E-Cat Test Coverage Roundup

There’s been quite a bit of attention paid to the recent Hot Cat test report, and I thought I would bring attention to a few sites where it has been mentioned so far (we have already pointed out the Forbes article). As you can see below there is a mixed response to it — but despite some misgivings about the report itself from some quarters there seems to be a new level of respect towards Rossi for carrying through with a commitment that was made, and which some people didn’t think would ever come to light.

I think that many people from here on out are going to take Rossi — and therefore LENR in general — more seriously.

UPDATE:

Thanks for Alain Coetmeur for sharing this link to his collection of E-Cat related articles on Scoop.it — a good source for additional coverage.

The ECAT Revolution Slope of Hope

“. . . The issue was that Rossi’s claims were not supported by any evidence. Two years passed, and many started to accuse him to be building a giant hoax, when finally, a couple of days ago, on May 20th, a group of serious academics (all with reputations to lose), published a detailed and thorough paper titled “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device” where they did show that Rossi’s invention is not a hoax: his device produces clearly an incredibly large amount of heat from a still unknown/unexplained sort of non-radioactive nuclear reaction. . . “

Cold Fusion, independent tests: the Hot Cat works and produces more energy than traditional sources International Business Times (Original Italian)

Some quotes from an interview with Guiseppe Levi:

As stated in the article, we are faced with a non-conventional source of energy  . . .  We have been able to operate in complete autonomy and freedom. outset it was clear that we could publish the results whatever they were . . . Definitely not chemical in nature  . . . the absence of radiation makes us say that it is a nuclear power is still new in nature  . . . ”

E-Cat Validation Creates More Questions PESWiki — article by Hank Mills

“I wish that the report would have shown a system self sustaining for a long period of time, at least an hour, without dropping in temperature. My thinking is that this could easily be done by simply applying the radio frequencies for the entire hour without applying the resistance heating coils. But this might create a situation like in the first of the three tests in which the reactor over heats, goes out of control, and destroys itself. I think it is clear that the enemy of control in the E-Cat is temperature, but at the same time the COP increases with temperature. So this creates an enigma — how to increase temperature while maintaining control. “

Cold fusion reactor independently verified, has 10,000 times the energy density of gas Extreme Tech — Sebastian Anthony

“Against all probability, a device that purports to use cold fusion to generate vast amounts of power has been verified by a panel of independent scientists. The research paper, which hasn’t yet undergone peer review, seems to confirm both the existence of cold fusion, and its potency: The cold fusion device being tested has roughly 10,000 times the energy density and 1,000 times the power density of gasoline. Even allowing for a massively conservative margin of error, the scientists say that the cold fusion device they tested is 10 times more powerful than gasoline — which is currently the best fuel readily available to mankind.”

Cold Fusion Machine Gets Third-Party Verification, Inventor Says Popular Science — Francie Diep

“A well-known promoter of cold fusion technology—who’s been demonstrating his latest invention here and there over the past two years—has announced that an independent third party has verified his machine works . . . There’s plenty of reason to be skeptical. Rossi has a history of blocking even simple tests of the E-Cat. Many established experts are skeptical of his invention and with the idea that cold fusion is even possible . . .”

Is Cold Fusion for Real?  Science 2.0 — Tommaso Dorigo

“A model is direly needed, I would say; the secrecy behind the project does not help figuring out whether this is a very elaborate scam or a Nobel prize worthy discovery . . . I continue to believe in the scam hypothesis, but I must admit that this study impressed me for its reported result.”

HotCat Independent Report eCat News  — Paul Story

“I have to admit to being surprised. Never have I longed to be proven wrong so much in my life. We are not there yet, but at face value, this appears to be a giant step in the right direction. Healthy scepticism of the scientific kind is still advised since there are, as yet, many unanswered questions.”

 

  • fortyniner

    Good job, Admin. I’m sure that readers will find many more. I’m not so sure about including Diep’s hatchet job though – it hardly counts as comment, only as deliberate and considered disinformation.

    • R101

      As above. Nice work and a good summary (twothumbsup).

  • artefact

    Oh, ecatnews is back 😉

    • fortyniner

      Yes, for a few days now. It is not too bad at present, but I suppose that in time it will be pulled down by the usual gang of pathoskeps, just as before.

    • Sanjeev

      This report will bring many things back from dead, including F&P’s work and will bury many things including the current physical models. It may act as a trigger for beginning of fall of peer review process and funding based science, both have become too corrupt to support fundamental innovations. These may be replaced by open science (similar to MFMP style)

      Anyway, we have converts here, Paul Story and Mark Gibbs are among them. The poll shows approx 500 more. The number will grow as the news spreads. I guess its a bit early for roundup, its still spreading.

      The level of skepticism so far is laughable. All of it is name calling and imaginary scenarios, no evidence given obviously. The only serious objection so far is regarding the power supply. The meter used to measure it does not measure HF or DC. I personally think that its highly unlikely that Rossi supplied a dirty power outlet, but the test can be repeated with a high bandwidth oscilloscope connected upstream (to keep the secret waveform a secret), to continuously monitor the power waveform.

      It will be nice if someone can contact them and request such arrangement for upcoming test. It will eliminate all doubts.

      • AlainCo

        I don’t feel so positive about open-science, which in france would be even more manipulated by ideology (not of the government but on PC lobbies).

        I feel that independent units, like ENEA, SRI, CEA Grenoble, CNAM, of intermediate status (between engineering, education, research, industry), quite at the periphery of the system, and private units like Toyota, Skunkwork, Apple, Google, Mitsubishi, NI, have proven their usefulness.

        Big physics, like any big project, have shown it’s lack of creativity and financial efficiency. For LHC it may be interesting, but focus should be on small& very various units.
        Private, public, uncontrolled, linked to various industries, to various ideologies…

        the key is that nobody get the total control on the scientific space, through funding, through networks, peer-review.

