Questions for testers

Thanks for the help and suggestions with the draft summary. Please continue to provide them. I am planning to have a dedicated page on the site to provide useful information about this test and one thing I would like to include are some comments from the testers. I am going to contact each of the people involved and would like here to ask the ECW community what you would like to learn from them. I’m not sure what kind of response we’ll get, but I certainly think it is important to try.

So if you have any questions about the test you’d like me to put to them please post them in the comments below. I will probably send off the questions tomorrow.

  • lenrdawn

    Most of the issues (apart from the question whether this could really be an independent test with Levi and Essen involved – but we can’t ask them that, of course) seem to circle around the input power measurements. So my questions would be:

    “Who provided the input power measurement equipment and who set it up?”

    “Was the cabling examined? It can’t be an industrial secret.”

    “Why was the power measurement taken between the control box and the e-cat rather than on the input side of the control box?”

    • Gerrit

      >“Why was the power measurement taken between the control box and the e-cat rather than on the input side of the control box?”

      As far as I understand the first setup had the power measurement between control box and ecat, the second setup had the power measurement between wall socket and control box.

      • Alp

        One experiment was done each way. In the second experiment, the metering system was between the mains and the control box. That’s not a problem. What came out of the mains could be a problem.

  • HeS

    How they (testers) secured against a simple manipulation?

    • AB

      Are tricks with the wires even feasible? How can the apparatus become glowing hot while the wires stay intact?

      • lenrdawn

        “How can the apparatus become glowing hot while the wires stay intact?”

        I don’t get it. Why would they not stay intact?

        • Mop

          Because they have resistance and heat up and melt with too much power. He guesses you can’t heat up that amount of steel in the apparatus so much that it glows by simple cables and electricity and then keep it running for a hundred hours.

        • GreenWin

          This is the completely erroneous assumption of certain near-hysterical scientists who suggest the heat generated from the reactor came through a “hidden” mains power cable to a magical heating element inside the reactor.

          The power required to produce 850C hot spots and radiated energy from the reactor COULD IN NO WAY be delivered by a hidden mains supply wire! Or be undetected by the PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer. A specious and thoroughly debunked claim.

          • AB

            It would be interesting to see the calculations that prove this to be impossible (if I wasn’t physics impaired, I would do them).

          • Grosben

            Not so sure for the impossibility of hidden cable. If you use high voltage, you are able to get high power without using a big cable.

          • lenrdawn

            “COULD IN NO WAY” is ridiculous. Of course you can do that. We’re talking about squeezing through an additional 1.3 kW or so. Piece of cake. As far as “hidden” cables go, I don’t believe that either – not with a bunch of people around who look at the thing all the time and from all angles.

          • GreenWin

            Agree 1500W is not impossible, however (I may be wrong) I assume the ammeters upstream of the box, PCE-830 measuring box out.

            “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.”

            If there was an unaccounted 1500W flowing out of the control box, how does it avoid the detection by the PCE-830? Or the upstream clampmeters?

            Figure 11 shows one AC power strip in use by the laptops, cameras etc. Was the E-Cat plugged into a separate mains?

          • lenrdawn

            You mean you suggest it wasn’t?

          • Nate

            How about a high-power microwave source under the floor focused on the device? That could easily cause enough dielectric heating to produce the temperatures seen, and since the enthalpy was extrapolated from the surface temperature, only surface actually needs to heat up. At least that’s how I’d do it.

          • Roger Bird

            Why is it that the real physicists at are more respectful and trusting than you are?

          • Nate

            I’m not trying to be disrespectful, I’m just saying that given all current evidence and scientific knowledge, a hoax is more likely than actual nuclear reactions of some sort. And if I were to perpetrate such a hoax, there are a number of ways to do it. Any scientist that is immediately trusting of this result should rethink their occupation: a scientist who doesn’t immediately try to come up with and test all possible explanations given physics as we know it, including the possibility that this is a hoax, or a mistake (e.g., the assumption that the surface temperature can be correlated with enthalpy may not be true) isn’t doing their job. One should be skeptical of this result — the same way that physicists were skeptical of the supposed FTL neutrino events at the OPERA experiment, and tried to come up with alternate explanations.

          • Nate

            Sorry, I couldn’t respond to your last comment directly, so I’m responding up here. You are correct; it is convoluted and unlikely, but it’s more likely than breaking down the Coulomb barrier at that temperature and having some kind of nuclear reaction that emits neither gamma rays nor fast neutrons. It could also be as simple as the metal box having a lot of current passed through it, with wiring set up as in the link in the original comment which would spoof a loop ammeter. Regardless of what actually happened, until this can replicated in such a way that the supposed total energy released is measured in a more direct way — e.g., by a calorimeter, or by dunking the whole thing in a tank of water and measuring the temperature change, there’s nothing that’s been presented in the paper that warrants the assumption that “hot surface” = “hot interior”.

            Also, given the size of the container and the material, conduction would prevent cold spots from sticking around. Additionally,the resistive coils inside would behave as a heat sink and that would explain the dark bands equally well to the theory that the energy is coming from inside the apparatus.

            There may be new physics involved — akin to the Michelson-Morley results (which were in fact, rightly so, believed to be caused by experimental error initially), or it may just be a mistake or hoax — akin to the FTL neutrino results. It’s silly to argue about it until more experiments show clear results one way or the other under controlled conditions, replicated by different scientists completely independently.

            Your argument seems to be an argument from authority — that since a physics website has published an article that doesn’t immediately debunk it, that somehow that’s more reflective of the scientific method than actual facts. And disagreeing with them based on known physics isn’t disrespectful, it’s simply good science. All scientific results must stand up to scrutiny without regard to the people involved.

          • GreenWin

            Ever place a metal pie pan in a microwave oven? Standard microwaves cannot penetrate this type stainless steel.

          • Nate

            You are correct, but it doesn’t need to penetrate it; it simply needs to heat the surface up, which it certainly can do. From that point on, although it’s not necessary for the IR readings, the remainder of the container would heat up via conduction.

          • Roger Bird

            Nate, you are making Occam feel very uncomfortable. Your explanation is very convoluted. Don’t you think that the investigators would have noticed. Wouldn’t the RF also heat the rails of the frame that held up the test E-Cat? Wouldn’t the investigators notice that one side of the E-Cat was turning orange and the other side was still black? Your assumptions are that the investigators are either stupid or unobservant or part of the con. That is what I call disrespect.

  • Hampus

    -how has this report been received by your other colleges? are the other professors in Uppsala/KTH mad or interested in your work?

    -How has the interest from Media/other been these couple of days?

    -Will Andrea Rossi receive the Nobel price soon?

    -Are you planing on any LENR courses in Uppsala/KTH?

    -What do you think LENR means for Sweden? will it completely take over as an energy source? What timeframe are you thinking?

  • daniel maris

    “How did you check the input power?”

    “For any follow up experiments, would you consider taking your own generator to provide the input power?”

    • Joaquim Procopio

      I suppose , checking the input power is trivial.
      Power (in watt) = Voltage (in volts) x Current (in ampere)
      Both voltage and current are easily measured

      • lenrdawn

        Unfortunately it isn’t trivial at all. Read the manual for the device they used to measure it and you’ll see why.

      • Bob

        Actually, it’s not so easily measured when you use triacs to chop into the waveform and pass only parts of it.
        Normal AC power measurements are simple because it has a standard waveform, a sine wave. This is what AC meters are calibrated to read, the rms value. (root mean square). A ‘form factor’ is applied to give the same heating effect as if it was a DC voltage of the same value. That is 200 volts AC will give the same heating effect on an electrical element as 200 volts DC, even though the 200 volts AC has a peak voltage of 282 volts. The form factor of .707 for a sinewave brings this back to 200 volts.
        Once you chop into the sine wave form in any way it is no longer sinusoidal and therefore the form factor is no longer valid. The readings will be wrong. So, you cannot simply connect a meter and measure the voltage and current to arrive at the correct input power.

        If the load was inductive in any way, say from driving a coil, then this brings in another factor to account for, the ‘power factor’ which is a number less than one, to multiply by to account for the fact that the voltage and current will not be in phase, but will have a phase angle difference. This is why some devices have two ratings listed, KVA and Kilowatts. For a power factor of 1, that is voltage and current are exactly in phase, the KVA is the same value as the Kilowatts. If the power factor is less than 1, say .7, it means that the voltage and current are out of phase and the kilowatts are only .7 times the KVA rating.

        There is also the matter of measuring any DC component of the input to the elements and coils. DC is not usually measured by the same instruments as AC. I am assuming careful checks were made at all points in the tests to check for DC inputs, specially in view of the fact that access to the electrical control box was not allowed.

