Response to Ethan Siegel's Science Blog Critique of E-Cat Test

I don’t often do this, but I thought this comment below by ECW reader ‘Dr. Mike’ deserved to be placed in its own post. He is responding to the article “The E-Cat is back, and people are still falling for it!” written by Ethan Siegel on Science Blogs site.

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

    Bottom line, Ethan, Motl, like-pathos, have not bothered to read the paper closely enough to see their complaints anticipated and answered. Thanks Mike.

    • Gerrit

      Motl has already completely lost it, driveling about:”Most people are just stupid and impressionable. They want to protect something – either an Allah or God of a sort or something that replaces It or Him or Her.”

      Ethan might possess still a tiny bit decorum, but simply cannot assess the situation correctly:”For my own perspective, I think we have a responsibility as scientists to tell the public what the science is, what good science is, and whether this is good science or not. (It’s not.) And then, to tell them what good science would look like, and demand it. Otherwise, it’s not worth listening to.”

      Somebody please take screen copies of the complete comment section of these blogs, I am afraid they will delete their websites in future to avoid embarrassment.

      • georgehants

        If we except that the E-Cat is genuine, beyond reasonable doubt, then we can now watch and judge —
        Our governments.
        The Energy Industry
        The green party’s.
        Our Science administrations and scientists.
        Our Free press and media.
        Etc.
        We will now clearly see any manipulations, corruption, incompetence, self-serving, Etc.
        We are now free to observe the actions of our society clearly regarding a Technology that has the potential to literally, change the World, for the benefit of everybody.

        • captain

          Now is the right time to do it.

        • Joe Shea

          On your point about the free press: in both the Pons-Fleischmann and the Rossi work, the major announcement was followed by a great disaster. In 1989 it was the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 10 millions gallons into Valdez Sound, and in this case it was the F5 tornado in Moore, Okla. Breakthrough and disaster seem to go together.

          • Gerrit

            interesting, does this mean every time there is a disaster there has been an announcement of a breakthrough the previous day ?

  • Nixter

    When the report is reviewed by unbiased and knowledgeable persons, the examiners have so far concluded that the authors have documented something historically significant.

  • AB

    Amusing how the criteria for pseudoscience apply quite well to the modus operandi of certain skeptics. The negative bias is so high they don’t even properly read the paper.

    • Gerrit

      Their bias is so high that they have never, ever, looked at a LENR peer reviewed paper. Therefore, they see Rossi as a completely isolated event, glance at his past, glance at their old dusty physics textbooks and see their preconceived conclusions confirmed. And firmly believe that they have to tell us “what good science would look like and demand it”

      • Roger Bird

        There is also the assumption that the folks who hang out at e-catworld.com are a bunch of fools.

        • fortyniner

          They have to find someone to sneer at in order to feed their need to feel superior. Just another prop for the ego driven irrationality many of these people display, apparently without even being aware of it.

          • Roger Bird

            I think that this, your thought, is demonstrated by how they underestimate our intelligence. I guess they don’t know that we are almost 50% post-graduate degree people.

      • fortyniner

        It’s hard to imagine such rigid thought processes. Do these people entirely lack any ability to analyse their own reactions?

        • Roger Bird

          I first met patho-skeptics in the health realm. There really is no point in conversing with them. It is like trying to make a bee hive into a punching bag. There is no point. Countering intelligent ideas and arguments is worthwhile. But, generally speaking, I simply look upon their mental state as being psychologically driven. There is nothing that we can do to help them.

        • Barry

          A lot of computer arm chair commenters make it sound like the test was carried out by a team of fourth graders.

  • lenrdawn

    Rossi commented on the question where the input power was measured:

    ” Andrea Rossi
    May 24th, 2013 at 4:56 AM

    has been made BETWEEN THE PLUG OF THE GRID AND THE CONTROL PANEL, NOT BETWEEN THE CONTROL PANEL AND THE RESISTANCES.

    …”

    Now that is certainly true for the second test, however for the first test they don’t explicitly say so (in fact they hint at measuring power on the phases between the control box and the e-cat) and don’t subtract the assumed 110W of power for the control box. I don’t quite understand why they have to guess at the control box consumption. Shouldn’t they be able to infer that from the times during which the e-cat was in the OFF state? It seems strange that the control box wouldn’t draw any power at all when the e-cat is running “self sustained”. It still has things to do, apparently. Run a processor and do some continuous measurements at least. But their calculations suggest that it didn’t consume anything for 65% of the time and then kicks in with 110W.

    • Gerrit

      the first test was not an ON/OFF mode test. Like you, I also understand they measured between the box and the ecat in the first test.

      The second test was much better conducted than the first.

      Had it not been for the second test, the report would have been much (much, much) less valuable.

