

    • Jonas

      I realise this is the hot cat being tested, not the ‘warm’ domestic one, so I hope the certifications for the latter are not dependent on the proofs of the hot one… Then it will drag out even more into the far future until we can all enjoy this.

  • Andre Blum

    Once more, since my previous request dropped down to the umpth page so quickly:

    http://slashdot.org/submission/2673447/independent-report-published-on-e-cat-cold-fusion-device

    Please vote up (+ button) to increase chances of this being published on slashdot.

  • georgehants

    From Vortex
    Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released
    Edmund Storms Mon, 20 May 2013 09:15:15 -0700
    Before we get too excited. I think two questions need to be answered.
    1. When was the calibration done and under what conditions. The amount of heat being radiated depends on the value of the effective total emissivity of the surface. This value will change with time and temperature. Therefore, the value needs to be determined as a function of temperature both before and after the hot-cat was heated. Details about how the temperature of the surface was determined also need to be provided. A detailed description of the test is required before these claims can be accepted.
    2. How long does the hot-cat function at such high temperatures. This time will determine whether the device is a practical source of energy. The extra energy may be real, but if it only lasts a short time before the NAE is destroyed, the value of the design is limited.
    Ed Storms

    • Jonas

      Would not the dummy test – provided significantly equally calibrated to the live one, which I presume it was – just in itself prove the excess heat? Sure details are needed, but on the magnitude of the whole thing, with ‘good enough’ calibration between the both models (the ‘alive’ and the ‘dead’), the method of calibration itself should matter less..?

      Is this almost regardless of method not possible to be a measuring error?

      • Alp

        Well… this is one possible source of error. It looks as if the dummy test was done with a direct current (DC) heater power supply while the runs with the ecat supplying the excess power were done with a “proprietary” power supply provided by Rossi. They should have used the same wave shape for calibration as for running the real test. Not sure this matters but it’s not the right way to do the experiment. I think this is what Storms finds problematical.

    • freethinker

      Edmund Storms – one of the living heroes I previously saluted – could take a look at the Duty-cycle graph plot 7, regarding point 2. It seems during the run (if that is now the whole time series) it is capable to work without problems. I guess the coming long duration test will be more clarifying in this regard. But it does not burn out right away 🙂 it seems.

    • Alp

      He seems to be quite “cautionary”. I hope he’s read the entire report.

      • GreenWin

        Perhaps Dr. Storms did not read the concluding para:

        “Lastly, it must be remarked that both tests were terminated by a deliberate shut down of the reactor, not by fuel exhaustion; thus, the energy densities that were measured should be considered as lower limits of real values.”

        • Alp

          That wouldn’t matter (nor would a six month test) if the basic measurement method isn’t sound.

  • Curbina

    Well, this is evidence, at last.

  • Bernhard
  • freethinker

    Some salt in the wound of the critics ?

    MIT cut nuclear fusion program:

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/05/19/fusion-energy-research-mit-shut-down-people-lose-their-jobs/x8CDMwik26faDd9FmwlrTO/story.html

    Maybe they could start working on LENR instead?

    • Sanjeev

      What a “coincidence” 😉
      Looks like they finally calculated the COP of a HF reactor the right way, which is – energy out/money in = less than nuclear radius of an H-atom. Obviously not enough to boil a cup of tea.

    • GreenWin

      MIT’s HF program is now paying for the “sins” of their past. Dr. Eugene Mallove spelled it all out in his seminal paper:

      http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf

      May Gene rest in peace, knowing that finally some kind of justice may be done and the New Fire will burn.

  • dandelion

    Because I am a weird person, I will get drunk tonight with italian beer. A lot of it.

    Thank you Rossi and Frank, and to all the people that kept the new fire alive under the kettle, here and everywhere.

  • Sanjeev

    Great step forward ! Better late than never.
    Surely its shocking for many. I was worried that it will be as bad as the earlier 3rd party report, but these guys have done a thorough job really (Didn’t read it completely yet).

    A layman can stop reading it after it says that the steel melted during the very first attempt. As someone here said, the social evidence is overwhelming. Rossi is thanking each commentator personally by name on jonp, not a sign of someone trying to make quick bucks.

    He needs to be even more careful regarding what he says now onwards, because people are going to believe his words more than ever. It will be interesting to see how the news spreads around the net in coming days.

  • Colin Aldridge

    On the very positive side the system clearly works at amazing energy densities so LNER is clearly woring at outputs way above othet peoples experiments. On th negative side we have an output of nearer 1Kw compared to the 10Kw I think was being claimed by Rossi and a relatively low COP at least in this experiment. So we may be a long way off a serious commercial device. It is possible that all this changes whne the eCAT is inside a heat exchanger and we may be looking at the low heat eCAT here not the latest one which Rossi is talking about. Thoughts anyone?

    • Thinks4Self

      I think what we are looking at is a test reactor, that has enough power to prove the concept but isn’t likely near the limits of what can be done with the form factor. The November test reportedly melted the steel housing so it seems far more energy can be created in the current form factor than we see in the tests reported.

      One other piece of interesting information is that the steel housing was melted in that test at all. I believe the reason the core is made out of ceramic is to prevent the core from melting.

  • Tony

    One question I have: What is the energy required to prepare the fuel? If the energy required to produce the nickel powder and hydrogen gas is equal to the excess heat given off, all they’ve done is produce an energy dense battery. While this would still be Very useful for energy distribution and being able to provide areas with power that don’t have access to a grid (ie storm ravaged areas or remote village), it isn’t the “free energy” we all want.

    • Jonas

      Presumably, even if it takes a lot of energy to produce the fuel, the ecats themselves would be involved in the extraction and processing, and then it need only be slightly more effective than the processing for it to exponentially get cheaper and cheaper.

    • Sanjeev

      My wild guess is that it will be a few millijoules. Its the energy needed to pulverize few grams of Ni and to produce less than a gram of H2 (for one Ecat HT and lasting 6 months).

    • barty

      Rossi said some time ago that he uses a chemical reaction to create his catalyzer, and the nickle-hydrogen-mix is just a metalhydride.

  • shawkins

    Bernie,

    Someone composed this plot which illustrates the location of the eCAT-HT2 on the Ragone chart.

    It is 1+ orders of magnitude into nuclear territory on power density and 4+ orders of magnitude into nuclear territory in energy density.

    http://www.well.com/~af/ecat_dec_chart_130520A.png

    Regards,
    Steve Hawkins

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      shawkins……thanks

  • Sergio

    Ladies and gentlemen, a great day!