        I bore you with all this to highlight the fact that the measurement of the input power was not a simple matter of plugging in an an ac voltmeter and an ac amp meter as you would measure the power input to an electric kettle or toaster. A case bullet proof test would have been much more complex than this and if not done correctly then the results would be meaningless.
        I am assuming since there was a room full of professors and the tests were done with careful planning over many days, all this would be done correctly.

        • GreenWin

          I assume the same Bob.

        • Sanjeev

          A very good tutorial on the basics Bob.
          It will help those who are wondering whats going on with the power supply thing.

          I should add that there is a kind of meter called RMS meter that can accurately measure the quantity without worrying about the waveform, however I’m not sure if such meters are available in KW range.

        • E-Eng

          I want to add some comments on the PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer. As Bob stated above the currents and voltages can be out of phase and can differ much from a perfect sine wave. In that case we have besides a fundemental sine wave also harmonics. These harmonics have frequencies wich are multiples of the base frequency as Fourier analyses teaches us. If you need to accurately calculate the real power consumption from such a disturbed sine wave signal then you need a harmonic power analyser, and that was what the testers used !
          Note that the PCE-830 also can display the overlapping voltage and current waveforms, so the testers where able (And I suspect they did) to verfify those voltage and current waveforms. If something was not right they would have known.
          Concerning a possible DC signal present, The current clamps which PCE delivers can also measure DC currents. So they are not the simple coil type current clamps, but possibly current clamps based on Hall sensors. So a DC current present will also be taken into account and no cheating with a DC current is possible. So in my opinion it as very unlikely that there could have been any cheating with the input power supply.

  • Pachu

    Why a 6 month test is further needed ?

    Isnt better to get a peer review and replication of the last test by another team?

    • lenrdawn

      Very good questions. The same test, only 6 moths long, won’t answer anything. It would only delay things further and, given Rossi’s innovation cycle (if real), it would be outdated by the time it’s being published.

      • Robert

        We should not make assumptions that the tests will be the same.
        This path is totally normal and quite logical.

        1) Make “simple” and “less costly” tests to evaluate if there is
        any data supporting the claim. This is what the first test did. It melted and as they stated, gave them significant cause for further testing. Of which they did. This test report does not state what causes the reaction or that even what the exact COP is. It simply states that it conclusively provided enough data to justify further testing and showed convincing evidence of unknown cause of heat generation. Whether the cause was LENR or trickery, it is still “unknown”. Just as the test stated. Further testing will add more data to add to our knowledge. The scope of this additional testing may very well STILL not include what the theory of LENR is.

        2) Make additional tests that are refined from what was found in the first set. This is what the 6 month test is for! Look at the MFMP project. They have already modified thier test parameters several times, based upon what they discovered from previous tests. AND they have not even conclusively detected anonomous heat yet. So this “Fourth” set of tests WILL be different just as the second was from the first and the third was from the second. We do not know all he details. But it is logical that these qualified professors know enough to not simply run the same tests over and over. They did not do this on the previous tests. They did make changes and improvements. The fact that they state 6 months duration already indicates they will be doing something different, even if just time scale. But I am sure they will make additional improvements based upon knowledge gained from the first three tests.

        3)WE cannot mandate what, where and how the tests are made. WE are not paying the bill. The organization that is footing the expenses has every right to have input on when, how and what scope the tests will take. We do not.

        Making suggestions for improvement is not bad nor illogical. However, we must keep in mind that we have a very limited view of what actually went on during past tests and what is being planned for future tests. Some state that the power supply is suspect. No, what really is the case is that we do not know everything about the tests or what transpired. To think that, “I” the obscure post blogger”, thought of power supply trickery and that seven experienced researchers were oblivious to this possibility is really quite humorous. 🙂

        Sit back and enjoy the show!

        • lenrdawn

          “Look at the MFMP project. They have already modified thier test parameters several times, based upon what they discovered from previous tests. AND they have not even conclusively detected anonomous heat yet.”

          That was the point, wasn’t it? They HAD TO modify their tests because they discovered nothing so far.

          Agree as far as enjoying the show goes but very much doubt the existence of an inherent ability or desire in “experienced researchers” to discover or even suspect power supply trickeries.

          • Robert

            lenrdawn stated “That was the point, wasn’t it? They HAD TO modify their tests because they discovered nothing so far.”

            Quite the contrary… they modified there tests based upon input from outside sources, realized problems with current setups and better understanding gained from past data.

            They actually did detect small excess energy, but not wanting to be self delusional, they strived to make tests more accurate to remove any doubt. Publicly for all to see, even patho skeptics.

            You see, they are true scientists unlike the patho skeptics. They are willing to go where the data takes them. Patho skeptics state LENR “believers” already believe, so they make up whatever supports thier belief. Well, the patho skeptics are much worse. Thier minds are made up NOT TO BELIEVE, regardless of what the data/facts are. They go to great lengths to discredit without any evidence, spread rumors without fact and overall are more guilty of the “blind believer” syndrome than anyone else!

            Remember the old saying… when you point your finger at someone, your own hand is pointing three right back at you!

            I will take a public stand and state that the guys at MFMP are pretty much beyond reproach! They are not perfect, nobody is. They do not have 100% understanding of LENR/Cold Fusion, nobody does. The ARE trying to OPENLY answer questions in this field. PATHO SKEPTICS do not contribute anything! They only try to inflict damage! I truly pity the patho skeptic. They are incapable of honest logic.

            MFMP has NOTHING to hide nor be ashamed of. They are true pioneers.

  • Nisse

    Why were the test conducted on Mr Rossi´s site, why not move the E-cat to an neutral testing ground?

    Why were the same names that have been in some aspects involved in the E-cat project already or at least, in some part not seen as totally “neutral” to this project?

  • nono242

    Did they check the quality of the electrical power provided by Rossi ?
    – The quality of the ground
    – The quality of the 3 phases regarding the neutral or between
    – The quality of the neutral (if present and used)
    – The quality of the 50 Hz of the power line

    Is there DC or higher frequency above 50 Hz in the electrical power line ?

    • Gerrit

      the tester should bring their own generator to provide power to the ecat, then all the question would be solved.

      • Bob

        Good idea. A 1 Kw generator would be all that is needed and these are now dirt cheap. ($400) That would eliminate all possibility of the input power being in excess of what is being measured.

      • GreenWin

        Why not just check the wall socket? Simple.

        • Alp

          Good idea. I don’t see in the report that they did that.

      • Nono

        An audit of the wall socket is enough

    • AlainCo

      The plug seems used by other equipemnt like laptop…
      DC , HF or high voltage would kill or trouble many of those devices. earth tweaking too…

      moreover rossi was not there for all the tests and he could not be sure that one of the scientist do not check that parameter. Note that he was accused of that in anothe test and he could expect the testers to check the 3 wires.

      even if they did not check that, the fact that they could check it make that fraud improbable.

      given the way the tests were done without control, and like Nelson did with Hyperion, ther is no credible reason to fear a fraud.

      quastion is errors or not errors, and is it enough make a COP of 1 look like 6, to increase power on the active reactor, and decrese it in the blank run…

      A magician need to control the environment to fool the spectators… the only place there might be a trick is inside the closedboxes…

      there is a moment where reading the paper make you less aware of the reality. This method is the secret of conspiracy fan, to focus on detail, and forget simple human unavoidable situation.

      • Sanjeev

        “The plug seems used by other equipemnt like laptop…”

        If that’s true, any tempering with power supply would fry all equipment (laptop, cameras etc) in a second. But I’m not sure if its true, nothing mentioned in the report.

        I guess, it will be a good question – whether any other equipment was connected to the same AC outlet ?

      • Bob

        I agree.
        If there was any hocus pocus going on I think it would have been in the control box.
        It is highly unlikely that the building or test bench wiring would have been fiddled. It would be far to easy to detect with very simple checks.

        • lenrdawn

          … which, apparently, nobody performed?

      • Nono

        The other appratus are mono phase while the “control black box” is tri phases. Saying one pahse is OK doesn’t mean that the rest is OK.
        With the third phase and/or with the neutral, Rossi can play far away from the wall socket.

  • artefact

    “Are scientific discussions of the results and methods taking place or are others (not in the field) afraid to touch LENR?”

  • Joaquim Procopio

    I believe that the most conclusive proof would be monitoring the e-cat in self-sustained mode, i.e. no wires, no anything attached,no sources of radio frequency, inside a Faraday cage for example, during many hours or days.

    • AlainCo

      The best proof that A380 can fly is to ask it to fly for 30 days without refuel…
      It does not, so A380 is a fake.

      It is an extension of the tea kettle motto, that is abandonned because we have the tea kettle already.

      I agree that it would be better but current engineering seems not to allow that..

      one method for pathosketic is to ask condition impossible to fulfil today…

    • Gerrit

      It would be sufficient if the testers would bring their own power supply and connect the ecat to that instead of the possibly rigged wall socket.