      Hanno Essén was involved in the second test, not in the first.

      Thank you Hanno !

      • lenrdawn

        “the first test was not an ON/OFF mode test.”

        Yes – and since they measured between the control box and the e-cat, any power consumed by the control box wouldn’t have to be subtracted anyway and could be ignored. My point is that they don’t mention the consumption of the control box during the OFF phases in the second test. The power chart shows 35% at about 820W or so, which means they already subtracted the 110W they came up with when they calculated the dummy’s input/output (which was also run without ON/OFF). But what was the overall consumption during the OFF phases? Can’t have been zero, can it?

        • fortyniner

          If metering in the second test was set up to record hundreds or thousands of watts from a 3-phase supply, it would probably show zero for a few milliwatts used to drive control electronics while power to the heaters was off.

          Why would such a relatively tiny amount of power matter?

          • lenrdawn

            It was set up to measure something on the order of about 1kW, not hundreds, and the assumption that the control box drew only milliwatts is bizarre. They calculated it to consume something on the order of about 110W during the dummy tests in continuous operation and subtracted these 110W from the input when running the real test. What makes you think it wouldn’t consume the same 110W during an OFF phase? If part of the 110W would have anything to do with feeding power to the e-cat, rather than merely controlling the process, they should be included in the calculation and not be subtracted. If that was NOT the case, then the 110W would probably be consumed during the OFF phase as well (unless you assume that the control box doesn’t do anything at all during “self sustained” mode and goes to sleep entirely for a predefined, fixed time). Anyway – my main concern is that they didn’t mention it at all.

          • fortyniner

            I said ‘hundreds or thousands of watts‘ i.e. up to a few kilowatts.

            Regarding the 110W figure, this is rather ambiguous as you suggest, especially not knowing what is actually within the control box.

            My assumption is that the 110W represents transformer and/or transformer-rectifier losses rather than being fed forward. If this was not in fact the case then this figure should not have been subtracted from the total power input figures, which would then have been some 12% higher (although an adjustment of 10% is included later). Electronic control circuits typically only consume milliwatts of power for their own operation, as I stated.

            I agree that the matter of the 110W could have been more clearly explained.

          • GreenWin

            Mr dawn is exhibiting the behaviors on the right side of this chart: http://imgur.com/bPzARpx

          • Jim

            “Selection bias in collecting information”.

            My question to mssr dawn is “what is a hypothetical integrated network of causation in which your carefully delineated uncertainties have any impact on the general conclusion?”

            Nothing resembling a model of reality can be derived from isolated elements of uncertainty. Because nothing absolutely certain can ever be unassailably established in the first place (read the Mulamadhyamakakarika if you really insist on getting into that)

            So it is futile to grasp after absolute certainty. And it is likewise pointless to be alarmed at isolated uncertainties.

            Reality is most accurately modeled, using conventional symbolic expression, in ways that include integrated networks of causation.

            It would be helpful to have even a suggestion, any terminology at all, from mssr dawn on the nature of the networks of causation that he believes are implied by the isolated elements of uncertainty that he delineates.

            Otherwise I have to conclude that mssr dawn is more interested in highlighting isolated uncertainties than on constructing models of reality.

            And one of his motives for doing so might be because many of us are so anxious to establish certainty that we are alarmed by any uncertainty. And perhaps mssr dawn enjoys the attention that arises from our resulting anxiety when he delineates uncertainty.

            Eliminating uncertainty is a major goal of science (along, BTW, with major highway bridge engineering). And so highlighting uncertainty is a very useful activity. Unfortunately, science has established that uncertainty is very difficult to eradicate entirely. Just ask Heisenberg.

            Since certainty is at best extremely difficult to obtain, perhaps we can be satisfied with high levels of confidence, which are established by considering well-rounded models of integrated networks of causation.

            Like, there really is a factory in Italy, in which there really is a cylindrical metal construct, which really has been examined by impeccably reputable scientists, that really have established with great confidence that within that construct an unexplained energy reaction with commercially important outputs is really taking place.

          • GreenWin

            Jim, the introduction of an uncertainty like that of Mr. dawn, is a tactic found in the Disinfo Field Manual; required reading for certain company.

            Thanks for your thorough and cogent overview.