    • Miles

      +1.

      I hope this SNOWBALLS… LENR will start getting bigger n bigger each day.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    To any that think this is the beginning of the end for big oil or gas, consider that even perfected E-Cats and Hot-Cats will be used for heating and possibly small scale power plants. Oil is used for portable high power use (cars, trucks, trains, and aircraft), and would still be needed. Coal is cheap, so will hang around a while for electric power generation. Gas is presently cheap and plentiful, and clean, so will last longer than coal. The big losers will be solar and wind in the short term, and eventually followed by coal generated power. Large scale nuclear will only last if it goes to safer and cleaner plants. The biggest winners would be Poor countries, which need cheap clean energy.

    • daniel maris

      It’s all a matter of cost. A lot of the cost of gas operations results from fuel costs. While E Cat energy won’t be free, it might be cheap enough to mean that retrofitting makes sense. In that case the change could happen quite quickly.

    • Kim

      Not Implying a flip of the switch to off.

      But from here on out its a precipitous drop.

      Respect
      Kim

    • zvibenyosef

      Economics will play a large part in how quickly the ecat will be adopted by the energy industry. Its use might encourage the creation of a decentralized power infrastructure, with unpredictable consequences. The results of the report clearly show the clear superiority of this new technology compared with any other existing today.

  • Gerald

    Looking good. Now we will see how the story continues. Cheers to everyone.

  • AB

    I would be interested in more comments from technically trained readers regarding the reliability of the study.

    For example, is the usage of a thermal camera a genuine point of criticism at these relatively high energy levels or merely pseudo-skepticism?

    I remember a comment some time ago where one of the involved researchers presumably said that the proof was undeniable. Do you think this is correct?

    • Kim

      Yes.

    • GreenWin

      AB I am not expert in thermal camera measurement but I think we can expect deniers and those whose egos are sorely damaged to focus on any semblance of potential defect. They did this with Wright brothers and even the New York Times suggested Edison was daft for attempting to create an electric light.

      The NYT will not likely report this event until their orders are lifted.

      • AlainCo

        about thermal camera, done on nextbigfuture…

        thomas kuhn theory is that unless there is a theory, or big funding, science will ignore LENR.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Everything that can be done, can be done better. There are many things in the report (many also discussed by the authors themselves) that they could have done better, in the sense of achieving smaller error bounds versus excess heat value, given the time and resources. But since the COP was found to be so much above unity, complaining on these seems a bit pointless, and also introducing more details and complexity would also negatively impact the report’s readability. I get the impression that the formulas and data are not inconsistent with their verbal conclusions. They seem to have a rather good handle on their sources of inaccuracies and have used rigorous upper or lower bounds in applicable cases.

  • Robert

    It will be wothwhile for each reader to pass on the links and eventually both the skeptics and the hopeful will infect the ‘smut stream media’ (thanks Herb for the appropriate new moniker), and take their minds off their Gotcha and sound bite repetition for a moment. They’re just as Network (movie) characterized them about forty years ago.

  • Tappanjack

    Frank: Thank you for keeping us engaged through the quiet and
    confusing times!
    Dr Rossi: Congradulations on such an overwhelming vindication, I
    know this report will become a major bench mark going forward. I
    hope you are enjoying the day with a break from the routine you have
    so intensely pursued to arrive at this day as well as the tremendous
    amount of work to be done.

  • Tommy Trouble

    Fantastic! Congratulations to Rossi and his supporters. Thank you Frank for administering this very informative website and all those who contribute to it. Happy day!

    • Martin Leonard

      Couldn’t agree more. Thanks Frank
      Feels like a special day.

  • magnus

    This is not ‘one small step’ it is ‘1 Big Boot’, and it should be used to kick the ass of the establishment for lying and manipulating scientific facts for the last 100 years. It has now been proven that energy is in fact in abundance, and if we look back at all of the other genius inventors(dismissed/ridiculed/bankrupt/destroyed) we may learn that we had the answer to most of humanities real problems all along.
    Andrea Rossi – Hero. Not just for the cats but for giving us hope again. Hope that an individual can change the World for the better – Thank You

    • Kim

      All of this is so very True…

      and as we proceed forward it will
      be very clear to all that we were
      led astray by greedy evil people
      the choice psychopaths that society
      could provide

      Thanks
      Kim

  • Barry

    Just found out MIT is shutting down it’s Hot Fusion program. 70 people losing their jobs (that part isn’t much to celebrate over). Story came out in the Boston Globe. Funny it came out today.
    http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2013/05/mit-to-cut-nuclear-fusion-program.html

    • Barry

      Sorry freethinker, looks like you beat me to it.

      • freethinker

        I guess. But I think it is worth reiterating. Like yourself I feel for those loosing their job and income, hopefully they will find other employments quickly.

        However, I find it almost poetic and divine justice that the very institution that was most instrumental in destroying Pons&Fleischmann now, at this very day of breakthrough and LENR celebration, suffer this fate.

    • Kim

      Plenty of Jobs and Money will
      be available to LENR in the future.

      We will need as many scientists as
      possible working on this.

      Its in it’s Infancy.

      Respect
      Kim

      • Barry

        True Kim, Maybe the CF department at MIT (of one, P. Hagelstein) will be expanded. Great vision.

        • Miles

          A giant step for mankind. It’s all good news.

          “In the next test experiment which is expected to start in the summer of 2013, and will last about six months, a long term performance of the E-Cat HT2 will be tested. This test will be crucial for further attempts to unveil the origin of the heat phenomenon observed so far.”

  • barty

    What about Mark Gibbs? Isn’t he ready on vortex-l mailinglist?

    I hope he will cover this on forbes with a direct link to the report pdf.

    • GreenWin

      Gibbs unfortunately is a closet skep – do not expect him to perform positively.

      • barty

        He surely “was” a skeptic till today. Maybe this changed!
        I hope so 😉

      • John

        Nothing “closet” about him. And nothing wrong with that. And I’m not referring to homosexuality.

    • Robyn Wyrick
      • GreenWin

        “…they are all serious academics with reputations to loose and the paper is detailed and thorough.”

        You must wonder who is running the show at Forbes to allow Gibbs to make this caliber error in language use. Clearly this sim needs a thorough review of its language algorithm – as this one is a dismal failure.