      • Grosben

        Yes, the use of a generating set would be great. We would be sure that the energy supplied isn’t higher than the gasoline used.

        • Alp


        • fortyniner

          The genset would be burning fuel even while the resistances were not heating. This would be an extremely inaccurate test.

          Measuring simple AC power at the feed from a wall socket is adequate, although AC-DC (transformer/bridge rectifier) – metering – DC-AC (inverter) would make it unassailable.

          • Omega Z

            Rules to Debunk

            1. If the Bar is met, Then Reset the Bar.
            2. See #1

    • zvibenyosef

      That would be an excellent test. If Rossi can provide a setup containing his new “mouse” activator, and an regular ecat in tandem. Working together these should be able to deliver power without any input at all. Maybe they could shield both devices from all outside radiation, to further reduce the suspicion of any outside energy source.

  • Antbert

    I am not sure how a thermal camera do work but it is possible to have a constant camera shooting of the Ecat from the very beginning?
    This would allow to see how the heat propagate and where it originates from. If the thermal camera can shoot for example at 30 fps it could be good enough.

    Also what about using multiple thermal camera under multiple angle? (one position perpendicalary of the ECAT).

    The whole idea would be to identify if the heat excess comes from the ECAT itself or for the heating resistor.

    • GreenWin

      READ the report – ALL your questions have been anticipated and answered by the scientists conducting the tests. Except 30FPS is unnecessary as a time resolution of 1FPS provides a non-falsifiable video document of the entire test.

  • Barry

    I hear negative reports on how the Ecat was tested on Dr. Rossi’s turf. The report states “Both experiments were performed on the premises of EFA Srl, Via del Commercio 34-36, Ferrara (Italy).” Does anyone know where this is and if it is separate from Rossi’s testing grounds?

    • AB

      It’s Rossi’s other testing grounds.

    • GreenWin

      Barry, I think it reasonable for commercial IP to be tested at the manufacturer’s premises. Provided the testing parties take due diligence to assure the power supply is nominal, the test equipment functioning to spec, and all the Amazing Randi mirrors have been removed… “turf” is meaningless.

      • Alp

        Do you know if they tested the power coming from the mains? I did not see in the report that they did.

      • lenrdawn

        If you assume that there is no trickery involved, then just about everything around this is meaningless to you. But open your mind for a second and consider the possibility that this really is a scam. I mean we’re lamenting about whether the power should be measured before or after the control box but if this is tricked, then Rossi may very well have a TRIAC put in right behind the wall plug where the control box is connected. Obviously asking Levi and Essen a question like “did you try to connect the control box to another wall socket during the test and how did Rossi react?” would be silly. It is the fact that we can think about possibilities like that which makes stuff like “turf” relevant. (Not for you, GreenWin, but then – the paper didn’t have to convince you anyway, did it?)

        • GreenWin

          Um, no, this paper is very meaningful. Unless a denier can demonstrate exactly how the 22 or so scientists and engineers were duped by a “TRIAC” secretly hidden behind the wall plug. This is essentially a light dimmer controlling current flow to a load. How would dimming/diminishing current flow to the control box avoid detection by the power meter upstream?

          • lenrdawn

            How often do you plan to ask that question? It has been answered at least ten times in the last couple of hours alone. (If you hadn’t responded to his post already, I’d suggest you read “Bob on May 23, 2013 at 12:49 pm”).

            And I’m sure things like “Unless a denier can demonstrate exactly…” sounds like a reasonable statement to you – but most people will see it the other way round. I was in Vegas a couple of years ago and saw a white tiger vanishing from a closed cage floating two feet above the stage a mere ten or twelve yards from where I was sitting. It was beautifully done and incredibly convincing. I googled about it later and in essence, nobody had a clue how the trick worked. That was ok. It was a show. Now – if Siegfried and Roy hadn’t been magicians in Vegas but called themselves biologists claiming to have succeeded in breeding vanishing tigers, I’d expect more than a show on a stage before I’d be prepared to believe it. A lot more. And I wouldn’t feel for a second that it was MY obligation to demonstrate exactly how they tricked it before I was allowed to doubt them.

          • Tappanjack

            Thank you: You just clarified how so many can dismiss this 3rd party verification. You already believe this is an illusion ,so there has to be trickery involved. I believe this a yet understood quantum process and the only trick is figuring out what is going on!

          • GreenWin

            Now you lapse into standard tro11isms (failed argumentation, circular logic.) Bob explained absolutely nothing of value to the discussion.

            The issue is specious, dead; like so many DDD tro11s here. Get over it. Pathologicalsceps might never recover. Without professional assistance. 🙂

          • barry

            Professional magicians knew how it was done.

  • frank sedei

    Further updates from the USA military and NASA would seem to be helpful at this stage of progress.

    • atanguy


  • Bob

    Were all those present at the testing happy to sign off on the results as being a true and valid representation of the device?

    Were there any dissenting opinions amongst all those present at the testing as to whether the test was sufficient to prove there was excess power generated?

    Did anyone mention at any point that they should be performing some other test which was not done?

    Did any of the persons present have any reservations that the testing eliminated all other possible reasons for the excess energy, other than LENR?

    • GreenWin

      They are performing a much longer test starting later this summer. Surely there will be new experimental criterion based on the results of these first three tests. Note there were 7 additional professors, (non-authors) involved in review and commentary on the paper.

      • Bob

        I wish people wouldn’t keep stating dates as ‘this summer’.
        There are other places in the world where terms like this are very misleading. My calender does not have a month marked ‘this summer’.
        Also, when looking up past announcements the term becomes even more confusing.
        How about, june 2013, or December ’14, or march ’15, or whenever.

        • Omega Z

          If they give into your demands the next thing you know you’ll be asking to be a physical observer at the next test. 🙂

        • Roger Bird

          But Bob, where “next Summer” starts in December doesn’t count. The people who live there are an inferior race who live below the bulge. There are those who think that they might fall off the global.

  • Brian

    How much access did they have to the equipment? Other than the reactor core were they able to take everything apart and examine it?

  • SteveA

    I’ve gone through the numbers on the December test (haven’t gotten to the March one yet). If I assume their temperatures are correct and an emissivity of 0.88 (typical for “black paint”) I get 1290W radiation and 377W of convection (h = 8.72W/m²K) for 1666W of output. This is ignoring the ends of the cylinder, so actual could be a bit higher. This works out to a COP of 4.63. If the emissivity were 1.0 the radiation would go up to 1465W bringing the COP up to over 5.1. What I don’t know is how this unknown emissivity affects the temperature readings. Could this tempurature be way off? To me, if you are basing your calculations on IR readings you make sure you know the emissivity of the surface, and attach a few thermocouples to confirm. Seems a bit sloppy.

    We have also seen pictures of the E-cat glowing. The surface temp likely needs to be at least 525C for this to happen, much higher if you consider this to be more of an orange color. 800K for this size reactor would be over 2800W of output with emissivity of 1, 1175W even if you take e down to 0.3.
    So we know it can get to that temperature, the question is do we know for sure how much electrical input is going into it? Again, this should be easy to measure. You use a DC power supply, measure the voltage across the leads, and put a known resistor on one of the legs and measure the voltage drop across that to give you the current.

    All in all the results are promising, but I think there are still questions based on their test methodology. I still believe that a straight calorimeter test is the best way, but of course then you always have questions on the accuracy of airflow measurements and temperature stratification in the air. If he would supply me with an E-cat I would be happy to test it both ways to confirm 😉

    • AB

      The paper states that an emissivity of 1 is the most conservative value. How come the power goes up when emissivity is assumed to be 1 instead of 0.88?

      • SteveA

        Yes I saw that. They probably mean how the assumed emissivity impacts the readings from the IR camera. If you tell the camera the e is 1 it will give you a lower temperature reading than if you tell it the e is 0.8. The formula for radiation is pretty simple – Q = A*e*s*(Tsurface^4-Tsurroundings^4) where A is the surface area, e is emissivity, and s is the Stefan Boltzmann constant 5.67E-8W/m^2K^4. Convection is also simple – Q = h*A*(Tsurface-Tair). The tricky part is determining the convective heat transfer coefficient h.

        • fortyniner

          Or to put it a bit more simply, for any given power input, the temperature of the hot cat rises until heat lost via radiation and convection equal the electrical input.

          If the amount of heat that can be lost through IR radiation is lower because emissivity is lower, then assuming exactly the same power input, the temperature of the unit must rise to a higher temperature before the equilibrium point is reached.

          This means that if the real emissivity is lower than 1, but a figure of 1 is assumed, the measured temperature (confirmed by thermocouple) might indicate more output power than is actually present (i.e., the equilibrium point will be higher).

          Of course, just to complicate the issue, convection losses will also increase along with the increased equilibrium temperature.