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    May 24th, 2013 at 4:56 AM
    To the Readers:
    A friend of mine, Prof. of Electric Measurements , put me a question that I think is important to reproduce here:
    ” The measurement of the electric energy consumed by the resistance could have been affected by the fact that a particular wave has been produced that the instrument of measurement could have not been able to measure”. This question is important. The answer is: the measurement of the electric energy that has been consumed by the resistances has been made BETWEEN THE PLUG OF THE GRID AND THE CONTROL PANEL, NOT BETWEEN THE CONTROL PANEL AND THE RESISTANCES. Therefore the wave of the electricity in the point in which the electric energy consumed has been measured was a full, regular wave od alternate current ( the instrumentation used allowed also to see the wave form). AGAIN:
    THE MEASUREMENT MADE BY THE PCE 830 HAS BEEN TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE GRID OF THE OF THE ENERGY DISTRIBUTOR; AFTER THE MEASUREMENT OF ENERGY , THE ENERGY IS ENVOYED TO THE REGULATION SYSTEM ( ANGLE PHASE TRIAC), THEREFORE THE SOLE ENERGY MEASURED IS 380 VOLTS 3 PHASES 50 Hz !!!
    Obviously the Examiners wanted to measure the energy consumed between the plug of the grid and the control panel exactly for this reason. This can be also found in the Report.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Roger Bird

      Volts are not a measure of energy. What am I missing here?

      • lenrdawn

        At least it answers the question whether the mains used was the same which people plugged their laptops and instruments in. It wasn’t. In fact it must have been separate.

        • daniel maris

          Are you trying to obfuscate or illuminate with that comment?

          Rossi at least accepts this is an important question. Presumably it was settled to the satisfaction of the researchers.

          There has to be a limit at some point to allegations of fraud. Lots of scientific experiments could be queried on the basis that no one kept watch on all the participants at all times or searched their pockets on the way into and out of the lab.

          Yes there are reasons to be more cautious in Rossi’s case. But equally it cannot be right to begin with an assumption of fraud and refuse to accept anything positive found on the other side of the balance.

          • lenrdawn

            “Are you trying to obfuscate or illuminate with that comment?”

            I’m trying to answer a question which came up in an earlier thread. Feel free not to think about the details and exclude fraud as a possibility for whatever reasons you think justify that level of confidence. I’m not there yet. Not even close.

          • fortyniner

            If your laptop requires a 380V 3-phase supply, it is somewhat unusual. It seems quite likely that the researchers plugged theirs into ordinary 220/230V supply sockets instead.

            You are grasping at straws.

          • lenrdawn

            And you are confused. This isn’t grasping at straws but responding to earlier, obviously unfounded speculation like:

            AlainCo on May 23, 2013 at 12:47 pm
            The plug seems used by other equipemnt like laptop…

            or

            GreenWin on May 23, 2013 at 4:09 pm
            Figure 11 shows one AC power strip in use by the laptops, cameras etc.

          • GreenWin

            No, your grasp is mit out even straw, dawn. Get over it.

          • lenrdawn

            Interestingly enough, it lists “Stereotyping of opponents…” on the right hand side, which is pretty much all you seem to be doing here all day, GreenWin, though I’m sure you feel in some strange way entitled to do just that.

          • Barry

            +1

          • Chris I

            Which is just one of the three same phases.

      • Chris I

        Rossi simply specified the form in which the power is supplied, the most common for many industral purposes over here from the ENEL utility. He did not mean that figure as the measurement of energy (which, of course, involves summing power over time).

        • KD

          In Europe three phase line have 380 volts between two phases. But between phase and the neutral wire is 220 volts, as it is used in every home.
          Also to supply power to control panel.
          So the use of energy for E-Cat is calculated with energy supply to control panel.

          • Toussaint

            I confirm I used to work at the French Electrical Board

          • Chris I

            Yes I know, I did a spot of that stuff at my technical high school and a few years ago I developed software for computing deterministic load flow and stuff based on it; the ENEL folks were very satisfied with my job. I was also invited to participate in a couple of meetings of those working on the low voltage, i. e. 380/220.

            I was only talking about what Rossi said and what he didn’t mean, without going into such detail.

      • Leonard Weinstein

        Roger,
        380 Volt 3 phase 50 Hz is the main power supply type. A clamp power meter was used to get the actual power. All he is stating is what type of main power was used, not the details of the power measurement.

      • Don J

        Do you really believe a group of scientists like that could possibly make that stupid to forget current? This is a good example of reading what you want to see.

        • Roger Bird

          No, I don’t. I’m just saying just so that we all know not to make that mistake in front of skeptics.

          • Chris I

            Which mistake?

            He said it the way English speaking folks often would say it and be understood. Even amongst electric engineers. If pathoskeps really did clutch that straw too, it wouldn’t give them any less chance of drowning.

      • Mop

        Those three phases at 50 Hz and 380 V is what the connection of a house to the power grid looks like in Europe. He meant to say the device was plugged into a normal European power outlet for heavy machinery and the measurement was taken at that point.

    • E-ENG

      The statement of Rossi :

      Therefore the wave of the electricity in the point in which the electric energy consumed has been measured was a full, regular wave od alternate current ( the instrumentation used allowed also to see the wave form).