  • Kim

    Andrea Rossi
    May 20th, 2013 at 1:43 PM

    Dear Pekka Janhunen:
    To answer to your question I should disclose confidential information regarding the ceramic sayers composition and their function. The statement is fully accurate.
    Thank you for your kind attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    ———
    I always felt that cermaics was part of
    this.

    Probably special ceramics made with powdered
    nickel and resistors.

    Respect
    Kim

    • Thomas

      Dear Kim, I’m italian and i live very close to Bologna. I’ve followed the progress of Mr.Rossi since many months and, as you, i always believed that ceramic components probably used in the reactor may play a very relevant role in the lern process. Just not far from Bologna there’s one of the most important european district for ceramic production: It’s located in Sassuolo and it counts hundreds of companies producing top quality ceramics for all purpose whit abundant employ of high technology. I’m pretty sure that Rossi has important partners helping him on the subject.

  • GreenWin

    I am going to add a personal congratulations to Dr. Randell Mills, who I believe has had an unseen hand in bringing about this momentous day. Thank you Dr. Mills and staff – you have made the world a better place.

    gw

    • buffalo

      indeed the earlier experiments of mills were almost identical to these ‘hot cats’.

      • GreenWin

        Agree 100% buffalo. 🙂

  • sparks

    So with this objective validation, three things are required to speed things up:
    1) Solid patent protection
    2) A strong business case
    3) Lots of $$$$$$$ so Rossi can hire, hire, hire.

    Anyone aware of the latest on his patents? As for 2, investors will want a solid analysis of market potential, expressed industry interest, costs of setup and manufacture, and initial rate of return (IRR) on the investment. Unfortunately natural gas is “almost free” these days in the USA, and ironically, this could slow things down, at least for 3 years or so. Also, the ensconced power industry players will view coal and gas as not only cheap, but low risk, “tried and true.” Am hoping the nickel and “secret sauce” catalyst are cheap to provide.

    But that said, natural gas is NOT plentiful in Europe, and in fact is a huge problem. Seems to me Rossi should be basing his efforts more in his home country and surrounds. An e-cat fired power grid seems a made-in-heaven match for Western Europe.

    But if Rossi isn’t willing to go the funding route, and tries to do this all on his own, it could take forever, that is, we may be stuck with the snail’s-pace progress as has been the case up until now. He needs major help on all fronts: marketing, R&D, and reliable, cost-effective PRODUCTIZATION.

  • Zero

    I was polishing off my bottle of champagne as I decided to check up on the e-cat story last night only to find the third party report was published! I find it no coincidence that I had a sudden urge to drink the champagne I had sitting in my fridge for months on the very night the report was published. It was God saying “you don’t know it yet, but it’s time to party!”

    • Jonas

      God is such a cool dude! 😛

  • buffalo

    what i find interesting is that zero radiation was detected,shielded by the casing perhaps.

    • barty

      If the Widom-Larsen theory is at least in some points correct, and heavy, slow neutrons are involved, then this could be possible.

      These neutrons are so slow and heavy that they can’t escape from the metal surface.

      • buffalo

        unless it is of non-nuclear origin.i cannot rule out a 2nd law thermo violation here,in which case the consequences are even more far reaching than if nuclear.

  • georgehants

    Mats Lewan: The biggest shift ever.
    How technology’s changing the world.
    I have earlier reported extensively on the E-Cat in the Swedish technology magazine Ny Teknik, but since more than a year very little new verified information have been available. This looks different.
    http://matslew.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/two-100-hour-scientific-tests-confirm-anomalous-heat-production-in-rossis-e-cat/

    • GreenWin

      WOW. What an amazing day!

    • Robyn Wyrick

      George, you are really amazing at finding this stuff. Thanks.

      • georgehants

        Robyn, thank you. 🙂

  • DaPhys

    Am I the only one to be disappointed by this report? The fact that the independent experts had had no access to the fuel/charge is limiting and frustrating, to say the least. Why this approach? Why not a NDA to protect Rossi’s IP? Because in turn the group had to infer some parameters in their calculation, eg the measurement of the charge at 0.236 kg, a key parameter in their claim, is not rigorous at all. Also the expression of the measurement uncertainty does not follow basic rules, eg those published by JCGM.

    The only thing this report confirms is a systematic and relatively well controlled generation of heat, but given the numerous ways to produce heat with nickel hydrides, eg a simple transformation from alpha-phase NiH to beta-NiH is exothermic, this report will be easily criticized by the non-believers. Finally, the format of the article (no Intro/Methods/Discussion typical of peer-reviewed articles…) suggests that the authors did not plan to submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal from the very beginning (I still hope to be wrong on that one…).

    IMHO this report will do more harm than good and still increase the gap between believers and non-believers. What a disappointment.

    • Fibb

      I agree with you. hugely disappointing and proves nothing

      • Roger Bird

        What a big surprise!! The captain of the dependent thinkers has struck again.

    • B travers

      Dphys, Hi.
      Was it not the peer review ‘Pillocks’ that attacked Piers and Flieshman and held this from the light of day for 25 years ?
      Your having a laugh, surely.

    • buffalo

      nah,a change in morphology would give a tiny fraction of measured energy

    • sparks

      The lack of access to the fuel for pre-experimenal measurements is extremely frustrating, to say the least. Your point is well made. What it means is that another test is required, this time with EVERYTHING done right.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      “Why not a NDA to protect Rossi’s IP?” Naive!

      • John

        “Yeah, we won’t tell. Promise!” *fingers crossed*

    • GreenWin

      Psyops DDD… from DaPhystro11. Hilarious!

      • Jonas

        You’re moving in circles… What would examining the fuel give..? Isn’t the point that you have an enclosed tube with something, this something gives you more energy out than in, in a way not possible by anything but nuclear energy – no matter what this material consists of?! If no secret cables are discovered and no radiation detected, and this device still emits high energy, it could be made with fairy dust for all I care – what could he possibly have hidden in the fuel that in itself could explain it other than that which it in fact is – a new way to release energy?

        • Jonas

          Sorry, GreenWin, it was meant as a comment one level higher, not replying to yours.

    • freethinker

      Well,

      You are probably not the only one disappointed by the report.
      I bet there are a lot of other pato-skeptics out there that are.

      It depends on what you expect. This report has not been defined in any other way than a black box test a-priori and hence you will get a black box report. Fuel is off limits.