          I think the bottom line is that only air calorimetry will satisfy the critics. Admin – perhaps you could ask the professors if there are any plans to carry out flow calorimetry? (delta T at inlet and outlet baffles, with flow maintained by a positive displacement [piston] pump).

          • fortyniner


            para 1 – “… until heat lost via radiation and convection equal the thermal output.

            para 2 – “… assuming exactly the same power output

      • GreenWin

        Page 7. and Figure 7. of the paper goes into great detail on the emissivity issue.

        • Alp

          Also, they used a dummy run to make sure the measurement method worked OK. I doubt that there are any errors on that score. I am less sure about the input power. There is a possibility of error there because of the clamp on ammeters. It would require cheating on the part of Rossi but I do not think they completely ruled that out.

      • Alex W

        I think you’re confusing the radiative power with the power produced by the Ecat. A higher emissivity means a higher proportion of energy produced will be radiated.

        If you use a lower value of emissivity then it means the value of radiated energy measured will be a smaller fraction of the total. I imagine this extra energy would be kept within the Ecat, although it could lead to an increased convection transfer.

        Either way the difference between 0.88 and 1 is not enough to affect the outcome of the test.

  • Roger Bird

    Ask them why they don’t consider the November event a test. I think that it was a wonderful test. I think that it should be given at least a paragraph or two and for it to be called a test, not a failure or a mistake or merely “it melted”. It was a grand success, IMHO.

    • Shane D.

      I agree Roger. I would also like to know how one melts steel by jury-rigging normal electrical wiring in such a way that 7 intelligent scientists and their assistants wouldn’t notice? Here is a clip from the report:

      The tests held in December 2012 and March 2013 are in fact subsequent to a previous attempt in November 2012 to make accurate measurements on a similar model of the E-Cat HT on the same premises. In that experiment the device was destroyed in the course of the experimental run, when the steel cylinder containing the active charge overheated and melted it.

      • Robyn Wyrick

        If that is to be understood as it is written, it should be saying “the steel cylinder containing the active charge overheated and melted [the active charge]”, not the steel cylinder.

        • Shane D.

          The report says the “device was destroyed”. Charges aren’t usually described that way.

          Also; this set the project back til March. If it was just the charge, they slip in a new charge and start over again shortly after.

          Still think it is the steel.

          • Roger Bird

            It set the project back to December.

  • volkmar

    i guess it would be most convincing to use a gas heating instead of the electric resistor setup. that would rule out a lot of misinterpretations of measurements. the amount of gas used can be easily measured.
    in former posts it was said that rossi is working on that too.

    • Omega Z


      You would think, but you would be wrong.

      I could manipulate Gas measures easier then Electric.
      There are things the Utilities Don’t want You to know about LP & NG.
      This isn’t conspiracy, Just Facts.
      It’s even Officially Documented if you know where to look.

  • Brian

    Which journals have the submitted the report to for peer review? Has the peer review process began? When do they expect the report to be published?

    • GreenWin

      While not journal-assigned referees, the paper’s authors thank the discussions (and peer commentary) made by four additional professors: Ennio Bonetti Assoc Prof Physics, (Bologna University),
      Pierre Clauzon, M.Eng. (CNAM-CEA,Laboratoire des sciences nucléaires, Paris),
      Prof. Loris Ferrari Assoc Prof Physics, (Bologna University), and
      Laura Patrizii, Ph.D. (INFN, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare.)

      A fifth prof. Alessandro Passi (Bologna University [ret.]) is acknowledged for “his patient work in translating the text.”

      Additionally Prof. Em. Sven Kullander and Prof. Björn Gålnander (Svedberg Laboratory, Uppsala University) are credited for “their continued interest in and support for these investigations.”

      Seven very credible scientists who are not authors of the paper.

      • Roger Bird

        NOT credible. Most are Italians, and we know that ALL Italians are in the mafia!

        • GreenWin

          Damn! How could I overlook the Mafia Connection? The French guy and the Swedes are probably just foot soldiers for Don Andrea. Eh…

          • artefact

            This means the mafia will be the new leader of the world soon? I thought it will be exactly the opposite…

        • Francesco CH

          This comment will lead your body to be melted in acid.

          Cheers from Italy!

    • Roger Bird

      I don’t think much of the peer review process when dealing with paradigm shifting papers. I have heard of too many people not getting published because their papers questioned the dominant paradigm, in astronomy, health, climate, etc. etc. etc. Peer review is worse than nothing when dealing with paradigm shifting studies.

      • Anonymole

        That sums up that phenomena pretty well. Maybe a special site/group to peer review paradigm shift topics.

        • Bob

          It’s sort of getting a peer review here. Lots of people all scrutinising it with a very close scrute. (no, that’s not a word 🙂 )
          If anyone can see any glaring error in their technique or asumptions then they can speak up now.

  • Giuliano Bettini

    IMO it would be interesting to know if professors were involved as “professors” (private consultants) or as “Universities”. In other words, to what extent the Universities were been officially involved.

  • Massimo

    Sorry I do not speak English I used google to translate.
    I do not understand where the problem is if it is true as the COP says Prof. Focardi ignition temperature is about 65 degrees celsius, there are places in the world with average temperatures close to 50 degrees celsius (deadh valley USA, Lut desert of Iran. geothermal areas …..) where plants may be installed in series e-cat, and I think it is easier to make a high voltage transmission line with respect to a pipeline.
    Would move instead to the question on the resources necessary to the construction of the system both in terms of materials and energy required to construct including the transport to determine the incidence also in function of time of use of the plant.

  • Sanjeev
    • Robyn Wyrick

      Wow, what a great article. And is very mainstream. Nice.

    • Roger Bird

      Notice that the chart is different from the one in the paper. The one in the paper had plutonium way up high while in this article plutonium is way off to the left.

      • artefact

        That got corrected. way up right is correct. I think it also got changed at forbes

        • artefact

          I ment down on the right.

    • Roger Bird

      I agree with Robin, it is a really good article.

      Notice that these professional science journalists are more respectful and trusting of the testers than are the patho-skeptics and the Krivits.

    • georgehants

      Good Find.

      • palace planetarian

        Great, fantastic progress… Why? Because respected the academic positions and credentials of the testers. The testers had to much at stake to be involved in a magic trick or fraud. This is a reason why what they did mattered.

        • artefact

          I have the same impression. Good to see.

    • artefact

      Something good to put in Wiki. They are tired of NyTeknik as a source 🙂

      • Sanjeev

        I can see a link to article there. It may remain there for a few hours, guessing from the trend so far.

    • clovis


    • Bob

      Yes. It proves that all mainstream science needs is a convincing demonstration that there is some validity to the previous claims. None of the previous demonstrations managed to do this.
      I still believe that when this is conclusively proven it will get ready acceptance from mss, regardless of what big oil, big finance or big anything says.
      I see this latest test as a big step forwards in achieving this.

  • mcloki

    There’s only one question.

    Can we put a webcam on the device as it’s being tested?

  • Alp

    I have a comment first: Thank you for using a dummy run. That lays to rest any concerns about the correctness of the output heat measurements. My questions have to do with other issues.

    I have two questions:

    1) You reported that the active fuel is in a small steel container only 3 mm thick and 33 mm in diameter. If this is the source of the excess heat in the hot cat, would you not expect to see the area where those containers are located in the tube reading much hotter on the infrared photos than the rest of the tube? Why didn’t it? Doesn’t the temperature distribution strongly suggest that all the heat is generated throughout the tube? In the electrical heater and not in the fuel (or whatever active material) cannisters?

    2) Why did you not analyze the power input from the mains with a wide band oscilloscope? Did you not consider the possibility that someone could have provided extra power to the electrical heater at the appropriate time by using a frequency (or DC) to which the clamp on ammeters were not sensitive? This would have made it appear as if there was excess heat when in fact there was not.

    • Pedro

      re. Question 1: The charge was in a tube 3cm wide x 33cm long so it was over the entire length of the eCat which is also 33 cm long.

      • Alp

        Negative, Pedro. It was said to be in a small disc at the ends, 3mm thick and 33mm in diameter. Here is the quote from the actual PDF paper:

        “The most important element of the E-Cat HT was lodged inside the structure. It consisted of an AISI 310 steel cylinder, 3 mm thick and 33 mm in diameter, housing the powder

        Check it out yourself:

        I’d expect to see those powder charges glowing extra hot in the infrared photos and I’d like the experimenters’ explanation of why they did not!

        • artefact

          I see it like the length is not stated. A tube with 3mm thicknes and 33mm in diameter but no length. Though it would make sence if this tube would be at least 20 cm.

          Then if one part of the reactor gets hotter then others, it should be that the current active sites in the powder are not distributed good enough.

        • Sanjeev

          Page – 2 talks about the distribution of powder inside the tube.(With a photo).
          Clearly the steel tube is long enough. The 3mm is the thickness of the sheet made into a hollow tube, its not its height.