      This is not always true. While the Voltage measured will still be sinusoidal the current will not be sinusoidal when using a TRIAC control and will without taking addiditiona measures (filtering or using power factor correction circuitry) result in harmonic currents in the mains. There are even international standards for this which are defining the amount of harmonics you are allowed to generate back into the mains.
      Rossi states that they looked at the waveforms, so if they where sinusoidal then the controlbox has internal circuitry to reduce the level of harmonics going into the mains.
      However even if there are harmonics generated back into the mains the PCE-830 as an harmonic power meter has no problem with measuring the real power under these circumstances and the possible presence of current harmonics does not have anny effect on the validity of the measuerements made.

      • Woo

        thank you for the clarification.

  • fortyniner

    The single thing that seems to characterise dismissive articles like Siegel’s is the deliberate or accidental misrepresentation of the information presented in the paper. Either such critics are too sloppy to actually take on board the data presented, or they are using half truth and misrepresentation in an attempt to justify their preconceived and false conclusions.

    I can only assume that writers or this kind of article think that as many people will not have read the paper, or will not have fully taken it in, that they can get away with such disinformation. ‘Dr. Mike’ is to be congratulated on his systematic and detailed rebuttal of one such clumsy attempt to belittle the significance of the Elforsk report.

    • Roger Bird

      Right arm!

    • AB

      Well put.

    • Woo

      indeed.

  • Redford

    While those answers are important – and especially the measured tone of voice used to make them – we have to be realistic, remember what we know from social science aboute beliefs, cognitive dissonance etc. There are always people that can’t accept some elements and by can’t, I mean really can’t. Scientific playground offers them, if not a real cover, enough opening to argue and appear to some to raise valid points.

    What’s needed is a peer review of the paper, then people like Ethan would be able to submit their reply to the peer review, and if they’re seen by that peer review as scientificly worth it, published as well.

    • AlainCo

      Cognitice dissonance, groupthink and collective delusion is a common observed fact in mainstream and underground community. We have to be careful about that ourself, without feeling shy to accuse others too.

      Not only it is observed, but IT IS SYSTEMATIC HISTORY in SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION, as thomas kuhn explain.
      It is the rule, LENR could not have been accepted since :
      – there is no theory (Lack of research, of funding, denialism, does not help. pet theories of enamoured physicists does not help more)
      – the heat production make it useless for industrial (they tried! despite all being called fraud… they were open mind! more than scientists. But they have a limit… facts!)
      – The phenomenon need tools and competenst of specialist to be observed. Unlike hot superconduction you cannot just show levitation and convince skeptic. you have to ask them to trust calorimetry, isotopic analysis….

      Ni/H revolution, that Peter Gluck call LENR+ allows the industrial to get back in the game.

      Don’t expect the scientist to get back until they get funding or a theory.

      Thomas Kuhn vision can be translated as :

      Scientist would not believe in their mother sexuality, until the know the name of their father and the date of intercourse.

      Moreover they will prefer to imagine they are born from cabbage as everybody said to them before, until knowing the reality give them an advantage, with a girlfriend or about a legacy.
      as long as the cabbage theory cause no problem, or the fathers theory is not complete, cabbage birth will be kept consensual.

      seems crazy, but believe be, talking to many educated (physicists?) skeptics, they cannot accept facts without a theory…
      they have even conceded the fact, but claimed it was uselss until there is a theory…

      as an engineer, this is out of my brain capability to understand that. it may explain why in 93 I was modestly (too modestly) convinced there was something interesting… Guilty of silence.

      • Warthog

        Any scientist who says they “cannot accept facts without a theory” needs to turn in his scientist union card, as he/she/it has just proved that they are NOT scientists. Scientific proof comes from experimental data, nothing else.

  • Jack

    All Rossi needs to do is manufacture and sell working devices. The science will follow.

    • David

      +1

      • andreiko

        :>) 10

    • BillyGiuseppe Rosencrantz

      I don’t see how Rossi can ever safely sell his reactor without a patent. Without a patent, his only safe strategy would be to sell heat and power.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        BillyGiuseppe Rosencrantz….don’t understand, why do you say that? Why couldn’t he sell it to a corporate customer?

        • Chris I

          Plenty of them will be eager to crack the secret.

  • AB

    I present you: Science vs Pathoskepticism

    http://imgur.com/bPzARpx

    or: my response to the Science vs Pseudoscience comparison on Ethan Siegel’s blog.

    • artefact

      very good

      • Barry

        True AB, this is very good. I’ve read 7% of Elvis fans believe he is still alive. They will give you an intelligent, persuasive arguments too, without sounding like crack pots. If you look over to the Ecat polls on the right, the same percentage number isn’t far off. “Apollo was staged” believers, flat earthers etc. these people get way to much air space. However, like the actions of the people on the first list, truth should be scrutinized. I appreciate the sound minded questions and legitimate skepticism and critiques, like the idea that Rossi will have nothing to do with ICCF 18.

        ps Thanks Dr. Mike, good work.