      And you drag in your exothermic bs chemical reactions and fail to realize that the effect is extremely conservatively estimated to 10 times any chemical source. Have you even read the paper?

      About error estimate, they are ridiculously high just to maintain a conservative frame of mind and attitude.

      You complain about the layout of the paper. How many papers have you written? There is an abstract, an intro, definition of setup, data analysis, conclusions and references. It is a 29 page paper of good standards.

      And NO. This paper will not cause more harm than good. To the contrary. It will be the defining paper that will mark a big X in the time line where the battle against pato-skeptics in-fact was won.

      • Alp

        I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest that the amount of energy measured came from nickel hydrides (or by inference, Raney nickel type reactions). It’s too large.

        I do have two concerns, probably better stated by Dr. Edmund Storms. They have to do with the input power measurement method and with the technique for the dummy run. But I will be patient and allow things to run their course. I am sure we will know soon enough if this is for real or just another Rossi show.

  • John

    Man, reddit… what a cesspool! My fav comment so far:

    “lead by a person who chaired a society with a reputation for psuedoscience.” -Some dude on Hanno Essen

    • GreenWin

      Yeah. It’s like when you remind these guys their savior and hero Sir Isaac Newton, discoverer of gravity, spent 20 years pursuing the penultimate pseudoscience – alchemy. Darn.

  • georgehants

    Just checked but Defkalion seem to have missed the report.
    I thought they may have put up a congratulations to Mr. Rossi on there page.

  • Randy Bryan

    Congratulations to A. Rossi!! I look forward to your ongoing success.
    I hope Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann are now duly publicly recognized for their work and achievement. And also I hope that they and Gene Mallove will someday receive an official apology from MIT, even if posthumously for some.
    I also hope that the US and world pay more attention to this area. We ignore it at our economic peril.

  • Garry

    But who reviewed it? arXiv.org does not “review” in a conventional sense:

    From their website:

    Disclaimer: Papers will be entered in the listings in order of receipt on an impartial basis and appearance of a paper is not intended in any way to convey tacit approval of its assumptions, methods, or conclusions by any agent (electronic, mechanical, or other). We reserve the right to reject any inappropriate submissions.

    Believe me, I want this to be true more than most… but was this independently reviewed? Not that I doubt the authors… but this does not appear to have been blind reviewed in the “conventional” sense. Does anyone have any other information on the review process that I missed? Without “conventional review” those who want to ignore it will have ammo to say that it was not peer reviewed.

    I am still going to use this report to claim “I win” on a few side bets with colleagues of mine… and hopefully humanity wins big with this report… but this is step 1 of a longer “proof” process. Hopefully others jump in soon.

    • John De Herrera

      ONE GIANT STEP FOR MANKIND! Report looks good and future confirmations will settle the arguments. The ‘installed working reactors’ will be the final proof. jdh

    • freethinker

      Garry,

      arXive is a pre-print database. It never were a place for making any kind of reviews. Many scientist in a wide variety of fields enter their work there, maybe most commonly – I conjecture – as a parking of the paper in lieu of the published version, but there may be a variety of reasons.

      Andrea Rossi has indicated that it will likely be published in a journal, and I guess we will have to wait and see where it end up. This is up to the principal author or the authors. It will likely we a bumpy road ahead to get it accepted for publication.

      Right now, this pre-print is as good as it gets. And it is good. That’s my opinion.

      • enduser

        In science, it is often crucial to prove you were the first with a result of some sort. The idea of an “arXiv” is that you can get it out there in a timely manner, hopefully before any rivals.

        Getting published in a big name journal can take months and someone might beat you to it by getting published in an editorially more speedy journal.

        The arXive entry definitively dates your research.

    • Roger Bird

      It doesn’t matter. The distrust is really wearing thin.

  • zero

    I believe the current poll should be restarted now. I wonder how different the results will be.

  • Andre Blum

    PESN:

    “VINDICATION!
    Third-Party E-Cat Test Results Show at Least 10x Gain”

    Not factually incorrect, depending on what it is the gain is over, but I think Stirling Allen misinterpreted 🙂

    • freethinker

      .

    • freethinker

      Trying again: 🙂

      Not necessarily.

      Wasn’t there something about “the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources” in the Abstract? Also in the very title of this article here at e-catworld “3rd Party Report: E-Cat at Least One Order of Magnitude Greater Than Conventional Energy Sources”? which means x10.

      • Andre Blum

        yes, like I said it is factually correct, but IMHO highly misleading, as this has never been the kind of ‘gain’ we talked about.

        • freethinker

          ok, maybe he is pushing the envelope a bit. But you are of course right. We have always talked about COP here in terms of efficiency. But 10 > 6 😉

      • Brian

        I think that the author of the PESN piece was confusing COP (energy output/input) with energy density (amount of net energy stored in a certain amount of mass). The two devices had COPs of 6 and 3 respectively.

        COPs are important for establishing that net power is being created. Energy density is important for establishing that it’s nuclear and not chemical.

        • Preston

          Correct, but I think that COP was without the heat after death effect added it.

          • Omega Z

            They indicated that 2 factors may effect the COP.

            The March test was ran at lower temp. Higher temps may equate Higher COP.

            The Size of the Charge may also vary the COP.

  • SebF

    Well, this is definitely worth something because I now think that the general tendency is going to be positive for LENR.

    But in my opinion the report has some flaws:

    – It will never make it through peer review because it lacks reproducibility. Trade secrets are all over and they did not have full control over the testing procedure (powder exchange for example).
    Publishing on Arxiv does not mean peer review btw!! It is only used as a free PDF storage with minimal restrictions regarding content.

    – Bad style. Written in Word, linking and referencing Wikipedia images. Needs proper conversion to grayscale type setting with LateX. Maybe they left it like that because they know that it won’t make it through peer review (I know what I’m talking about btw).

    – Most of the professors are well-known to the Rossi “saga”. I would have expected more independence. Also, they had to perform the tests in Rossi’s premises under the watch of Bianchini, who has been working with Rossi for several years.

    – As stated by others before, they didn’t do water calorimetry. For upcoming tests I’d most certainly recommend that in the first place.

    For peer review they or MFMP will have to get to the underlying theories and publish them in a proper journal. Signing an NDA for example won’t change a thing here since it would still mean secrecy.
    After such a paper has been published, media and “main strean scientists” will most certainly catch on immediately.