          • fortyniner

            Agreed, except that the tube is probably extruded rather than being fabricated from sheet. However this gives an internal volume of about 250cc (assuming 300mm length) which is far more than would be required by the ‘charge’. My feeling is that the nickel mix is either applied to the internal surface as a paste that is then dried, or it may be dispersed in some kind of carrier, which may perform other functions (e.g., prevention of nickel particle aggregation and supply of H ions).

    • Wes

      Excellent point regarding the curious thermal distribution.

    • SteveA

      If you look at the glowing picture in the artical it very much looks like it is glowing from each end.

      • Alp

        Yes, SteveA, but rather than that, look at the actual temperature profiles given in the report. In figures 1 and 2, there does seem to be more heat from the ends. However that device destroyed itself. It was only a short run.

        In the runs from which data could be obtained, look at the image and at the temperature distribution curves in figure 3 (on page 3). In that image, the temperature is pretty uniform throughout the device and there is no evidence for hotter areas where the active “charge” would be (at the ends).

      • Alp

        A correction: the description of the March experiment says:

        “As in the case of the previous model, here too
        the powder charge is contained within a smaller AISI 310 steel cylinder (3 cm in diameter and 33 cm in length),
        housed within the E-Cat HT2.”

        So now, there are two different descriptions. With the smaller component, one would expect a hot spot at each end. With the long one, one would expect a hot stripe. Neither was seen in figures 3, 7 and 8 so the question is probably still valid.

        • fortyniner

          I think the meaning is clear – a 3x30cm central tube with walls 3mm thick contains the charge, evenly distributed. You would not expect to see a ‘stripe’ – this is not some kind of x-ray machine and hot ceramic is not transparent, even in infra-red.

          The heat would be carried outward evenly to result in an even colour at the outside cylinder (except where the resistance heater channels inside alter the thermal characteristics). If there are hot spots at the ends this will be because there are no outer layers there to absorb and disperse the heat. It’s all pretty simple and obvious and I’m not sure why you are trying to make an issue of it.

        • fortyniner

          The description seems quite clear. The charge is evenly distributed within a 3cm central steel tube with 3mm walls, running the lenth of the device. You would not expect to see a ‘stripe’ – this is not an x-ray machine and hot ceramic is not transparent, even in the IR spectrum.

          As would be expected, the heat from the tube passes through the ceramic and the whole assembly heats more or less evenly, with slight ‘shadows’ where the resistance heater channels are near the outer surface. Any hot spots at the ends are easily attributed to the fact that the inner tube is not covered by the ceramic layers there.

          Your ‘question’ is NOT valid and it is difficult to see why you are attempting to make so much of this non-issue.

          • fortyniner

            Note: Semi-duplicate posts reinstated by request following autodeletion of the first attempts.

  • Dave K.

    I would suggest you first interview Mr. Steven B. Krivit and (if you can find him/her) “Maryyugo”. They should be willing to give not only their criticisms, but their credentials, work experience, and motivations. As vociferous critics they should be willing to hold their reputations as accountable and as transparent as are the authors of the test report. If they refuse, their refusal should be made public.

    I would suggest their criticisms be posed directly to the testers involved for a complete response.

    From the testers, I would also like to know the extend of their relationships to Rossi et al -length of time, financial connection, etc. as well as their CV.

    • Methusela

      We know that “maryyugo” / “al potenza” is George Hody in the real world.

      The other infamous “sceptic” Joshua Cude / Popeye is revealed here:

      • Shane D.

        I don’t think Al Potenza and MY are one and the same. First I’ve heard that said, and I’ve been on this since Rossis early days. MY/Joshua/popeye are all the same guy though.

        Their styles don’t match either; Al takes a meat clever to every post and hacks his way through, whereas MY uses a surgeons scalpel.

        Plus Al helped the MFMP people with their earlier cell, while MY, I think, took pot shots at them.

    • Omega Z

      This info was posted somewhere, but don’t recall where.
      Of the 7 authors, Only 2 have a connection to Rossi by way of Bologna. The other 5 do not.

      There was only 7 authors, but there was 11 to 15 involved in the tests to some degree.

      4 Universities were involved, but only the 3 of the authors were named.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    As far as I can tell this question was asked on JONP not moderated and not answered by Rossi, wonder why…..hmmmmmm

    manuel cilia
    May 22nd, 2013 at 5:16 PM
    Dear Mr Rossi,
    I am looking into the idea of using the newer type of thermovoltaic chips which can be applied directly to the body of the Ecat reactor and then wrapping the the entire body of the Ecat and Thermovoltaic chips in a water jacket. This would provide power and hot water. The thermovoltaics need a temperature difference to function correctly, The Ecat on one side providing 700 degree heat and the other side with the water jacket providing 60 degree temp which will create the temperature difference. I know that the Thermovoltaics (17-20% efficient) are not as efficient as a steam turbine but for smaller Ecat units of 10kw to 100kw it would provide a maintance free electricial and water heating unit. I would like to hear your thoughts and how do we progress from this point as I would like to obtain grant funding from the Australian government to pursue this line of design. I am an engineer and want to start building systems with the Ecat

    Thank you for all your hard work

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Rossi has made thermovoltaic chips in the past so he knows them well. If I remember correctly, his handmade prototypes worked fine (achieved high efficiency), but their attempt to industrialise the production process didn’t succeed and the project was abandoned for that reason. I think Rossi has explained it before on JONP.

      • Omega Z

        Yes Pekka, This is 1 of the so called Rossi scams they always bring up with out providing details.

        This was a Military project that brought him in to determine the feasibility of a high efficiency TEC device at reasonable cost.

        I read the 154 page Military report. It stated that Rossi “Delivered” a hand built prototype that did as proposed.
        However it wasn’t suited for industrial production technics & material science was also lacking in cheap materials. It wasn’t Cost Effective.. Which was the purpose of the project. To find this out.

        It recommended shelving the project until Material Science advanced providing cheaper/better materials & production technics improved in sophistication.

        To Bernie

        Rossi may not want to bother at this time if he feels the E-cat isn’t ready yet. On the Other hand. He could always contact this person directly by E-mail bypassing dialog on JONP.

        Rossi does have direct contact with the Poster Steven Karels if he so chooses. When this happens they go directly through Leonardo Corp.

    • Anonymole

      I’d sent Rossi this link way back when he first started publicly announcing the e-cat:

      He mentioned that the cool e-cat was too low temp to run them. If the e-cat on-a-hot-tin-roof is now truly viable this technique should work.

  • Josh R

    I have a few questions:
    1.The authors implied through omission, but never explicitly said, that the dummy test yielded not excess energy. Was a COP ever calculated or other method used to directly compare the results of the control and experimental conditions?
    2. There was no mention of any studies validating the accuracy of the measurement devices. Perhaps that may seem like a stupid question to an expert in the field, but for those unfamiliar with these methods, it would be helpful to be reassured that there was sound reason to trust the measurements. Could the authors address this?

    • Jonas

      1. The dummy did deliver exactly what was expected from no fuel, thus a cop of 1, as all (?) electric energy gave just the right amount of heat.

      2. I think they say somewhere that they tested the temperature equipment on boiling water – to make sure it displayed around 100 degrees C, then, I suppose.

      • Josh R

        Is the COP of 1 your calculation (I don’t have the knowledge to figure that sort of thing out, myself) because I never saw that mentioned? One can assume, but I always like to see the that sort of thing confirmed.

        • Omega Z

          It would return COP<1.

          In a near perfect arrangement you may obtain 99% of input. Probably less in this setup. 98%

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I am sorry but all these questions, comments on testing seems irrelevant to me at this point, the last test proved beyond a reasonable doubt that LENR works. Let the super skeptics nitpick all they want. Shouldn’t we be talking about how we get this new energy source into the market place as fast as possible?

    • AB

      Trying to convince the super skeptics is futile, they’ll be the last ones to be convinced.

      They are however influencing public opinion and that could be dangerous. Offering alternative opinions so that people can decide what makes more sense is a useful goal. We don’t need to convince the skeptics – just reporters, entrepreneurs and politicians and average people.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        How about a Manhattan scale project, 20 or more LENR engineering projects running simultaneously. How? Who gets their way in Washington or in any government? Lobbyists! We must lobby our elected officials.

      • clovis


      • +1

    • daniel maris

      I don’t see why we can’t do both.

      I don’t think the device has been proved “beyond all reasonable doubt” – beyond all necessary doubt perhaps.

      Doubts remain because this test took place on the premises of someone with a rather chequered past in terms of technology.