    • Dr. Mike

      AB,
      Very good! Going down your list would certainly put Ethan on the “Pathoskeptic” side of the ledger.

  • Roger Bird

    I know that it is hard to believe that an LENR believer could be worse in the psychological sense than a patho-skeptic (or other patho-skeptics), but Krivits is completely unhinged. He doesn’t seem to have any shame or balance or good sense whatsoever when it comes to Rossi. I guess Rossi really hurt his feelings. I think that this is what happened. Krivits saw something that he didn’t like during one of the demos, water in the steam or something. He called Rossi on it. The E-Cat may not have been going as Rossi had wanted at that particular moment; we know that the E-Cat had control problems back then. So Rossi was under a little stress. I have seen Rossi stressed out in exactly this situation. So he responded to Krivits. We know that Krivits can be a pain in the backside when it comes to interviewing people; he was such when he interviewed Levi. He probably thinks that being obnoxious is good journalism. So Krivits kept at it. So Rossi exploded in his face, and the rest is a pathetic history of Krivits emotional and mental weakness. Getting one’s feelings hurt is not an excuse for making up lies like Krivits has done.

    • Gerrit

      yes something like that.

      Krivit may have witnessed a not very successful demonstration.

      Krivit has written and edited several books on LENR and it would wreck his career if he would endorse Rossi and it turns out to be a sc*m.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Krivit has a sixth grade US science education and people actually read what he writes……no wonder the US is looking to Sweden to lead the science world

      • Warthog

        I had the misfortune to actually buy and read one of his books. Terrible. The only good parts were those he lifted from Charles Beaudette’s book “Excess Heat” (which is excellent and a wonderful introduction to LENR for one who hasn’t been exposed to/aware of it). Krivit is a technological illiterate, but thinks he is knowledgeable.

        • GreenWin

          Beaudette is an excellent author and MIT graduate who details many of the underhanded actions taken by those opposed to CF and Pons and Fleischmann.

          • Warthog

            Indeed, but he also covers the critical experiments in sufficient depth and detail to inform even the most technically educated professional. He covers both initial experiments and replications of same by knowledgeable scientists. Storms book is probably better (and more recent), but it can overwhelm with detail. Beaudette does not.

      • Ryan

        I think therein lies the issue with Krivit. He pretty much supports the Widom Larsen theory and is able to sell books based on the notion that that is the correct theory. However, as more is learned it may turn out that WL is completely off base or wrong entirely and suddenly his books would be nonsellers. Given that Rossi pretty much disputes WL and believes the process is something else, I believe we can easily identify Krivit’s reason for ire and that it primarily deals with the money he makes off of his books.

    • artefact

      I think he is into LENR for the money. Rossi did not want to cooperate so he is his enemy now.

      • Hal

        +2001

    • Hampus

      After my post here about the Örebro lecture that Sven Kullander had I was contacted by Krivit, and even though he was very professional he was also kinda rude. I had to be so carful what I wrote to him because he turned every word I wrote into something mean to Sven. It was not at all fun to be in contact with him.

      I also meat Sven Kullander on the train after the lecture and talked to him for awhile and he also had very bad experience with Krivit. Krivit could call him up in the middle of the night and ask him about the numbers from the test, when he said wrong numbers he would take that as proof that Andrea Rossi is a scam. Krivit was rude to me and Sven Kullander, I don’t even wanna think what he told Hanno Essen after this recent test.

      • Roger Bird

        It is a characteristic of most if not all patho-skeptics to be socially clueless. I believe that it is an integral part of their pathology. Not being able to read social cues and not being able to see the social/soft evidence (numerous PhD physicists saying yes to LENR, etc.) of LENR almost certainly go hand-in-hand.

  • Andrew Olson

    My guess is that he won’t get a patent ever because it would probably be infringing on Brilloiun’s filing.

  • artefact

    ColdFusionNow.org

    The Experimental Investigation of the E-Cat HT, and Heuristics

    http://coldfusionnow.org/the-experimental-investigation-of-the-e-cat-ht-and-heuristics/

  • frank sedei

    True victory is further substantiated by the invalid remarks of a poor loser.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      +1

    • GreenWin

      The raving loon “Gary Wright” goes one step beyond kirvit in abject denial – accusing the validation authors of contributing to fraud. This guy is begging for the libel lawsuit headed his way.

      • Toussaint

        GARY WRIGHT is it the pseudo of KRIVIT ?

      • Roger Bird

        Many commenters elsewhere have said as much. Anything to deny a new or unconventional idea or an idea not subscribed to by the mainstream.