      • Omega Z

        Sanjeev

        If Rossi had provided a dirty power supply, why did it not effect the dummy test?

        • Sanjeev

          Omega,

          Some skeptics think that he switched off the extra power remotely while dummy was being tested.

          Its laughable, but still possible. Its actually not a question of trust, but the report would have become impeccable, if AC was monitored.

          Sorry I’m replying late, I did not enable notifications before.

  • AlainCo

    for the curious you can follow my scoopit
    http://www.scoop.it/t/lenr-revolution-in-process-cold-fusion

    start to be crowded with mainstream news…
    many critical but so funny.

  • Doubting Thomas

    The critical test for me would be to demonstrate in an independent labratory that the power output is great enough to generate steam which could power a turbine, to spin a generator, to generate enough electrical power to provide a sufficient input for the e-cat. In short–a self sustaining closed system. Let’s say the power output of the e-cat is 10KW and the COP is about 6. Let’s say you can generate electricity with about 33% efficiency if you have high quality steam. A 10kw e-cat should then be able to output about 3kw of electricity and about half of that or about 1.5kw would have to be fed back in to sustain it. That would leave about 1 kw of electricity in surplus. Let Rossi demonstrate that to a really independent group of public observers. Then I will say that I have felt the hands of the master and put my fingers in the nail holes of his palms.

    • Guga

      From some of Rossi´s comments we might conclude that he eventually wants to do that (though I have other comments in mind that said he is not planning a self looped system at the moment).
      The warm ECat (COP 6) has an efficiency problem due to the low temperature. And, unfortunately, the current HotCat COP of below 3 would require very high efficiencies. So I guess that won´t happen unless Rossi manages to increase the HotCat COP.

    • Bob

      Yes. A closed loop demonstration of any kind, even if it produces no surplus electrical output to drive anything but itself, would be a totally convincing and undeniable demonstration to even the most hardened critic. It doesn’t need to be a commercial unit. And it can blow up the next day. It doesn’t matter. It only needs to prove the principle. Anything else from there is just technical refinements.

  • Roger Bird

    I can’t believe that Krivit would dig a hole so deep for himself: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/ I didn’t actually read the article. It may actually be true, the headline that is. But it doesn’t change the fact that the E-Cat process is real. I am utterly convinced of the good, wise, and insightful intentions of the testers. I am not so convince of the good, wise, and insightful intentions of Krivit. Shouldn’t he know that eventually Rossi will be selling the E-Cat at Home Depot and he, Krivit, will have exactly zero credibility. Krivit’s journalistic career is limited, and he is limiting it.

    • Mannstein

      Who is Krivit anyway? An English major who wants to make a name for himself by pretending to be a scientist. I sat through one of his presentations. It was laughable.

    • Chris I

      Oh I had no doubt the skeptopaths would hark at the fact that it was done in Rossi’s own quarters. Then he gets into a spot of incompetence before launching into Rossi’s past.

    • V

      Exaclty, who is Krivit anyways? Just an IT consultant that decided to learn a bit about LENR and although he says is trying to do it a favour(LENR) he is actually doing the contrary! Not to mention that all the people who contribuited to the report have huge reputations to defent and protect so I don’t think any of them would risk coming forward and lie to the public risking all their life’s work?

      From a logical point of view Rossi has the goods and in different ways he has tried to prove this with public tests and 3rd party reports! However the pseudo-skeptics will always want to see more because they can’t admit to be wrong for so long! Same story goes with Krivit, way too late to come forward and admit he’s wrong now when he is campaining for more than a year against Rossi! A lot of people have started to wake up and smell the real lies here and this is why people like Krivit and alike will fade away!

    • freethinker

      Roger,

      This is a bit a reply to a previous posting from you made yesterday or so in a different thread.

      This is a perfect example why we can’t lower the guard or should refrain from sharp rethoric at times, including wording like “pathological sceptics” etc.

      There are people out there that get paid to communicate opinions – not their own, but others.

      They verbalize with quite the skill. They navigate the borderland between what is reason and what is plausible, while softly negating where they can, painting a negative picture.

      There are the blunt and straight shooting “whatta-hell-were-you-thinking” people.

      Regardless, they must be met in comments, otherwise readers may get the impression it is the prevailing opinion. Low key is most appropriate in most cases. Sometimes, though, naming them for what they are, “sh(r)ill” or “pathological skeptic”, may be very accurate and to the point.

      Krivit is easy – him we know. He is a sad story, because he had an outstanding position to actually do right by this, and still maintain a skeptic stance. But he did not. He went personal. Found himself an axe to grind. Went in all geared up for debunk. So how should we relate to him?

      Pathological skeptic or someone that would listen to reason?

      There are others. This is not over yet.

    • V

      One more comment and I’m out! Krivit and the rest of the nay sayers are simply running out of excuses soon! Because people like him the progress of our planet is being delayed for no reason!

  • Hurley

    Next step is a plant, in operation for a year, where potential clients can visit. As an Engineer at a refinery, how do I approach management to sell this as a cost savings idea (we use natural gas). The questions I would be asked, is how does it work, ASME, API considerations, safety considerations, government regulations, and are you crazy? Most other Engineers I talk to in the Nuclear and Refinery business have never heard of it. They only remember the history. It will take time.

    • Steve Peterson

      “It will take time”. No, it will only take the first one.

    • V

      Just did a google search for LENR news, guess what was the top result? Krivit’s article about the latest report! Wonder how that happened?

      • mcloki

        He knows how to link bait. He’s actually the guy that brought me to LENR, but his terrible logic and fallacious arguments just made me drop him completely. He’s a paid shill skeptic.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          +1

          • clovis

            +1

      • Omega Z

        Maybe we need to create a Debunk “Krivit” Blog
        Then setup back links as he does to route web traffic to it. 🙂

        • V

          Brilliant idea Omega Z. I may take the time and setup such a blog soon as i feel it’s needed!