    But I hope that MFMP/Celani or even the planned 6-month-test will lead to this.

    • AB

      The powder exchange doesn’t affect the validity of the paper.

      • Roger Bird

        Absolutely

    • Garry

      As to trade secrets… plenty of biology papers at least have “trade secret” information in them. The synthesis of a drug used in a trial is not always given– and often just a “name”. In my field companies sell reagents that have things in them that are not “open”. I just need to be able to buy the reagent again.

      Just my two cents. Not a denial of what you are saying, just the journals do allow a little leeway on the trade secret side of the equation.

      • Ged

        It does indeed happen, I’ve run into it myself.

    • Omega Z

      Trade Secrets are allowed.
      Coca Cola has them.
      KFC has them
      And I’m sure there are many, many more.

      • SebF

        But there are no papers on Coca Cola, are there?

  • Roger Bird

    177 emails from you geese in 5.5 hours!!! One would think that you were excited about something.

    Forbes and oilprice.com and perhaps others will break the dam. In the meantime, I emailed my Congressman and will email other politicians.

  • SteveA

    Wouldn’t the measurements have been more accurate if they would have put the reactor in an insulated pipe & blew air over it? They could have measured the flow rate and inlet/outlet temperatures quite easily and compared it to the device without the charge (mouse only). This is more akin to how it would likely be set up in an application anyway.
    I only trust IR readings for comparisons, even when I specifically know the emmisivity of a surface. It wouldn’t surprise me if they get poor readings when the surface is at an angle to the camera, meaning every point except a line at the closest point of the cylinder.

    And yes, the more transparent he can be the more skeptics he can quiet. Things like measuring the charge before and after and longer measurements in self sustain mode would go far to show proof.

    • Thinks4Self

      The error from using an ir camera would likely be less energy recorded than actually created, won’t it?

      • Roger Bird

        The heat coming from a part of the cylinder not facing directly toward the camera would be measured as being less. So, there is no way that they could record the temperature as high as it actually was.

    • Omega Z

      IR is good enough for the Military.
      They use this process for Jet engines using black body measurements. The Black body 1200`C paint is of Military specs.

  • Andre Blum

    please, everyone, vote up my slashdot submission. Press + on

    http://slashdot.org/submission/2673447/independent-report-published-on-e-cat-cold-fusion-device

    Slashdot I guess may not be what it used to be, but having this published there sure would bring it to the attention of many scientists, geeks, etc.

    • Miles

      I pressed + for you. Slashdot will give LENR good coverage.

  • Tom

    Very worried about this. The quality of the report is not at a good enough standard to be published. I cannot see ANY error calculations throughout the entire report; this is simple stuff which should not be missing.

    Another worry is the actual format of the document. Something like this should be produced using LaTeX, with a full and complete references section.

    Very dodgy.

    • freethinker

      Tom,

      You are right that there are no error propagation calculations. Errors have been a bit handwavingly estimated, to its defense conservatively. The error propagation calculations and further elaborations on errors may well be critique that will be handled in the peer – review process. Remember also that there are a conservative approach over all and the detected effect is of significant magnitude. A couple of percent in the end uncertainty does not change the impact of the result.

      What goes for the LaTex thing, this is just a preprint. Maybe they dont want to reveal what journal it has been sent to. The text mass and figures can likely be reused in any other template they need to use for the real publication.

      Seriously, none of those things make it dodgy.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Dude, that is very oldskool.

      Are the used Text program and the layout critical for the scientific reception? If so, then science has become very elitist; a nice scientific revolution would be the perfect cure 🙂

  • Barry

    Chakras are opening.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    Some of the skeptics may be spinning a “head fake” while shorting the energy market.

    • Roger Bird

      Like oncologists who won’t allow their family members to do chemo therapy.

  • MToll

    Quoting NASA’s Bushnell from the PopSci e-cat article last year:

    “We have so screwed up this planet.” “This is one of the few things I know of that’s capable for atoning for our sins.”

    What we were expecting for so long, it may finally be here.

  • Barry

    You know all of this can’t be true, Why just yesterday I read in this months Popular Mechanics how “A Department of Energy review panel debunked the (Cold Fusion) evidence in 2004″
    Plus Steve Crowley said CF isn’t real. (I know, bad karma, but I had too)

  • Morgan

    I don’t seem to be welcome anywhere. I’m a nut for thinking LENR is real, and LENR believers think I’m a nut for saying big oil and gas will never let this technology come out.

    • Roger Bird

      You are welcome here. But http://www.oilprice.com has been covering this story quite a lot. Perhaps you are excessively paranoid. Big Oil may have been great at one time at controlling the market and buying politicians, but they can’t control free people. Witness how we the people broke up Standard Oil. It is way too late for Big Oil to stop this. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rossi has written copies of his recipe in the offices of numerous lawyers worldwide with instructions to post his recipe on the Internet should he have an accident or disappear or something.

    • Zedshort

      I apologize, but I will never understand the idea that big oil and gas and such control everything that happens in this world. I don’t believe in conspiracies, it seems too simplistic.

    • NJT

      Morgan, ITS OUT!

  • Linda

    Outstanding!

    As for the critics, of course, things can always be improved, no report will ever be good enough. If such a report had been produced at Kitty Hawk, they would say the same things, that the plane had not been weighed before and after, that the photographer did not calibrate his camera, that the results were not published using the appropriate form…

    Yet, the Wright Brothers flew.

    • Roger Bird

      I bet that they didn’t have to pay extra for baggage.

  • Orlando

    the arxiv report was quoted by next big future this morning.
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/05/third-party-ecat-report-on-arxiv.html

  • Robert

    A couple of weeks ago I stated that unless something major happened soon, I was assigning Rossi to the “wishful thinking” file. This report is pretty major! While not peer reviewed (yet?) nor published (yet nor likely to be accepted) it is a great step forward. The complaints that the testers were “believers” is totally bogus. The scientists at CERN “believe” in everything they test for. They simply are trying to find solid proof. As long as someone has the mindset that they can accept they were wrong if the evidence requires it. (This is something the pathoskeps are so hypocritical about! They are determined NOT to believe REGARDLESS of the facts)

    If the report was written via laTEX, would the data be different? If the font size was 11 versus 12 and in Helvetica would it make the temperature measurements more accurate? Most certainly, the reference section not being indented the proper amount totally nullifies all the referenced notes!