  • Nixter

    I am waiting, hoping to hear something from some of the other major players in the LENR universe, like Dr. Robert Duncan, Dr. Mike McKubre and Dr. Peter Hagelstein. They must be very careful in anything they say on this, any small error or misstatement will be scrutinized and magnified, some will decide to remain silent, until further developments add to the weight of the saga.

    • GreenWin

      Duncan, Hubler and McKubre will be speaking at the European Parliament on June 3rd in Brussels. This is a review of joint work between US NRL, SRI, Uni Missouri and Italian ENEA:

      “Brussels. New advancements on the Fleischmann-Pons Effect: paving the way for a potential new clean renewable energy source? Evento co-organizzato da ENEA presso il Parlamento Europeo. Con il patrocinio dell’On. Amalia Sartori, Chair del Comitato ITRE c/o Parlamento europeo, l’evento vede tra i partecipanti il Commissario ENEA Giovanni Lelli, il Direttore dell’Industrial Technologies Directorate Herbert Von Bose, il Direttore del the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (USA) Graham Hubler, e il Vice-cancelliere per la ricerca, University of Missouri (USA) Robert Duncan.”

  • Chris I

    Both Ethan Siegel and Luboš Motl Pilsen are ranting away without even bothering to get things straight, They are making fools of themselves as much as Krivit. looking far more like amateurs than me, even.

    I have no time to deal with them and the folks that are posting misinformation; it would be like casting pearl to swine. Good enough effort Mike, but I don’t think it will be much use, by my experience..

  • Jeff Clark

    If cavemen demanded a scientific explaination for fire, its existence would have been deined for over 10,000 years. The cavemen sceptics would have been sitting on their rock thrones eating cooked meat and all the while believing that the fire was not hot because it could not be explained how it worked. E-Cat gets hotter than the resistance wires inside the core….what else do you want? A scientific explaination would be nice, but it is not required to prove the existence of anomalous heat.

    • Roger Bird

      Well over 10,000 years. Many anthropologist put the figure at 1,000,000 years.

      • fortyniner

        Fire is necessary for making beer and staying up late to drink it. Much later, someone discovered that you could cook with it too.

        • Timar

          There’s a fascinating book by the Harvard anthropologist Richard Wrangham – Catching Fire. It explains how man became man by learning to tame fire (and thus have a beer, by your extension).

        • GreenWin

          Peter, dedicated Neanderthals have been known to enjoy beer in the dark, though sitting round the fire pit and toasting fingers was more fun.

          Here is E-Cat appearing in a “bioinformatics” blog:
          http://www.homolog.us/blogs/blog/2013/05/23/cold-fusion/

    • Dave

      True, but cavemen could demonstrate the effect of fire. Rossi hasn’t demonstrated that the E-Cat works at this point.

      • Roger Bird

        But Dave, he did. He had a number of really great but not independent demos in 2011. He just did 3 mostly independent tests with fabulous results that a bunch of scientists stacked their reputations on. Before these tests, you had to jump over the incredulity chasm. Now you can merely step over the little crack that used to be a chasm. But it is just a little step, Dave. With the aid of an LENR walking stick, it should be easy, even for a skeptic.

  • theBuckWheat

    There is a difference between being an honest skeptic, which I am, and a person in active denial for whom no evidence can ever be sufficient. This skeptic seems to want to deny that any effect is at work rather than starting off by asking what effect is at work. It is almost as if the excess heat of the Rossi device cannot be completely documented to his satisfaction the head cannot possibly be real. So, go ahead and pick the device up with your hands! ROFL.

    • Roger Bird

      In the past I have become so frustrated with patho-skeptics that I would have wanted them to pick up the E-Cat while it was up and running. Now I just ignore them.

      I think that part of my problem was the continued projection of my reasonableness on to them. It is a good idea to become detached from your own reasonableness so that you can keep an eye on it for correction purposes and so that you won’t project it onto other. Some people aren’t capable of higher level reasoning. And some people are stuck on being deliberately daft, like patho-skeptics. One should not become frustrated with them; it raises your blood-pressure.

      • LB

        So true Roger ..

  • Dr. Mike

    Frank,
    Thanks for posting my critique of Ethan Siegel’s blog. I hope everyone following E-cat world realize what a good job the professors and scientists did in their experimental work (especially the third experiment) and getting out a well written report (in English) that was essentially free of any typos. The progression of their work from experiment #2 to experiment #3 was excellent “science”.

    • Thank YOU, Dr. Mike!

      • Barry

        +1

    • AB

      Dr Mike, are you related to McKubre perhaps?

      • Roger Bird

        I would prefer that he be THE Dr. Mike McKubre.