          • clovis

            +1

          • Woo

            +1

          • artefact

            +1

  • Chris I

    Well, there seems to be some change of attitude. It seems encouraging that Tommaso is less skeptical and starting to cautiously give the matter a bit of weight. I sure wasn’t expecting him to be easily convinced; I still remember him having a somewhat haughty attitude at university. Of course, he still isn’t distinguishing academic research from enterprise R&D.

  • Roger Bird
  • Andre Blum

    With the dust settling a bit, what is next?

    I think most of the news we can expect in the weeks to come will not come from Rossi, but from the rest of the field. The competitors we know (Defkalion, Brillouin, Nichenergy, etc) will all have to report on their progress, or their technology and credibility will be considered light years behind Rossi’s.

    Apart from the known competition, maybe new players will present themselves, and reveal they have worked behind the scenes. If not, I am certain that those who have deliberated work in this area will feel encouraged to start now, and we will hear from their work later.

    And, last but not least, I hope and would expect that the ball gets rolling financially. Public and private institutions will announce that they are going to commit money to research and engineering efforts.

    The good thing is: Rossi knows all this, and still has allowed this all to happen. This means he has enough faith in his product in terms of stability, and performance, certification, etc. to cope with the competition.

  • Seppo

    Coming back to the test report, one thing is puzzling me. Could anybody clarify on this? Frequency range of PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer in automatic mode is 45 to 65Hz / 0.1Hz / 0.1Hz. There is no clear indication in the report how the modulation of power input with the industrial trade secret waveform is measured and whether it will add to the final input power/energy. It only says that this “had no bearing whatsoever on the power consumption of the device, which remained constant throughout the test”. If the modulated input signal was out of range of the measuring device, it could not have been measured or even detected.

    • Andre Blum

      I agree that that bit is not so clear.

      It was my take that they connected the power and harmonics analyzer before the TRIAC circuit. They had it connected to the normal, probably 50 Hz AC input to the TRIAC circuit that switched that signal on and off.

      However, on re-reading, I see they measure the electrical supply to the resistor coils.

      • Andre Blum
      • Gerrit

        I think that in the first run they had the PCE-830 between the control unit and the resistor coil.

        But in the second run they had the PCE-830 between the control unit and the mains plug: “As in the previous test, the LCD display of the electrical power meter (PCE-830) was continually filmed by a video camera. The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a non-falsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements themselves.”

        • Seppo

          OK. Thanks for pointing that out.

    • wolfgang gaerber

      Well, the analyser adapts to the mains frequency – which should be within the range of 45 to 65 Hz. In this case adapts to 50Hz.
      This analyzer tracks the fundamental (50Hz) and few harmonics (100,150,200,250,300,350…and so on)
      By summing up power consumed (voltage,current) on all relevant harmonics – it can give a clear view of the consumed power from mains.
      Depending on his circuitry – there will be more or less consumption on harmonics…. but the analyzer will have the complete picture / energy consumed.

  • Gerrit

    main criticism:

    1 – not independent
    2 – not peer reviewed
    3 – input power not measured correctly

    my view:

    1 – if this had been a replication of a scientific experiment, then I agree it should have been performed at a different location, with different equipment, by a scientific team not related to the original experiment. But this is not a typical scientific experiment, this is a validation of a “black box” commercial prototype.

    2 – I assume the authors are submitting this to a journal for peer review. When it gets published in a journal the pseudo-critics will start attacking the journal for having a lousy peer review process. After all “What is not published in either Nature or Science does not exist”

    3 – easy to provide evidence in the upcoming test this summer. They should get an expert to monitor the quality of the 230V mains continuously for the duration of the testing. Problem solved.

    did I miss another criticism ?

    • freethinker

      The obvious last subterfuge of the pathological skeptics:

      “Its fr*ud, I tell you! They were all in on it!”

      Really, it should be typed in capital letters to bring the correct spirit of what I mean, but I will not shout in this forum.

      🙂

    • fortyniner

      ‘did I miss another criticism ?’

      Yes – both rational skeptics and trolls/shills are questioning the validity of using IR cameras to measure temperature, and also the assumed emissivity values used in the paper’s calculations.

      Both criticisms would seem to be at least partially valid but the effects on the COP figures are being grossly overestimated by those who are trying to discredit the results.

      • Omega Z

        Peter

        They say water calorimetry should have been used. Auh-

        Aren’t these the same people in the past who claimed a different means of measurement should be used because- “Water Calorimetry is to error prone, questionable & therefore not very dependable or accurate.”

        Yeah, I’m pretty sure we heard this arguments for months after the Last Rossi Demo.

        Anyway, Rossi seems pretty ecstatic about these Test results. I think they were much more important to him then he let on. A Major hurdle. The following 6 month test, if it’s as conclusive or more so will be the Final turning point. The Corporate World will no longer be watching closely. They will become directly involved.

        • fortyniner

          It really doesn’t matter what tests are performed, there will be those who will find fault. Leaving aside the troll commenters and shills, there seems to be a certain mental type who are literally unable to understand what is happening because their belief systems are so much a part of their egos that to admit that the former may be incomplete is to undermine the latter.

          There is simply no point in trying to convince such people by supplying them with better information – they are not open to rational input, and as such have become irrelevant at best and a hindrance at worst.

          “There are none so blind as those that will not see.”
          Matthew Henry

          For everyone else, you are right – this is a turning point, and more ‘players’ will become actively involved, both openly and behind the scenes.

      • Sanjeev

        Emissivity is not an issue, they already assumed the worst case of e=1 and values in the range 0.8 to 1 did not affect the result much (pg 22).

        IR camera is also no issue, the measured temperature agrees well with direct thermocouple reading (Fig 13). If IR cameras are not suitable instruments for measuring red hot objects, then what is ? Such high end instruments exists for similar purposes.