    So while this test is indeed very significant (not perfect, but they themselves state they are conducting longer and more indepth tests, this was a first step) it does bring up one sad point, at least to my thinking… Rossi is some time away from having a commercial product.

    Rossi has stated that he has sold and is selling 1 MW reactors to be put into immediate commerical use. Part of this plan is to gather and document safety data for residential certification.

    Yet the test report clearly reported, without any doubt, that the first test unit went critical and melted down and not intentionally. It does not make sense that someone would submit a unit for third party validating, that was not proved to be stable. Later tests were conducted with redesigned units, but resulted in much lower temperatures and COP. How stable they are is still questionable in my mind. While I am no expert and do not know any real details, the whole “Mouse and Cat” solution seems very odd. Rossi has put up smoke screens on several occasions before.

    So I find I have mixed feelings,(although mostly positive). This puts Rossi back on the road of being credible as to having a LENR device of significant power output. However I believe it also reveals that the device is still unstable at times and absolute control has not been achieved. This probably explains why no customer has came forward or no data from “sold” units are available. This issue may yet is to be resolved.

    So good news and a little bad news. For some reason, this seems to be the norm concerning Rossi. What a “Strange Cat” he is with his “E Cats”!

    • daniel maris

      Yes this is a big step. This puts the ball firmly in science’s side of the court. It is for other scientists to tell why we shouldn’t believe Levi et al.

      Taken with everything else we know, I find it a pretty compelling study. It seems to chime in with everything we know about the way LENR works, about stability issues etc. , how there is a trade off between stability and COP.

    • freethinker

      Robert,

      Agreeing with the first half of what you wrote, I feel compelled to say something about the latter part.

      The article is for hot cats prototypes. 1MW powerplants, asfai remember, has been normal ecats. Customers have been military (why should they disclose info?) and the “partner” (why would they disclose any info; They will be evaluating the tech in a production environment). Honestly, we all have mixed feelings about the lack of open and clear information from Rossi. There is nothing new there.

      You seem upset over the melting hot cat reactor, and why such a reactor could be put before the 3rd party testers. Seriously. It was a prototype. Stranger things do happen. Apparently it has to do with long term stability in the setup, which equally apparently has been addressed.

      So how can the release of the preprint constitute “a little bad news”? Nothing of the findings in the report is related to things you hint as being bad.

      I, on my part, enjoy the fact that there is now an independent report by scientists that actually say that Rossi’s device is for real.

      • freethinker

        So I have to reply to myself to add in proof:
        The melting of the reactor was of course a bad thing in your eyes, but again, the report does show that he has what he claim, so why look for bad stuff that is beyond the scope. I do not get that sentiment.

        • Roger Bird

          I don’t see the melting of the reactor as a bad thing. It would be a bad thing if there were no December and March tests. But with the December and March tests, it can be said that the November test proves that LENR is serious business. It can get so hot that it melts steel. Isn’t that what Fleishmann and Pons said happened in their laboratory? I like the November tests.

          • Robert

            freethinker & Roger,

            I think I worded my thoughts poorly. I agree that the “melting cat” is not bad for LENR. On the contrary, it can show the potential for great energy density.

            What I was referring to as “bad” was where Rossi probably really is with a production ready product. While not a show stopper for LENR in general, I think this indicates a product will not be available for sometime.

            Consider this. Rossi stated he shipped a “cold cat” to the military. He stated he had sold 13 units. Then when it was brought up that the cold cat was still in his facility, it became a plumbing issue. Then a different unit was supposedly shipped. Then a public customer in March, but this turned out to ba a partner and the actual status quite vague. (Not that he has to tell us anything) Recently, I have heard no mention from JONP about “cold cats”. They seem to have been obsoleted by the hot cat.

            My point is, I believe there is a good chance that no unit of any kind is being used by anyone yet. That plans are made and problems arise.. Modifications made etc. to solve problems. This is not unusual! However stating that units are sold but probably not, licensee partners with no product, etc is pretty odd.

            This is not to say Rossi does not have something, just that I have a feeling no model of cat is ready for market yet.. That is why his licensees have been so out of the picture. They probably do not have anything to sell yet.

            So I think the “bad” is that Rossi might speak prematurely about the readiness for commercial sale. He may be close but remember, 13 cold cats where supposed to have been delivered almost a year ago.

            Still, the test is great news for LENR

  • Roger Bird

    Peer Review is supposed to be a way to insure that everything was done and reported with clean and pure scientific methodology. But lately it has become corrupted. This is especially easy to see in the AGW debate and the Big Bang debate. Our clarity of thought is slipping in favor of supporting the dominant paradigm. So if this report doesn’t get peer reviewed or if a bunch of peers rejects it, I don’t really care. If it does get peer reviewed and they accept it, I will call it a miracle and be very happy.

    • daniel maris

      I agree. There’s also that whole area where big pharma have completely corrupted the whole process – as part of their marketing of drugs with sometimes only marginal efficacy and playing down of side effects.

      I’d prefer if we went back to more of a free speech approach.

  • geoff
    • Roger Bird

      Only a select group of people can understand it, though.

  • Jimr

    I have sent a couple of emails to DOE (US Dept. of Energy) encouraging them to now invest funds in the study and development of LENR now that the technology has been proven.

    • John

      Everyone bomb Elon Musk of Tesla:

      https://twitter.com/elonmusk

      • daniel maris

        I think that’s a great idea – probably the best thing you could do. Elon Musk has shown how you can override conventional opinion and bring something very important to market. Also, Musk is driven by passion not reason – he really wants to get to Mars!

        • stuey81

          model s with built in lenr reactor, “the electric car that never requires electricity!”

    • Roger Bird

      Jimr, I am sure that you are a very intelligent and sweet guy, but if you think that the boundary separating the DOE people’s minds and “cold fusion” concept is going to come tumbling down because they got an email from a complete stranger about an alleged test by alleged scientists, please don’t be disappointed that they don’t pay for your trip to Washington, D.C., just so you can explain the whole thing to their open and appreciative minds. (:->)

      • You are 100% correct, however it will make a few people aware that there is really a technology called LENR which I suspect many have never heard of, and there are individuals who are aware of LENR.

      • Jimr

        Also if they received a thousand emails in a short time I am sure it would be forwarded to someone in upper management.

        • Roger Bird

          Today I asked a doctor of oriental medicine from China, a very well educated woman whose husband was a chemical engineer. She never heard of cold fusion.