      • Dr. Mike

        AB,
        No, My degrees are all in electrical engineering (from Purdue University) with a specialty in solid state physics. As a peer reviewer, my recommendation is to publish the paper as it is unless from the questions the authors receive in this internet peer review, they decide to clarify some statements.

    • artefact

      Thanks Dr. Mike for taking time to write that long comment.

      • Dr. Mike

        artifact,
        You’re welcome!

    • Martin Leonard

      Nice to read your critique Dr Mike.
      Your input on the Steorn forum was always informative.
      Do you have any questions for the authors?

      • Dr. Mike

        Martin,
        The questions/suggestions that I had after reading the results of the second test were all answered or corrected in the third test. This is what gave me such a favorable opinion both of the experiments and the report. As an engineer/scientist I will be anxiously awaiting a proven theory on LENR, but the authors can’t provide that information.

        • Martin Leonard

          thanks a mil

  • georgehants

    Knovel
    News & Events – Engineering News
    Another cold fusion claimant puts technology to the test
    May 23, 2013
    After years of dodging outside assessment of his technique, Italian researcher Andrea Rossi has had his engineering innovation in cold fusion independent tested, returning remarkably positive results, according to ExtremeTech.
    http://why.knovel.com/all-engineering-news/2501-another-cold-fusion-claimant-puts-technology-to-the-test.html

    • Roger Bird

      Unfortunately there is no place to comment and say that the theory of how it works is not established and what is established is that it works.

  • Kim

    There is the possibility that the catalyst
    that Rossi makes reference to just may be
    the unique wave form electrical pulse that
    he seems to be guarded about.

    Its as if when the reaction temp. is reached the
    geometrical lattice of the nickel begins to deform just enough to cause the reaction to gain entropy and begin to decline

    The wave form that is used may preclude this
    by decreasing entropy of the lattice and letting
    the reaction remain in status or even begin its
    forward progression to melt down.

    Respect
    Kim

    • lenrdawn

      It must be an extremely simple waveform because he can somehow substitute it with a gas fire.

      • artefact

        (I think) we don’t know if he does not need a little “control input” additional to the heating input of gas. In a 2011 test or demo when the reaction did not want to start he went out of the room to get a frequency generator to start the reaction.

      • LB

        Maybe not. In an early video from one of the tests I remember someone asking Rossi what a pair of wires was used for and he answered
        – To generate frequencies.
        It could be that even if you use gas to reach the temperature needed you still need the activating electrical waveform

      • Pachu

        Probably a battery for the EM frecuency is still needed, the electric consumption of this frecuency generator is minimal compared to the consumption of resistance.

        • lenrdawn

          Possible, but I doubt it. A frequency of a more complex nature would be very difficult to accurately transfer via the wiring shown in the pictures in the paper. The wires are long and can’t be shielded or twisted where the power is measured. Plus: parts of the wires are completely naked where they’re connected to the wires which are fixed to the e-cat, the magnetic emissions of resistors change with temperature and there seem to be no feedbacks allowing for adjustment of the generator. That’s why I believe the frequency (IF there is one) must be very simple, relatively strong and low.

    • Thinks4Self

      The radio frequency makes sense to me as well. The John Kanzius “Saltwater burning demo” showed that radio frequency can cause hydrogen to break away from a water molecule. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo if you have never seen it)

      The frequency generator likely excites the hydrogen to more energetic levels to start the reaction.

      • Roger Bird

        It is amazing how retarded some people are with regard to science and mathematics. No one asked what the COP was. Wasn’t anyone curious as to the input power vs. the output power? I ain’t saying that the COP was necessarily less than 1, which it probably was. I am saying that no one asked. This is the ultimate “oh, gee whiz wow!”.

      • lightning mike

        Yes I have been wondering what happened to that story…seems to have died with John. I remember being excited about it and I found somewhere the radio frequency that he was using and it was the 8th octave of the nuclear magnetic resonance frequency of the sodium ion! (Which is why it only worked with salt water) I suspect Rossi is using a similar resonance frequency of the hydrogen or nickel lattice to goose the reaction. Much more bang for the buck when you use resonance. Exciting times!

  • Yury Kissin

    I have read the report carefully and could not find any significant errors as far as the measurement errors are involved.
    One technical comment. Now that the experiments are done and the report cannot be changed, Prof. Levi should ask Mr. Rossi what the weight of nickel in the first experiment was, recalculate the density of the produced energy and report the new (and much higher) number in a special addendum.
    A few general comments:
    1. I doubt that this report will ever be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The higher the journal’ status (like Nature or Science) the lower is the probability. The editors will not even send the text to reviewers, they will reject it outright as contradicting the established science. There are several subjects in natural science which are taboo, LENR and doubting origins of global warming are the typical examples, and this wall is impenetrable until the current population of the “true defenders” is alive.
    2. For the same reason, chances of Mr. Rossi’s getting an US or an European patent are very small. His best road to success is to hold his know-how tight and to start selling his devices.
    3. For the rest of us – the best chance to see this technology implemented is for some huge company (General Electric comes to mind first) to buy out the technology from Rossi and rapidly develop it for universal production of electricity.