      On balance I think the device is genuine but there’s no harm in asking some searching questions.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Right, in the mean time:

        Dear Senator XXXXXX: I voted for you and will vote for you again. I am not a rich man but would like to send you $100 for your next election campaign. Would you please confirm to me that you have read the very important article below that could change our dependence on fossil fuel? Thank you. (copy the Forbes article)

      • Omega Z

        daniel maris

        I’m of the opinion Rossi had a working product/prototype for a long time. Only details are of question.
        If 99 of a 100 melts down, you have a stability problem. If you reach a point where only 1 in a 100 melts down you could claim it’s very stable.

        However, when you start talking of installing these in public, you have a serious issue.

        Stable is a word of various meaning. As do many words Rossi uses & misuses in translation. Ask me a question & I say I’m working on it, most assume I’m physically working on it. I may just be mulling it over in my mind for sometime before I physically start on it. That would Not be a lie. Just a wrong assumption on your part.

        All this is due to our means of communication. Post, counter post. Answers in hours or days apart which allows for little verification. loss of meaning, assumptions, Mistranslation of words, Vague word terms & the occasional intentional misinformation Rossi tosses in to confuse certain entities & you have total chaos.

        I would also venture to say that what we call lies about customer arrangements were quite possibly pending deals that fell through.

        That would be Rossi’s Fault. Postponement due to Product improvements once may be a deal breaker. Twice & my message to you would be Mr. Rossi, When you have a market ready product, call me back. Bid you a fine ado.

        Most businesses have no time for products in development. Time is Money. All his products are really still R&D prototypes. Even the 1 or 2 he sold to the Military & the 1 to his partner. They are works in progress. Not ready for prime time.

  • Dave

    How can the E-cat reaction be re-started by a resistor that outputs far less heat than the temperature that E-Cat is supposedly reaching? It seems like the temps reported would keep the unit in a self-sustaining mode.

    • Glenn

      I have a suspicion that heat alone doesn’t start the reaction or keep it going. I think that there’s an electrical waveform being used to keep the Nickel pumped full of enough Hydrogen to stay in action.

  • zbiges

    1. What measurements, done by people having scientific skills, show the excessive heat produced by the device? Is there any measurement of heat, not estimation of heat emission from temperature measurement?

    2. Seems the estimation of heat emission from temperature assumes an emission coefficient to be wavelength-independent, is there any analysis taking into account possibility of wavelength-dependent emission coefficient?

  • Visitor

    I think we’ve neglected the expectation, that we all waiting for, the big-mainstream-media-breaking-news too soon and jumped over discussing other issues.
    The news are making tsunami on the web and the moment we all waiting for is approaching.

    • artefact

      And it takes some time to do research for the MSM. Only blogger and those who know about Rossi since some time are faster.

  • pedant

    The results that have been reported here are so spectacular that an opportunistic investigator with a sense of showmanship should test them by simply using a gasoline fueled generator to supply all the power to the test unit, and to all the test equipment and a water cooler or two for that matter.

    If the same very conservative estimates of the heat energy output of the e-cat were made, and if these were still orders of magnitude beyond the energy contained in the fuel burned in the generator, then Viola!

    But of course the experiment should be conducted on a desert island, and of course it should also be vetted by a panel of expert magicians, and of course all involved should be as skeptical as possible. I would suggest getting help and funding from MythBusters.

  • Sanjeev

    Looks like someone asked Bo Höistad (author of the report) about the input power and hidden sources, and he replied. Found here :

    Details of how they ensured it are not there yet.

    • Peter E

      Elforsk is very, very positive after studying the report / test they have financially–E-cat/

      Google translate

      “The measurements show that the catalyst produces significantly more energy than can be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. The results are very remarkable. What lies behind the extraordinary heat production can not be explained today. There has been speculation over whether there can be any form of nuclear transformation. However, this is highly questionable. To learn more about what is going on you have to learn what is happening with the fuel and the waste it produces. The measurements have been funded by such Elforsk.”

      • Hampus

        Ooh, swedens economical elits are exited 🙂

      • artefact


      • I hope the Elforsk is a good example for other institutions to not shy away from showing their interest on the LENR technology!

        If other institutions publicly show their interests and efforts, scientists will follow.

  • artefact

    I don’t know if this was mentioned before, but the timetable for ICCF18 is filled with the speakers.

    Startup Showcase
    Nicholas Chauvin | Robert Godes | John Hadjichristos DEFKALION | Mitchell Swartz

    Condensed Matter Nuclear Science – The Way Forward Panel: .., .., Joseph Zawodny

    Distributed Power Source Using Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
    Dr. George Miley

    Celani’s Wire Excess Heat Effect Replication
    Dr. Mathieu Valat

    Further progress/developments, on surface/bulk treated Constant wires, for anomalous heat generation by H2/D2 interaction
    Dr. Francesco Celani

  • Sanjeev

    Quote – How can the E-Cat melt ceramic — with a melting point of 2000 degrees C — when the fuel of the E-Cat, nickel, has a much lower melting point?

    Found here (by Hank Mills) :

    I don’t know who’s asking this question, but its clear that he didn’t read the report. The report says that the steel tube containing the charge melted, it doesn’t say the ceramic melted.

    The steel (AISI 310) and Ni both have almost same melting point, 1450C.

    • Peter E

      Wrong. read fig 1-2 (the very hot cat)in the report…

    • Pekka Janhunen
      • Sanjeev

        So does he mean that the ceramic used here is a special type that can melt at a much lower temperature ?

      • Peter E

        Pekka read

        THE NATURE
        Hidetsugu Ikegami

        Ps Kullander et al found Litium in the asch they got from Rossi!

        I got the slide that shows that. After some time the change the slide but i got version one 😉

  • Roger Bird

    So, I watched the entire interview of Levi by Krivits in June 2012.

    (1) I don’t see how Krivits can say that Rossi is a crook. The only thing that I can figure, and I have said it before, is that Rossi snapped at Krivits and Krivits is pouting. He is letting his emotions get in the way of clear thinking. Otherwise he has to say that Levi et. al. are all stupid or confused. It does not Occamize.

    (2) Krivits is an obnoxious interviewer. It is good to ask tough questions. But he keeps at it in a most obnoxious manner at a guy who is clearly trying to answer as best as he can. I was cringing at how Krivits treated Levi.

    • Alp
    • Barry

      Krivits has to have some type of agenda. A friend of mine put an article in a small local paper in the opinion section on CF and mentioned Rossi. SK called him on the phone a number of times trying to discredit Rossi. My friend wouldn’t budge. Who would go through all that trouble if he just wanted to express his opinion.

      One thing that bother’s me about the Gibbs article at Forbes, who gets first shot at the comments? SK.

      SK is an obstructionist. The paranoid part of me thinks he is purposely trying to get Rossi to sue him so he can slow him down and that he receives $$$ from somewhere to do their bidding. I feel sorry for him though, there’s not much future to being a CF obstructionist. Though there is hope for him yet, perhaps he can get a job in congress.

  • Alp

    Just another thing that puzzled me: can you ask the investigators why they don’t go back and redo a smaller cooler ecat. Only this time, use fluid-flow calorimetry (or steam sparging and condensing). And this time, use the dummy run just like you so wisely used on these experiments but neglected to include in earlier ones.

    Why go to the older ecats? Because they have a higher COP than is guaranteed for the hot cat and since they operate at much lower temperatures, all the instrumentation work is much easier. Same precautions apply though about checking the mains power for correctness.

    • Omega Z


      They monitored the incoming power “Upstream of the control box.”

      “checking the mains power for correctness.” DONE!

      They checked all incoming power at the main input line to the control box & On all the lines from the Control Box to the HT-Cat. They can probably tell you fairly accurately how much power was consumed by the Control Box Itself.

      When Questioned, 1 of the Authors said they did in fact check even the stand the E-cat was mounted on to verify no power was fed in through it & that there was small portions of insulation between the E-cat & the Stand, Although that was to minimize parasitic heat loss purposes.

      • Alp

        Hi Omega.

        How did they check the mains power please? I didn’t see anything about that in the report.

  • LCD

    don’t know if this was mentioned. Would be nice if they could show a block diagram of where the power measurements were made.

    I think you might also ask how they convinced themselves that there was not a high energy density fuel stored in the outer cylinder where the coils were such as a metal and oxygen etc. Reason being is that volume happens to be right around the right volume to produce that kind of energy output.

    • LCD

      How did they convince themselves there was no DC offset in the current supply.

      • Omega Z


        They have formulas that can tell them the maximum energy out put for a given mass of known energies sources. They compared the Total Mass of the E-cat & it’s output with know science.

        The E-cat falls somewhere between conventional & Nuclear.
        Even if the E-cat isn’t what Rossi claims, It would still be extraordinary & deserving of serious attention. AKA, An amazing scientific breakthrough. Even if it were just a new storage battery.

      • Alp

        Good question, LCD. Did they use an oscilloscope and a DC meter on the mains power source? I didn’t see that in the report.

    • Roger Bird

      For 116 hours???????????????