        However, as I commented below, the input power measurement is the only thing that is not thorough in both tests. There is a tiny possibility of the input being dirty. Its very difficult to feed KWs of RF through those instruments and wires, but DC is easy.

        The test should be repeated with an oscilloscope in the loop or rectified AC should be used as power supply. It can be inverted to feed the Rossi magic box, if needed.

        • fortyniner

          I agree. I’ve commented on the emissivity issue in a couple of places myself. However, to be fair to the rational quibblers:

          1) Temperature is not necessarily a true indication of energy output. If the actual emissivity of the black finish is significantly less than 1 in the IR spectrum, this could lead to heat build-up until an elevated equilibrium point (relative to emissivity=1) is reached.

          2) The wavelength response of the cameras in the IR range may slightly offset the measured values, despite calibration with reference discs standardised for one wavelength.

          3) The assumed lower emissivity values used in some calculations are arbitrary and so could be inaccurate.

          These quibbles could have been nullified if the ‘dummy’ had been supplied with the switched ‘waveform’ (long timebase square wave) in exactly the same way as the active unit – I don’t know why this was not done.

          However the fact is that all methods of measuring output, including water calorimetry, are subject to similar quibbles, and the method used is probably about the best available, excepting the way the ‘control’ was implemented.

          We don’t know whether the active cooling that would result from liquid calorimetry wouldn’t quench or subdue the LENR reaction. The only other method that seems viable might be airflow calorimetry, and perhaps someone will try this at some stage. Again though, the results could easily be challenged.

          • Sanjeev

            I agree, more tests were needed with the dummy, including one with square wave on with 35% duty cycle.

            May be they left it at 100% to get it to emit 900W quickly.

    • Stew

      For 3 I would suggest a simple solution. They only have to track the numbers on the main electricity-meter and substract power needed for lighting, computers and so on.

  • Shane D.

    The needle seems to have moved a bit more towards acceptance, but not nearly so much as I had hoped. We still have some time to gather some momentum, although I think, until further developments, we may be near peak as the skeptics start weighing in in ever increasing numbers.

    Unfortunately, because of the nature of the May 19 report, they (skeptics) have some legitimate grounds to argue their beliefs. While I think the report is conclusive, trust the integrity and ablities of the scientists, and find it very very difficult to believe that under the conditions there could have been manipulation by Rossi…

    All skeptics have to argue is that it was done in Rossis’ facility, assisted by a Rossi employee, secret ingredients and they win. For the average uninformed reader, that is all they need to read and they tune out.

    For good measure they can throw in some accusations or hints, as they are already doing, of hidden power sources, incorrect equations and sloppy technique and we are back almost to where we were before the report.

    Will large energy companies be so easily swayed? Hopefully not, and maybe, just maybe, this will kick a few of them in gear to jump on the LENR bandwagon. We shall see.

    • mcloki

      Who cares if the skeptics don’t believe. What is really needed is further study on this phenomenon. And now that Rossi has had this positive report. I’m sure a lot of labs around the world are going to try and replicate the experiment. And maybe, just maybe someone else replicates it that has really deep pockets. There’s too much money to be made from the retooling of all power generation on earth. Do you realize the man years that will take.

      • Shane D.

        Agree, but the process would be much faster were the skeptics denied their argument.

        Most corporations need some cover to get out there where no one else has gone. Jumping on the LENR bandwagon now is extremely risky in that regard, whereas no one will fault them in taking a pass at this time based on skeptics arguments.

        Keep in mind… we are talking cold fusion here. It is very much viewed as the definition of a hoax. Wrongly so, but unfortunately, that is what we have to deal with. It will take a lot to change that.

        • Sanjeev

          I don’t think the big corporations make decisions based on what an unknown person writes in comments section of an equally unknown website (or blog), nor they consult Wikipedia.

          When $millions are involved, they will go much beyond that, setting up task forces, hiring experts, conducting case studies, having meetings with inventors, taking legal opinion, feasibility etc etc. Its a long process.

          So I’m not worried about what someone says on the internet, its impact is limited to driving away common folk who can’t think for themselves and are easily convinced by a negative comment or web page. It amounts to nothing in big scheme of things.

          • George N

            Yeah, but if shareholders don’t believe in cold fusion, then they will start selling stock of the companies starting to invest, which will immediately halt any research initiative into the field by large corporations — unfortunately perception is reality

        • mcloki

          Stop calling it Cold Fusion then. Call it Cascading Electron Excitation Process. Electron Valence Capture. OR stick with LENR

          This now seems to be something new. Something on an atomic level. Cold fusion is mentioned to get hits. Keep calling it LENR. And tell everyone it’s not Cold Fusion. Not in the classic P&F sense.

          It’s new and should be treated as such.

          And corporations will study stem cells from embryos, DO you think Cold Fusion holds that much of a stigma when there’s money to be made.?

          • Blanco69

            I agree. Any hints of real transmutation are, at best, vague. The abundant use of the cold fusion term is the number one grenade thrown by the skepts. It may help them on the road to enlightenment if they believe this is something else. Poor things.

          • George N

            How about “quantum energy production” — people believe all the bizarre stuff coming out of quantum mechanics, so why not just add on a new unexhaustive quantum energy source!

          • Shane D.

            Here at ECW I generally call it LENR just for the reason you state. I used the term this time to exphasize what a crutch the phrase “cold fusion” has become for crtics, and an obstacle to the LENR field.

            If they lack good points… remind the reader this is cold fusion and they win. It is that easy. It’s such a stigmatized name that it is a debate killer and a show-stopper.

            Even Fleischman, in his last years, bemoaned the name as smothering the merits of his discovery. Possibly, had it not been for that darn word being coined in 1989 by the press, then the fledgling field may have had a chance to survive.

            As it was, and still is to this day, the skeptics have used the word cold fusion as their trump card in dicrediting the LENR.