  • Charles

    This, the greatest news of this age, is ignored. Obama’s trifecta and the Oklahoma tornadoes has driven this to the world of the unnoticed.

  • Thinks4Self

    Admin – How about a new poll? Thoughts on the E-Cat after reading the report or something like that.

    • daniel maris

      It’s going to be 75% thinking it’s for real. 🙂

    • Good idea — done.

  • captain

    from JONP

    This for AR (and his reply will surely come)
    captain
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    May 20th, 2013 at 5:50 PM
    Hi Andrea, remember … facts will speak for me!
    The time has come.
    Hot regards.

    And this for USPTO (but their reply will never come)

    From http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html

    Help End “Heavywatergate” and the 24 YEAR USPTO Coverup

    HEAVYWATERGATE continues at the US Patent Office led by a corrupt group of individuals who routinely mischaracterize facts about cold fusion on federal documents. Why?

    The US Patent Office has claimed falsely that there is “no utility” to cold fusion. Really? Does anyone believe that lie? Clean, efficient energy production has no use? Despite past open demonstrations, and hundreds of peer-reviewed publications, they claim falsely that there is no operability. There have been months of open demonstrations of cold fusion at MIT to which the USPTO Examiners were invited. They did not care; did not come; and continued to lie. But YOU do, don’t you!!!!

  • Sterling Allan

    An exciting day for all of us who have been putting up with grief for so long in giving coverage to this topic.

    http://pesn.com/2013/05/20/9602320_VINDICATION–3rd-Party-E-Cat_Test-Results-show-at-least-10x-gain/

    VINDICATION!
    Third-Party E-Cat Test Results Show at Least 10x Gain
    The debate about whether or not Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat technology really works are put to rest with a definitive, third-party test report having been released today stating that at the most conservative, the Hot-Cat technology showed at least a ten-fold increase in power over what could possibly have been ascribed to any presently-known chemical process.

    “Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.” — Report Abstract

    “The results obtained indicate that energy was produced in decidedly higher quantities than what may be gained from any conventional source.” — Report Conclusion

    • daniel maris

      Sterling,

      You are way too promiscuous a believer for your viewpoint on Rossi to add credibility. Sorry but that is what we call FACT.

      I don’t think you really aid the cause of having an open attitude to novel energy.

      • Shane D.

        Daniel,

        History may judge Sterling more favorably then you, as LENR reshapes the geopolitical and enviromental landscape.

        All it takes is to be right that one time.

        Let Sterling enjoy this moment as we all are.

        • daniel maris

          That’s absurd. That’s like saying Josephine knew about military tactics because she sh*gged Napoleon! 🙂

          • Shane D.

            Well, she’s in the history books… isn’t she?

            “sh-gged” quite a few before him, but that one time put her there, but you knew that when you posted I suppose… didn’t you?

            Sterling; sorry for the hmmm… distasteful analogies, but history may look a little more favorably on you in light of todays events.

            For that matter, history may also be kind to some here and also at our old ECW. 🙂

            Most notably though to Martin Fleischman (may his soul rest in peace), and to a somewhat lesser extent – Stanley Pons.

            Take care.

          • Shane D.

            Darn, I mean’t our old ECN.

            Too many acronymns to remember!… Just like the military.

          • daniel maris

            I liked it when there was ECN as a counter balance to ECW. 🙂

          • NJT

            Well said +1

          • daniel maris

            Er yes…that’s why I said it – to make the point that Sterling Allan has no real part in this narrative since he just runs with whatever is going…

            History has yet to pronounce – I keep an open mind.

          • Barry

            Sterling Allen put a lot of CF info out there. I found his articles quite informative when I was hungry for info.
            Not sure about the magnet motors. I can only digest one miracle at a time, but I hope he keeps digging. At least he’s out there on an active path.

      • Robyn Wyrick

        Daniel,

        With respect, I think it’s cool that everyone who follows this story gets to whoop for joy, irrespective of whether we bring any credibility to it. I certainly don’t add credibility. I am almost entirely a nobody with no credential, no training, not terribly studious investigative ability, and little actual information. But I’m stoked, and hope nobody minds if I pipe in.

        • Barry

          Go for it Robyn. It is the time for it. The only question is how can we get our friends from England to whoop and holler.

    • vbasic

      Thank you, Sterling. I read your analysis from your PESN site and its well written. I agree it’s LENR and not Cold Fusion. No H plus H to He. Rather transmutation to coper. But to your critics, I say so what? All of us agree it is a nuclear process, where W-L Theory or something else. So can we all let if be and know we are all interested in seeing the techology hamppen, no matter what we name it.

      • Roger Bird

        Fire worked very well for human-like-kind for hundreds of thousands of years without a theory, and in light of the reality of LENR, that theory may have been wrong or at least incomplete all along. And hot-fusionists have a most excellent and coherent theory, and look how much good it is doing them; they can destroy cities in the blink of an eye, but they can’t power cities even so much as to the extent of a single milliwatt.

        So let us let the smarter and more anal-retentive fret about LENR theory and we get about the business of commercializing LENR.

        • Job001

          New fire is great!

          Newtons theory of gravity published 1687, 326 years ago showed the force formula but Newton admitted he had no clue how gravity worked.

          We still don’t have a proof for any one of the many theories.
          On the other hand we all use gravity every day!

          Let’s get on with using LENR and let the researchers proceed to find out how it actually works in their own good time. After all, researchers need work too.

  • Björn

    It was Elforsk that financed the third part test,just as we suspected.
    This means that the Swedish goverment is involved in this.
    Its great!

  • vbasic

    Stunning. Rossi gave what he promised. If the results were negative, the scientists would have stated it. But the two separate tests showed what the thousands of experiments from most of the LENR experimenters shown, there is excess, useful energy. Another amazing moment, I think this site hit a record in the number of comments here. I wonder if it also has a record number of views today.

    • daniel maris

      I think it was quite a slow build in interest today because it is a Monday – lots of people focussed on their work. 🙂

  • Omega Z

    If Anyone of significance we’re to take notice of Rossi, The E-cat Future would be effectively written.

    1 of the Contributors to the funding of these tests.

    ELFORSK AB
    http://www.powercircle.org/en/display/Our-Members/Elforsk.aspx

    Elforsk AB started operations in 1993 and is owned jointly by Svensk Energi (Swedenergy) and Svenska Kraftnät (the Swedish National Grid).