    • Shane D.


      I’m no scientist so I don’t know these things. You are though and you do your own LENR research, so would you answer me this:

      How would someone go about packing that extra cylinder space with a “high energy density fuel” -a fuel that could withstand 1000 degree temps without exploding or losing it’s usefullness?

      And then create a method for that fuel, in that confined space, so as it can be slowly metered out, then combusted, over a 5 day period?

      What would be some of those fuels that fit this category?

      In the infrared pictures shown… where the resistance wires show as cooler shadows, wouldn’t such a fuel packed into that outer cylinder indirectly reveal itself also?

      Honest questions. There may be such fuels for all I know and methods to use them in such an arrangement.

      • Roger Bird

        Shane, I am not a scientist, but I play one to my sweet boy.

        But to answer your question, there is no such fuel. The best that we have is gasoline for doing that, although it is probably a little too explosive. But even gasoline is many times too energy poor to do such a thing. Anyone who had access to such a material would be king of the economic and energy world. The horizontal axis at is exactly what you are asking for. Notice that the E-Cat measured out at 50,000 more specific energy than gasoline, and there was nothing in between gasoline and the E-Cat. Plutonium is more energy dense, but I doubt that (1) Rossi could enough plutonium to scam someone; if he could get that much plutonium, he would be a threat to global security, and I mean that in the worst possible way. That would be enough plutonium for several Hiroshima sized bombs. (2) There would be lots of radioactivity and the testers would have run from the building. Even a small amount of plutonium would be harmful to their health. But such energy would not cause so much heat, mostly fast neutrons, which don’t warm you, they kill you.

        With regard to specific energy, there is no other explanation other than the anomalous heat explanation, and although some people say that they know how this happens, no one is absolutely certain to the point of being able to test their theory other than making more LENR demonstrations, which is exactly not proof of their theory. To test their theory, they have to predict how they can do it, and then do it. The only proof of any of the LENR theories is to merely redo the LENR. Proof of a theory has to come by some other means, which is predicted by the theory.

        • Shane D.


          Kind of what I thought. Still would like to hear from LCD… he has a lot of background in this stuff.

          Guess then the only other legitimate fraud theory going forward is the hidden wire, or some type electrical mischief.

          In that case one has to ask how Rossi could accomplish this feat, when he’s not there during the testing, and the many trained testers are monitoring the current leaving the wall socket and before the current enters into the ecat?


          • Roger Bird

            Shane, if you and I are smart enough to run a metal ruler under the foot of the frame holding the E-Cat, and we aren’t even scientists, don’t you think that real scientists, one of whom was the president of the Swedish Skeptics Society, would be smart enough to do that?

  • Mark

    Can the testers or anyone else knowledgeable enough comment on this article about the recent tests? It claims it was all a scam and shows how the trick supposedly was done:

    • Dr. Mike

      I have carefully read the 3rd party report and Ethan Siegel’s blog. Whereas Ethan gives the researchers a grade of “F”, I would give them an “A”. After reviewing the second test (December) results, I had the following concerns:

      1. A portion of the e-cat was screened by structural supports from the thermal imager, resulting in poor temperature measurements of some areas on the device.
      2. There wasn’t a good way to accurately determine an emissivity measurement of the device surface. The thermal imager needed an accurate local emissivity number to calculate the surface temperature. With radiant heat being proportional to temperature to the 4th power and to emissivity to the 1st power, it just wasn’t possible to accurately calculate the radiant power without knowing the emissivity.
      3. The true surface temperature of the device was not cross-checked with a thermocouple.
      4. There was no real control in the experiment (namely, if the Ni powder charge is removed does the excess heat disappear?).

      After reviewing the results of the 3rd test (March), I found that each of these concerns was addressed in this test. (My guess is that other peer reviewers pointed out these needed improvements to the initial report, which was probably written after the second experiment.) I really can’t find much of anything wrong with the report of the third experiment.

      Now perhaps I should address some of Ethan’s concerns. Let’s start with his statement:

      “What we must do, when confronted with a claim that’s this extraordinary — that we have a device, at low-temperature, with neutral atoms, fusing atomic nuclei — is demand evidence that shows this is really true, and that we aren’t falling victim to some elaborate ruse.”

      Actually, Rossi has not told us yet what he believes the mechanism is for the production of the excess heat. Is it really neutral atoms, fusing atomic nuclei? We don’t know yet so let’s just keep an open mind until a well-defined theory is proven with good experimental data.

      Now let’s look at what Ethan claims that needs to be done:

      “There are a few ways we could do it:
      1.Allow a thorough examination of the reactants before the reaction takes place, and another of the products after the reaction, and show that nuclear transmutation has in fact taken place.
      2.Start the device operating by whatever means you want, then disconnect all external power to it, and allow it to run, outputting energy for a sufficiently long time in a self-sustaining mode, until it’s put out a sufficient amount of energy to rule out any conventional (i.e., chemical) energy sources.
      3.Place a gamma-ray detector around the device. Given the lack of shielding and the energies involved in nuclear reactions, gamma-rays should be copious and easy to detect.
      4.Accurately monitor the power drawn from all sources to the device at all times, while also monitoring the energy output from the device at all times. If the total energy output is in sufficient excess to the total energy input to rule out any conventional (i.e., chemical) energy sources, that would also be sufficient.”

      For #1 to happen, Rossi will have to first have to get some patent protection. Ethan is certainly correct that a careful study of the initial reactants and the final products would go a long way toward understanding what’s going on in the device. I assume that Rossi has already done extensive studies on this. His #2 does not make any sense at the present time since it appears that the current device needs periodic power for controllability. As far as ruling out conventional (chemical) energy sources, the data from the experimental show that chemical sources have been ruled out by at least 2 orders of magnitude with the limited duration of experiments #2 and #3. A six month test would stretch this out to more than 4 orders of magnitude. In his item #3 he is assuming that LENR produces high energy gamma rays just like hot fusion. I believe this is a very unscientific assumption on his part. If Ethan would have read the report carefully, he would have found that the input power was carefully monitored by taking 1 per second videos of the power meter. Plot 7 and 8 on page 27 show the input power cycling between ~810W and “OFF”, with the power being “OFF” for about 65% of the time. (One additional recommendation that I would have made to the experimenters would have been to have a separate power meter on the output side of the control box for the entire duration of the experiment. As far as Ethan’s “Power Magic” diagram, the report clearly states that the input to the control box was 3-phase and the output was single phase so the diagram (single phase in, single phase out) is not applicable.

      As evidence of Ethan’s failure to read the report carefully, let’s look at what he said about the power in experiment #3:

      “They claim that the input power is well-measured and comes out to an average of 360 Watts, over a timespan of around four days. They provide no data for this, they simply claim it. What can you do; are they telling the truth, are they telling the truth as best as they know it, or something else? Without the data, how can you know?
      So… it wasn’t a continuous 360 Watts, but rather there was a switching between on/off states, where it was drew over 900 W of power for about a third of the time, and then far less for the other two-thirds. They also only approximate, rather than measure (or provide data for) the amount of power drawn.”

      Both the discussion of how the power was monitored and plots 7 and 8 on page 27 show a sample of the data from input power measurement. When the text of the report says the power was “OFF”, I believe it can be assumed that the input power was measured as “zero” to the accuracy of the meter. Perhaps the scale of the meter should have been changed to see if ht control box was really still drawing some fraction of a Watt in the “OFF” state.

      I do not agree with Ethan’s assessment of the data taking:

      “I’m done pretending that this is science, or that the “data” presented here is scientifically valid. If this were an undergraduate science experiment, I’d give the kids an F, and have them see me. There’s no valid information contained here, just the assumption of success, the reliance on supplied data, and ballpark estimates that appear to be supplied “from the manufacturer.” ”

      The data appears to have been taken quite carefully. Also, the accuracy of the measurements was given for all of the equipment used to take the data. The accuracy of the radiant heat output was greatly improved by using the emissivity calibration dots. The dummy test run provided a reasonable calculation of the contribution of the flange. My conclusion is that Ethan just didn’t read the report carefully enough.

      As far as Ethan’s statement:

      “This is not a valid way to do science at all. And this is certainly not even close to meeting the criteria required for extraordinary evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim.”

      I would have to disagree that this report is not valid science. The report does not include everything that Ethan would like to see (and I would like to see), but he needs to appreciate Rossi’s needs to protect his commercial rights. The report is actually some fairly extraordinary evidence; it’s just not quite (or even close) to the complete evidence needed for full understanding of LENR. Also, since Rossi has not yet presented his theory for LENR (assuming he is partially or mostly correct in his theory), we really don’t know if his claim is really that extraordinary!