            With so much invested in debunking LENR, the critics aren’t likely to let go of the phrase anytime soo… it’s way too effective, so we may as well get used to it.

      • AlainCo

        the problem is not with skeptics who will never accept tha fact.
        Scientist will, as a community, accept LENR very late.

        The only serious problem is uninformed naive business actors.

        Many serious people, with a potential to support LENR, to innovate, to go boldly where no man have been before, the kind that invented aeronautic, computer science,…
        Those people may hear the delusion of Mary yugo.

        Serge Galam, inventor of the concept of sociophysics explain that it seems that when there is debate on a subject, most of the people are in fact influences by the most stubborn minority. the result with time seems to only depend on the ration of those extremists.
        Rational opinion, and open mind don’t decide of the result…

        I don’t ask for convinced people to became LENr extremist (I hate that), but I feel that my moderation is the best way to lose.

        The minimum I do is not to let any blatant lie be uncommented. No hope to convince, just try to inform and let people who have a great motivation to know the reality (businessmen) , know that whet says MY is not the consensus, but an extremist vision…
        then give those open, yet very critic mind, find place where to get the data…

        a businessman that see us discuss will not believ in LENR as-is, he will not even trust his eyes or his mind.
        He will be convinced that he have to take his phone, to call… Biberian, Storms, Rothwell, Rossi, Godes, Zawodny, Chauvin, Vandergerghe, Xanthoulis, Truchard…
        and hear it from the mouth of the horse.
        then he will pay people to check.

        but to launch that procedure, he just have to be convinced that it is not sure a fraud.

        that is where MY is toxic.

        We internet people have no weight beside that.
        allowing risk takers, investors, managers, businessman, to DARE TO LOOK AT THE TELESCOPE.

        forget about scientists, if they don’t know it yet, they will never. They will accept it when industrial.

        • Omega Z

          AlainCo

          I Agree, Business will check it out as you say from the horses mouth. I think this has actually been going on behind closed doors.

          And these Tests being funded from outsiders is just Big Business kicking the tires. Checking it out.

  • Kim
    • Adam Lepczak

      That article fails to go over another 50% of the test and address the “dummy” run…

    • Kim

      That article is a line drawn in the sand!

      From the Corporate American and Priesthood
      of American Scientists.

      Respect
      Kim

    • Thinks4Self

      I would recommend wearing a tinfoil hat before viewing that website. Not the most reliable news source. It tends to be a conspiracy theorist hangout and the owners and jouarnists(I use that term very lightly) tend to play to them for the most part.

    • Al S

      In response to such an assertion as in this article, I would tell the author, check out the heat, if it’s more out than in, you’ll see it again, watch the evolution begin, and the ‘science’ will follow. I think Rossi has successfully duped the establishment into demeaning his discovery enough that seeing it work, will be laughed at by mainstream contributors, until it will be too late to put the ‘cat’ back in the bag. I am a happy for the human race, at this juncture in time and space.

  • Kim

    I realize that their is an Italian and
    American component here, as well as some
    language barriers.

    At some point the pressure and burden of proof will bear on those 4 scholar/Professors.

    When the accusations and need for more proof reaches a climax peoples reputation and jobs
    will be on the line.

    This will force more testing just to protect
    the reputations of these 4 men who have laid
    their reputations on the line

    Its an ego/money game and men will
    go to any length to screws each other…

    Its inevitable…
    Respect
    Kim

    • lenrdawn

      They put their reputation on the line in 2011. I don’t know whether their participation in this test is part of proving that they were right back then. If it was, it didn’t really work.

  • Andreiko

    See the spectrum of sodium at the latest photos from the hotcat?NaOH maybe?

  • Kahuna

    Another nice piece:

    New Energy and Fuel – The Rossi E-CAT HT2 Test Report

    http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2013/05/22/the-rossi-e-cat-ht2-test-report/

    • artefact

      “Cold Fusion, LENR or other labels are all addressing a basic truth – it’s a new field, fantastically exciting, packed with potential, and the most compellingly interesting thing since germs and radiation.”

  • Herb Gillis

    I agree that a self-sustaining electric power generator would be very convincing. However; it will take further development. Short term applications for current generation Ecat technology already exist, and should not have to “wait” for future development of electric power generation. These short term applications include heating and cooling. The problem we face in getting more people to take this seriously and fund more research is to convince them there really is a game to be played. All tests and demos thus far (including the most recent one) have played out into endless squabbles about test methods and whether the heat effects are real. The most convincing tool we have short term are the fuel melting incidents [like the one that occurred in the November-2012 test]. These are very powerful indicators that the effects are real. So; if you want to convert more people I think more of those “run-away” events should be published. Events like this cannot be easily explained away by measurement errors. Just allow a few more of these reactors to “run away” and melt– in self sustain mode. Sacrifice “control” in the short term in order to convince people of the reality of the underlying effects (ie. massive excess heat production)!
    Regards; HRG.

  • lenrdawn

    “… but the analyzer will have the complete picture / energy consumed.”

    No, it wouldn’t. Not necessarily – and Rossi admitted as much when he said he would conduct further tests using a variac after the tests made in last September which didn’t show any excess energy (which is an extremely puzzling comment now that the “waveform” thing has come up).

  • Roger Bird

    I already posted this here: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-10000-times-the-energy-density-of-gas But I post it again with the suggestion that people visit the site and add replies to people’s comments that will help those people understand what is going on. We should do this as a campaign. I see a lot of questions in the comments of this and other articles that are easily answered with explanations and links that we-all have already dealt with over the past 2 years. We should look for articles about Rossi and LENR, and if the articles have a comment section, get on those comment sections and explain to people what is going on and answer their concerns and questions. We can’t expect them to catch up with us when we have been at this for 2 years without our helping them.