    IT Would Appear that Someone of Significance has Noticed.
    And there is to be a follow on test this summer of 6 months.

    So fuss about whether this test will be Published in a Peer Review. I think maybe that no longer matters.

    If I Recall, There was a Representative from ELFORSK at the Zurich Conference. I would strongly suspect from the statements from said representative at that time, That It was They who wanted this Test done.
    ________________________________________________________

    And I think I recall someone at ECW provided a link sometime ago,
    That ELFORSK was Funding a preliminary test on a Renewable Energy source & contingent on the results may provide further funding for more in depth tests/study. It was speculated at the time by ECW posters that maybe it would involve the E-cat.
    I don’t recall the exact funding, tho the 1st amount was small & the second was much larger.

  • Robyn Wyrick
    • Robyn Wyrick

      Mark Gibbs, in Forbes:

      “But much to my, and I suspect many other people’s surprise, a report by credible, independent third parties is exactly what we got.”

      “the E-Cat has roughly four orders of magnitude more specific energy and three orders of magnitude greater peak power than gasoline!”

      • Barry

        Let us congratulate Mark Gibbs on being one of the first in the media to eat his words.

        • Robyn Wyrick

          I think he was perfectly appropriate. He mentioned his misgivings, and then laid out how they were handled by this report. It’s a very good story, I think.

  • John De Herrera

    Let us celebrate today the incredible achievements by Andrea Rossi and everyone who contributed to his success with the Energy Catalizers. A special thanks to all those who were involved with the independent third party validation report. I am very impressed by the report and feel confident this is a powerful new way to generate the heat energy, and soon, electrical energy the world needs. I hope we will soon see the end of the coal and nuclear power plants. jdh

    • Joe Shea

      Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!

  • Zedshort

    Good to see the report. Read it and seems OK but I didn’t follow parts. What puzzles me is why has Rossi allowed this test to be “published?” If he has investors, then I would assume they have some insight into the operation of the device and don’t need to be convinced but would be satisfied with confidential progress reports. If they control Rossi why would they consent to let the cat out of the bag (no pun intended)? Who is being served by throwing out this report to a few hundred interested bloggers? BTW I like what I see. I was getting a little worried that I had been hoodwinked.

    • Garry

      It’s smart for the investors to do this. They want to test the waters, show people what’s coming, prepare for the emotional sea change. They can point to “validated results” to build support within the firm(s) and cement syndicates with other investors.

      • khawk

        I think that Andrea Rossi has been brilliant in his strategy. He has developed a following of advocates and skeptics by “sharing” limited glimpses to his progress. At no time in the history of humanity has the planet had a seat in the audience for this kind of research / breakthrough. Whether by luck, skill or a combination thereof, Andrea Rossi has conduced the worlds first major invention breakthrough via the internet / social media (well at least the predecessor of social media). It is also very smart that he appears to be starting to quiet down on his sharing of details. He has proven his point and gets to concentrate on commercializing this beautiful creation. Thank you and God Speed Andrea Rossi!

        • psi

          + 1. : )

  • Rockyspoon

    Research and development of any product is fraught with bumps and detours. This is especially true of something based on a phenomena that isn’t well understood, even viciously denied by many scientists.

    Congratulations to Mr. Rossi for persevering. He’s made a significant contribution and if all he did was confirm what Pons and Fleischmann announced to the world back in ’89, it would be worth it.

    But I think this is just the beginning.

  • stuey81

    im pleasantly suprised to say the least!!! – somebody pinch me 🙂

  • wolfgang gaerber

    I´m so excited about if Steven B. Krivits will comment this in “The New Energy Times”.
    Will he comment it ?
    It´s difficult today. Scientists with awesome equipment and reputation can tell us that the world is a disc – and we have to believe.
    And if you drive a rusty old car – you are a criminal.
    Steven will probably tell us that they just couldn´t find the (hidden) wire.

  • clovis

    Hi, everyone.
    I have but 3 things to say, HAPPY, HAPPY HAPPY,—SMILE

  • Tom H

    Lobos Motl seems to throw some cold water on the test results here: http://tinyurl.com/q798jrw

    He presents a table of emisivity for metals at various temperatures:
    http://www.omega.com/literature/transactions/volume1/emissivitya.html

    Emissivity could be as low as 0.20. How much should we trust the thermal ‘dots’ used as a check?

    • Omega Z

      If the Emissivity was less then 1, then the temps would be under valued. Error would be counter the E-cat. Not pro.

      All their measurements were for negative benefit. Thus, the actual output was higher then the data & the input was lower.

      Then everything was discounted by an additional 10%.

      • Roger Bird

        Not so. Wikipedia: “The emissivity of a material (usually written ε or e) is the relative ability of its surface to emit energy by radiation.” Less than 1 (can’t be more than one, except in a unicorn world), means that not all radiation is emitted. Some heat is held back by the cylinder. The meter would read lower than reality. Therefore the real temperature would be higher.

        • Omega Z

          Agree 100% Roger.

          I posed it wrong. Bad day.
          Thanks for correcting my error

      • Tom H

        Radiative energy is proportional to emissivity x Temperature Exp 4.

        A lower grey body emissivity would mean less radiative energy at a given temperature. The authors over rode the IR imagers software to input an emissivity of 1.0 stating that with lower emissivity values the software would calculate higher temperatures. But you still need to put the emissivity into the SB equation. Lobos Motl provided a table of emissivities of metal and a 0.20 value seems as plausible as anything the authors assumed. Motl’s point is at 0.20 emissivity the energy output equals the energy input from the resistive heating.

  • Sinnfrei

    The persons named responsible don’t sound very promising. Unknown Italians, Swedish veterinarians, etc. The only one who sounds legit is Hanno Essén.

  • Tom H

    Can someone with hands-on experience with IR imagery analysis comment if setting the device’s software to calculate a temperature AS IF the emissivity is 1.0 actually does what the author’s claim? This seems highly critical to the veracity of this report, particularly considering the wide range of emissivities that are possible for materials at or near the reported temperature.

  • Meralphy

    I went to double check the specification of the object sizes in the report. It states that v1 is 33cm long and 10 (or 11) cm in diameter. This would be a aspect ratio of 3 to 1. However, the provided pictures (assuming quadratic pixels and no weird scaling of the photos) show a ratio of ~4:1.
    For v2 it is stated: 33cm and 9cm which means 3.6:1. Pictures provided show ~4.2:1.
    What do you think?