      One final thought in this rather long comment is to consider how LENR fits in Ethan’s chart of Science vs. Pseudo-science:
      “Willingness to change with new evidence” Followers of LENR and Rossi appear to be willing to change with new evidence, but Ethan seems to want to ignore the new evidence.
      “Ruthless peer review” By putting this report out on the internet, it is certainly getting ruthless peer review, even by people such as Ethan, who has apparently not read the report carefully.
      “Takes account of new discoveries” It’s the LENR believers that are willing to accept that there is a lot unknown about LENR. Just because there are gamma rays being detected does not mean there is no possible means of producing excess heat from a new nuclear process.
      “Invites criticism” I’m not really sure that anyone invites others to criticize their ideas, but there certainly has been a lot of criticism of cold fusion from those with questionable motives (the hot fusion scientists).
      “Verifiable results” My guess is we won’t have truly verifiable results until someone independently discovers Rossi’s catalyst or he releases the information in a patent. (He won’t get a patent without defining the catalyst.)
      “Limits claim of usefulness” Rossi has done a good job of stating that the initial use of the e-cat is only to produce heat.
      “Accurate Measurements” I believe the experimenters have done almost everything possible to achieve accurate measurements, especially with the improved emissivity measurements in the third experiment.

      One other thing that I would add to this list is “Experiments run with controls”. I was really happy to see that the third experiment included running the device with no charge!

      • GreenWin

        Very well reasoned Mike. Thank you.

        • Barry


      • pedant

        At last the voice of reason.

      • Shane D.

        Long like you said (1 coffee cup long), but well worth the time.

        Very good Dr. Mike.

      • Alp

        Hi Dr. Mike. What do you think about the objections from skeptics that Rossi may have altered the mains power source by adding DC or RF energy that would not have been measured by the clamp-on ammeters used with the power analyzer?

        • Roger Bird

          Yeah, I am an LENR/Rossi believer, but I still want to hear the answer to this one.

  • Long johns

    Do the authors feel that they witnessed something that was well understood and controllable enough for industrial use?

    • Roger Bird

      No, but close.

    • artefact

      The tested device (the e-cat Highh Temperature) is still in development/testing phase. The normal e-cat is said to be ready.

  • David Albert

    haven’t had time to read all of this so this might be a repeat—the next test should have accurate weights before and after the test to try to determine if the “fuel” is in any way consumed.

  • Owen

    I wish the testers would explain in more detail about the E-Cat that melted down. What exactly did it look like? How much destruction was there? Did the ceramic parts melt? Or did it simply overheat and malfunction? Can they provide a photo?

    • Joe Shea

      I just wonder why they had to use people personally known to Andrea Rossi. Wouldn’t it have been better to use complete strangers to do the test? And why did Levi and another scientist do the 116-hour test alone? Why were the other five not included? How does their absence weigh on the authenticity of the results?

      • Roger Bird

        Joe, Rossi had to use people he trusted because he has industrial secrets inside the E-Cat that cannot be patented in the USA because the US Patent Office will not patent anything that smacks of cold fusion. The other questions about 2 vs. 7 is irrelevant. This testing was paid for by Elforsk, a Swedish consortium of power companies. It’s purpose is research and development.

        • Alp

          I’m not sure why industrial secrets matter here. They can be protected by simply making sure that the experimenters don’t open the ecat. In addition, what happens to the secrets when Rossi delivers the next megawatt power plant to a private customer, as he says he is doing or maybe has already done?

          I think Joe’s question is very valid. Levi was not the best choice of people to run most of the experiment.

          • Roger Bird

            What is the name of that little tissue that you use to blow your nose? We call it a “Klennex”. Why do we use this name brand to describe the little tissue. Because they were the first-est with the most-est. Rossi knows what you know. So he wants his name brand to be shouted from every rooftop. His competitors will be johnny-come-latelys. Yes, the competitors will slowly capture market share, but the key word is “slowly”. But the time that start selling in volume, Rossi will be rich as, well, Rockefeller, perhaps richer.

    • jfab

      Magnesium, thermite, whatever.
      The point is to give a good show, so that before the “real” test begins, everybody is already convinced of the effect.

      • Roger Bird

        jfab, a good show that lasts 116 hours. That is one heck of a show. I hope to obtain some “show” that lasts that long.

        • jfab

          I don’t imply that magnesium or thermite or some similar substance was used during the 116 hours tests, only maybe during the one that caused a “meltdown”, to make a good first impression.
          The very fact that they mention this meltdown in the report even though no valid data was collected, means it actualy worked as planned: everybody was impressed and convinced of the effect before the actual test began.
          So afterward, it was no more a question of the reality of the effect, but only “how big is the effect”. Magic trick!

          • Roger Bird

            jfab, you really are having a lot of trouble, aren’t you. If test 2 and test 3 were so successful, why couldn’t test 1 be real. Just crank up the input or put in more nickel and hydrogen, and watch the excitement.

  • Roger Bird

    Nate it is getting a little narrow for me, so I will start from the top.

    The most likely explanation, for me, is anomalous heat, rather than a scam. Perhaps you haven’t been around and saw as much as I have. It makes no sense that all the PhDs have nothing better to do than to participate in career-ending either mistakes or scams. I think that everyone is guess what is causing it.

    • jfab

      *Nobody* says they’re actively participating in a scam. So much for this straw-man argument. I’m sure these people are 100% honest, talented and knowledgeable.

      What skeptics are saying is they may be fooled by Rossi’s scam. And obviously, when you’re being fooled, you don’t do it voluntary, so your point makes no sense (“… have nothing better to do than to participate in career-ending mistakes”). You just don’t do mistakes on purpose.

      It’s not because you’re knowledgeable in science that you’re less prone to being manipulated on a “psychological” level. I for one used to be a total believer in the Steorn story, though I don’t think I’m an idiot. I must be naive though, I believed them because I couldn’t even start to imagine people having this kind of behaviour. It’s quite plausible that Essen and others have never been exposed to this type of fraudulent entreprise. They’re not immune yet.

      I’ve asked many times just ONE thing that makes the Rossi story more believable than the Steorn story (appart from the fact that LENR might be a tad less controversial than perpetual motion). Nobody ever dared to reply 😉

      You must remember that Steorn had testimonies from many legitimate engineers, they’ve staged demos (they’ve failed, where Rossi seems to succeed, because Steorn couldn’t actualy use any input power), they had something like 20 employees (!) and so on. Their scam was MORE convincing than Rossi’s. Why would I believe Rossi?

      • Roger Bird

        jfab, lots of people say that the testers are either stupid or participating in a fraud.

  • Roger Bird

    Mən yalnız Google Translate sevirəm. Bu oxuya bilərsiniz, xahiş edirik Mənə bildirin. Həqiqətən müxtəlif LENR reaktorlarının daxilində nə baş bilirsinizsə, hesab edirəm, amma bilmirəm, bizə bildirin. Böyük bir gün LENR və həqiqət və E-Cat yayılması var.

  • eboireau

    -What made the choice of a IR camera to measure produced heat, compared to other available methods?

    Can you explain through academic references how IR detection is a reliable measure for irradiated heat?

    -Does the camera measure IR light intensity and at which wavelength(s) (?global intensity over long IR: 7.5 to 13 µm wavelenght; or a full record of intensities over the IR wavelenghs spectrum)
    Does the camera give results directly as temperatures, and why don’t you give the detailed settings of the camera?

    -What is the meaning of this measured temperature?: the temperature of light hence its source surface?
    Is it possible that there can be a bias when the camera detects and measure part of the radiations from the reactor surface (i.e. a monochromatic wavelength, or a defined range) while applying Stefan – Boltzmann’s Law (to a whole spectrum)?

    -Can you explain how radiated energy can be calculated by using only the temperature (of radiated light/reactor surface): is there no need of knowing the IR radiation flux? Imagine a reactor emitting 400W at 400°C and another one (same surface) emitting 1200W also at 400°C. Will the IR camera detect in each case 400°C, and will you calculate the same released energy?

    -Together above reasons, can the measured parameters (IR light/temperature) and calculation be reliable to measure the whole radiated energy? It is known that thermal camera can’t get an accurate temperature of an object. Are your sure that the mathematical algorithms used by camera to calculate temperature for imaging purpose, fit to the purpose of calculating the radiated energy? Many parameters affect the ultimate output for the temperature of the object being viewed… Read

    -Is there a possibility that the emissivity of the black paint coat change depending on the temperature? If it was falling dramatically, calculations using its roome temperature emissivity could change a lot in calculated radiated energy!

  • eboireau

    A better approach to measure released energy?:

    Could the experiment be performed using a calorimetric method? : all equipment could be placed in an isothermic box, with just the electric supply connector entering into the box. The total volume of the box could absorb the produced heat for hours after shut down of the electric power supply, until the reactor temperature reaches that of the air inside the box. Loss of heat by the box can be measured in a control experiment where a simple resistance replaces the reactor and is directly supplied by the same electric power.