    • Karl

      Good idea

  • artefact

    From JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi
    May 22nd, 2013 at 8:06 AM
    IMPORTANT
    Dear Enrico:
    We will produce different sizes, but after the Intellectual Property issues will have been resolved. I thank you very much for your question, because you give me the chance to clear one important issue that emerged from the comments: the Third Party that has done the tests and written the report did NOT have the will of analyzing and probe the internal details of the reactors and the composition of the charges, because these issues are, obviously, industrial secrets; the will of the examiners was to make a calorimetric measurement to estabilish beyond any reasonable doubt the existance of the phenomenon. For this reason it is ridiculous to complain that the E-Cat and its charge has been made by me, since only Andrea Rossi and his Partners, at the moment, are able to make the E-Cats and their charges. Every person can understand, if not biased, that to make a measurement of the energy consumed versus the energy produced does not depend from the knowledge of how the reactor is made and how is made the charge: as a matter of fact, the charge has been weighted ( read carefully the report) and the weight of the charge is by orders of magnitude lower than the weight that would have been necessary of any known fuel to produce the amount of energy that has been produced during the 120 hours of test. See the Ragone diagram published in the Report.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.”

    • Andy Kumar

      “since ONLY Andrea Rossi and his Partners, at the moment, are able to make the E-Cats and their charges”

      Rossi beginning to get arrogant?

      -Andy

      • fortyniner

        No, it’s just a statement of fact.

  • RenzoB

    something on mainstream italian press, Repubblica covered the first public demo of 14 january 2011 but I don’t know if they ever did it again since then:
    http://www.repubblica.it/scienze/2013/05/22/news/forbes_la_fusione_fredda_italiana_funziona_da_test_indipendenti_ok_all_e-cat-59379551/

    • Ecco the Dolphin

      Cool, how much reach does Repubblica have?

      • pg

        third italian newspaper

      • Don Witcher

        one of the largest if not the largest newspaper in Italy.

    • GreenWin

      The title translates roughly: “Italian Cold Fusion Works. New Independent Test for ECat.”

      The article is based on Gibbs’ Forbes story. It concludes the same way: “…or the world could really change this time. The speed of this change depends solely on Rossi.”

      This statement is untrue. Rossi plays a relative role in this drama which is in fact a struggle between the Church of Self-appointed Science Priests, and human Truth. The Priests have the upper hand by virtue of their corrupt control of science funding and mass media. But the MIT fusion project has been terminated and greater scrutiny of science funding ensues.

      Fortunately mass media is a veritable joke as we have reams of evidence they operate under orders to dismiss or suppress blacklisted news. Of course LENR, especially the heretical E-Cat is near top on the list (AGW, 9/11, and terrorist exposes take precedent.) As for the disruptive science of LENR, these solipsistic priests fly into fits of rage when confronted with government and corporate laboratories conducting R&D. For a look at how venom-filled that rage is, simply read the commentrolls on any web site carrying the E-CatHT verification paper.

      The little army of commentrolls is hard at work making up names, spewing disinfo like a poisonous irrigation spout. However, on the very positive side, we now have a detailed, thorough paper clearly recognizing LENR and E-Cat in particular as an amazing new source of clean, abundant energy.

      Pit the priests and commentrolls against a team who want to deliver low cost, clean energy to the mass of humanity. View the clash from somewhere above the planet. Who is bound to manifest their best intentions??

      • Pekka Janhunen

        GW, I often agree with you, but I think that in this post you are moving near the boundary of actually underestimating the role of Megwatt Man. Ideological struggles follow inventions, not the other way around.

        • GreenWin

          Pekka, I do not disagree that for example, the invention of the printing press coincided with Martin Luther’s Reformation. Without Gutenberg Luther would not easily have published his “95 Theses.” But we also know that for more than a century the Church outlawed Copernicus and later Kepler, Galileo and Newton’s “invention” of heliocentricity .

          In other words, prior restraint of an invention or revolutionary idea IS the ideological struggle. Rossi is not operating in a vacuum. He has a development team and partners who are assisting and advising on E-Cat commercialization. While he is Megawatt Man for the moment, there are far too many Deciwatt Men hard at work to match or exceed his efforts.

          LENR is a wide open field ripe for young, enthusiastic minds willing to pioneer a whole new school of physics.

  • Ecco the Dolphin

    What’s going on on Forbes?
    http://i.imgur.com/Lr39sWA.png

    • Joel C.

      A sample of most people’s priorities.

      I liked the Xbox One reveal but I felt the third party report was way more significant. Heck, how else am I going to play the Xbox without the harmful emissions generated to power it? 🙂

      • artefact

        I think Ecco means, that the e-cat article should be visible under the most read articles already with 34xxx views.

        • Joel C.

          I understood that from the start.

    • Peter_Roe

      Personalised ads maybe. Google watches what you browse and serves ads accordingly.

      • Woo

        could be. Although my visit at forbes a couple of minutes ago showed a similar result (just one “news” without xbox).
        Understandable though.

        btw. glad to see your id restored.

        Woo

        • fortyniner

          I didn’t notice that! I posted from my tablet, which must have stored my ‘old’ ID. I’m feeling rather schizophrenic…

  • Ben

    I wonder if Rossi is prepared to be taken more seriously? It may turn out to have greatly benefited Rossi to be widely viewed as either a crackpot or conman.

    • Kim

      Its a legit wonder.

      Kim

  • John Littlemist
    • freethinker

      Haven’t seen that particular pdf, but the news is old.

    • Joel C.

      A classic example of a closed mind.

    • John Littlemist

      Oh, it seems to be more than year old publication. Sorry.

    • Roger Bird

      We expected this. I hope that they keep this up so that we can embarrassment deeply.

      • Roger Bird

        Repost: We expected this. I hope that they keep this up so that we can embarrass them deeply.

  • artefact
    • Pekka Janhunen

      lol, they think that Uppsala is in Finland…

      • Hampus

        Isn’t Finland and Sweden the same country?

        • Nathan

          No,they most definitively aren’t the same country.

          • Janne

            You’re missing some subtlety here.

        • Robyn Wyrick

          You’re thinking Norway.

        • Roger Bird

          Finns are not Scandinavian by language or culture.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Hampus was being ironic. At least that much we are sharing some roots…

    • Roger Bird

      A very interesting point made in the article that I have never heard before is that the transportation of fuels will become almost infinitely easier and safer. I also read some of the comments, and they were the usual sort of ideas for people who have just heard about Rossi.

  • artefact

    Falls Church News-Press

    The Peak Oil Crisis: A Stealth Revolution!

    http://fcnp.com/2013/05/22/the-peak-oil-crisis-a-stealth-revolution/

    “This report is only a beginning for it leaves many questions unanswered. It should, however, eliminate concerns that some sort of mega-fraud is being perpetrated, and confirm that it is indeed possible to produce commercial quantities of heat safely from small, inexpensive devices.”

    • artefact

      A very good article with some background info!

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Yes, an especially well written piece. The words and thoughts are weighty, but fall in their place in a natural and effortless way.

        • evleer

          Agreed. Possibly the best summary on the subject that I have read so far. Excellent job.

    • Jimr

      That may well be the best written brief of what has happened and what is happening, I have seen. All from a small Falls Church Va. paper.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      +1

    • Roger Bird

      Nice read.

  • Jim

    Adamant skeptics sometimes assert a high opportunity cost of giving credence to the report; resources (i.e. time, attention, facilities, funds) could be contribute more to the betterment of the world if spent elsewhere.

    Many lines of investigation lead nowhere, yet are still funded. That’s an accepted part of all R&D.

    And there is a long history of large scale damage to society from repressing development opportunities that later proved valid.

    So giving some benefit of the doubt is only prudent, if one is interested in the betterment of the world.

    It seems like the ratio of potential payback to opportunity cost for LENR (and eCat) has changed favorably, due to the report.

    It seems like out of the long tail of business people, journalists and scientists, some will notice the favorable change and invest more.

    We see more journalistic resource investment already.

    Perhaps the adamant skeptics should be questioned about their position on the potential payback/opportunity cost ratio.

    In that equation, it would take strong conviction of a low potential payback and/or a high opportunity cost to justify repressing the opportunity.

    The questions to the adamant skeptics include:
    > on what basis is such strong conviction warranted? and
    > what are their credentials for forming that conviction?

    • AB

      You raise some interesting questions. I would say that skeptics object to this type of research more due to ideological reasons or concerns for their reputation than true cost-benefit calculations.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Some of them want to have and maintain a clear distinction between junk science and real science (as we know both are plentiful). A possibility that the boundary might become obscured scares them, little bit similarly as the possibility of living dead scares a human being. It’s an originally healthy tenet of truth seeking which has however taken a pathological turn.

        • Jim

          “Only the Sith believe in absolutes” – Obiwan Kenobi

          Everything came from somewhere. Starting on page 11 of this (and optionally overlooking the rest), there is an description of the origins of the scientific method, which may illuminate why some people treat “scientific” as if it were a religious incantation.

          Combine that with the tendency of people to use religion as a platform for personal ego identity and aggrandizement…

          http://www.alanwallace.org/Introduction%20to%20Buddhism%20&%20Science.pdf

        • Roger Bird

          Real science is the application of the scientific method. Junk science is not. Any dependence upon the consensus of scientists is called dependent thinking.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I wonder if Edison’s stock ticker invention was “peer reviewed” before people started making money with it? (:

  • Dan

    The first thing to ask about any skeptic, critic or even supporter is how much money they stand to make or loose if whatever it is turns out to be real. I’m pretty much ignore anybody who stands to loose a lot of money if what they are criticizing turns out to be true.

    • fortyniner

      Not necessarily just money. Possible loss of authority, prestige, control are also issues for those heavily invested in the status quo, as well as likely damage to ego, ideology and fixed belief systems if CF is accepted. People can be quite robotic if they lack introspection, intuition and mental flexibility.

  • buffalo

    one can say that uncertainty is paving the way for certainty on a number of new upcoming earth-shaking techs.

    • Kim

      absolutely and I concur.

      Respect
      Kim

  • artefact
  • artefact
  • Chris I

    The yadda yadda is getting out mighty quick. Both Ethan Siegel and Luboš Motl Pilsen have been so quick to start their criticism without even bothering to get things straight, they’re doing no better than Krivit at engaging in serious critical analysis. In fact Siegel even cites Krivit for crying foul. Both are also calling Tommaso an idiot (and somewhat bending his words, which were very cautious indeed) and Luboš even equates Italians with Mafia. Good Grief.

    I knew it!

  • Andrew Macleod

    Here’s an article. The author seems excited about the potential of decentralized power.
    http://www.controlglobal.com/industrynews/2013/Cold-fusion-may-work-after-all.html

    • Roger Bird

      It is nice that the author is spreading the news, but he/she got the history wrong. It wasn’t Texas A&M. It was University of Utah.

  • clovis

    Hi, all
    Like I always said, come to ecat world, and learn all the latest.
    Great job frank, keep up the good work, darn I’m back on the edge of my seat again, I said it once and I’ll say it again, dear friends, we are living in exciting times,now if we can stop all hell from breaking loose, this will come in smooth, and the poorest of us should benefit enormously and all humanity will prosper,

  • Roger Bird

    The only real leg upon which the skeptics (not the patho-skeptics, those who refuse to look at the evidence. Their only leg that they stand on for their skepticism is of a psychological nature) have to stand is the Coulomb Barrier. The Coulomb Barrier is a very substantial leg, but I say unto them, any tool that is traveling close to the speed of light is going to behave differently than when it is going at room temperature speeds. And the tools that the Coulomb Barrier freaks use are elementary particles traveling at absurdly fast speeds. Einstein theorized and it was proven that things traveling close to the speed of light behave in very strange ways compared to every day speeds.

    A possible example is that as objects travel faster and faster, PERHAPS their repulsive force increases. We don’t quite know yet why the almighty Coulomb Barrier isn’t working. Perhaps it has something to do with what I said. Perhaps it doesn’t apply, like Widom-Larsen says. We will see.

    • Chris I

      The very difference between LENR and hot plasma fusion is that of low and high speeds. The very objection about the Coulomb barrier is exactly this. You are trying to make it the opposite way around.

      Az di bobe volt gehat beytsim, volt si geven mayn zeyde.

  • lukedc

    Paolo

    May 22nd, 2013 at 11:51 AM

    Dear Andrea, I would inform you and your readers about the article on the Third Party report just published in Italy by “Repubblica”, which as you know is the most important national newspaper together with “Il corriere della Sera”, and had been traditionally skeptic on the cold fusion. The article is well written and balanced. Here is the link: http://www.repubblica.it/scienze/2013/05/22/news/forbes_la_fusione_fredda_italiana_funziona_da_test_indipendenti_ok_all_e-cat-59379551/

    5.
    Andrea Rossi

    May 22nd, 2013 at 4:30 PM

    Dear Paolo,
    I read the article on Repubblica, is sincere and honest, but contains some imprecision:
    1- the peer reviewing has been done. Read more carefully the report . Arxiv has anyway a peer reviewing ( a publication must be examined by at least one of the competent of the art that is well known by the Arxiv commettee: try to publish a bad article on Arxiv and you will understand that I am right); secondly, to be published in a cartaceous peer reviewed magazine takes many months, so the Examiners decided to anticipate the publication on Arxiv, pending a publication on another peer reviewed magazine. By the way, the report has been peer reviewed by the list of Professors you find in the acknowledgements, not to mention the fact that when a paper is signed by many Professors of international Universities, there is also an automatic peer reviewing made among the same Authors of the same report. It is more difficult that 7 Authors make mistakes than 1 Author , isn’t it? Also: the Report is 30 pages, and is impossible to publish 30 pages in a normal magazine, therefore by necessity the report will have to be reduced to be published in a normal magazine: for this reason Arxiv has been chosen by the examiners for the first publication.
    2- the description of the process has been described uncorrectly, but I understand that for a non expert is difficult to write in few lines an abstract of 30 pages of report.
    In conclusion, the journalist of Repubblica has made honestly and sincerely the job.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Chris I

      arXiv is a pre-print service. It is not a peer reviewed journal. I have no knowledge of any requisite like the one Rossi claims; anybody with an account can post any bullcrap and they take their own academic responsibility for it.

  • Roger Bird

    I recall the movie “Babe”, about a pig and a guy, played by James Cromwell. The guy saw something that was supposedly impossible, an effective sheep-pig, and he pushed the envelope of what was possible to include the supposedly impossible. He had the courage and humility to endure the derision of a large crowd, because he was true to his observations and had confidence in himself and in his pig. At the end of the movie I was jumping up and down with my tears rolling down my face saying that it was the triumph of sweetness and humility.

    Is it greatness to be sweating away for years on a project that almost everyone in the world says is impossible, that distinguished scientists say is impossible, sweating away because you know that it is true, irrespective of what anyone else says? I know that Rossi is imperfect. He probably snaps at people occasionally when the camera is not around. But he is sweet. He is humble. And he is incredibly courageous and persistent. And I think that he might be a great man. I generally don’t think of anyone as great. We all have too many foibles. But in this case, especially considering the contribution that he is making to the human race, I think that he is a great man.

    • JamesThomas

      If he was a truly great man, he would have put humanity first and released his secrets to the world rather than hide everything for self-enrichment.

      His greed is the very same mind-set that has caused all man’s harm to life and the planet in the first place.

      • G_Zingh

        Not greed. If he gave his IP away his investors would desert him and he would lose the ability to refine his invention and the world would lose out. Who wants to invest in something that is free? No one. The government would have to take over funding and the project would have to compete with all the other special interest projects. Isn’t that one of the problems that gave CF a bad name in the first place?

        It’s not like the ecat doesn’t need further development. It needs a lot and hopefully a breakthrough in control; and a COP increase. Sorry, but I believe that Rossi is the man for the job. He got us this far when the government and scientific community closed their mind to the CF possibility. I say support the man.

      • Andrew Macleod

        I’m suprized that he is still trying to help the world after getting thrown under the bus with petroldragon…. Loosing his family’s fortune and bankruptcy….. If he is trying to earn a buck or two while helping the world so be it, bigOil is earning a fortune destroying it.

      • GreenWin

        Fascinating to watch others badly hurt egos, lash out at this small, individual man and team who, like Tesla, has flummoxed the old world.

    • Susan Corrigan

      That’ll do pig….that’ll do

    • Leo Kaas

      Wow, Roger, you nailed it. That is one of the reasons I have enjoyed watching this epic story play out these last few years. Can I have permision to repost your comment on my facebook page?

      • Roger Bird

        Yes.

        • Leo Kaas

          Thank You!

    • georgehants

      🙂

  • Preston
  • Alice Young

    Given that arXiv is more-or-less a bulletin board that (almost) anyone can post to, has anyone gone back to the four authors and confirmed that the document was actually authored by them? It appears that the only one confirming its authenticity right now is Mr. Rossi.

    • Roger Bird

      Alice, I personally do not recall them saying that they participated. Perhaps they are hiding in an Italian villa waiting for the 5hi7-storm to pass over. The Elforsk people are certainly responding appropriately as though they had actually funded the tests and their guys helped with the testing.

      Also, if someone invented their participation, they would be going ape-5hi7 denying it. I would be going ape-5hi7 if someone said that I did a test that I did not do. I don’t see anyone by their names going ape-5hi7.