    • Roger Bird

      Excellent contribution.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Yury Kissin…..thank you, good analysis, stick around we need you on this site!

      • Roger Bird

        I agree.

        • psi

          + one more.

  • freethinker

    Sorry.

    Need to bring our favourite mad dog, Gary Wrigh, out on stage again. I may have not paid enough attention, sorry if this is then repetitious. He has a downloadable PDF full of his flammable and sulfur oozing comments. In that PDF are 2 appendix present, purportedly written by David Bianchini. Anybody know if those are legit? I did not see them in the pre-print at arXiv.

    Gary Wright, his comments are hilarious, and as has been commented here below, he might line him self up for a law suit with that kind of talk.

    His comment on the text in the paper that touch the failed initial test where the device melted inside:

    ‘How do they know the device produced, “a huge production of excess heat;” if the amount of heat, “could not be quantified”‘

    Well Sherlock, if the device like goes in colors bright orange to white and then melts, then just possibly an insane amount of heat was produce very rapidly with nowhere to dissipate fast.

    He is so lost. The judgement of the world will not be kind.

    • Roger Bird

      Garry Wright said?: ‘How do they know the device produced, “a huge production of excess heat;” if the amount of heat, “could not be quantified”‘ This is absolutely precious.

  • TQ
    • GreenWin

      This appears to be a planted link designed to raise fears of Muslim terror – since there are no other government links to the paper. Who would do such a thing? 🙂

    • Roger Bird

      Muslim radicals will have much less money to cause so much mischief. There will be less disparity of incomes in the whole world, so less absurdly rich oil princes. There will be less motivation for the West to interfere in the Middle East, so less resentment of the West, although since those people never forgive, the drop-off of resentment might be more gradual than you might think. LENR will do nothing for low level Muslim radicalism.

      • LB

        The root of all evil
        (Richard Dawkins)
        Look it up on You Tube

        • Roger Bird

          Richard Dawkins is the root of all evil.

  • Pachu

    For a GreenWin post below:
    Duncan, Hubler and McKubre will be speaking at the European Parliament on June 3rd in Brussels. This is a review of joint work between US NRL, SRI, Uni Missouri and Italian ENEA….

    US NRL has been pointed directly and defitively as the “US military partner” wich received the 1Mw big container, this was confirmed or was just keeped in private mails ? :b

    • GreenWin

      I do not know Pachu.

  • Eric
    • Woo

      will be interesting to see how long it takes to be covered in prime time news on television. I bet till end of the month the web will be exploding and mm ultimately must follow.

      after years of enjoying this developement rather private, with respect to all the others, but rather small in number compared to those “uninformed”, i am very happy to enjoy the subject with a lot more people in the future. Widely sharing dreams and visions.

      cheers

    • artefact

      NICE

    • GreenWin

      “The E-Cat produced at least ten times more energy than any hidden batteries or other power source could have supplied.”

      Just to keep the drama high author Hambling includes the dysfunctional remarks from Kirvit accusing the 11 scientists and technicians (and presumably the additional 7 non-authoring professors acknowledged in the paper) of being “involved in this scam…”

      However the overall tone and information provided by Hambling appears accurate and balanced (except IMO from kirvit.)

      • AB

        I believe he feels the need to offer alternative views which is commendable. I think many will realize that Krivit is making increasingly convoluted claims of fraud.

        • GreenWin

          That would be 18 scientists and techs, and tangentially, Naval Research Lab, Stanford Research, University Missouri, former SPAWAR, ENEA, etc.

          As Jed Rothwell noted, kirvit pulled the ladder up behind him.

          • Ryan

            More appropriately I think Krivit doused the ladder in gasoline, lit it on fire, and kicked it away.

        • Roger Bird

          I notice that Krivit tightly controls comments on his website. That data dot fits my hypothesis that he regularly dishes it out, but he absolutely refuses to take it.

      • Sanjeev

        The best thing about this Wired article is that Frank and EcatWorld got a limelight ! 🙂
        Wired is very widely read.

        I guess, its good that these magazines are quoting Krivit, if you think deeply. His accusations are mindless and without any evidence or rigor and it will take only a second for an intelligent reader to figure that out and ignore him. Imagine if there were reputed and learned skeptics available to demolish the report….

        Fortunately, the skeptic side lacks educated people, this is good for Rossi.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      +1

    • Barry

      Good find Eric, thanks.

  • GreenWin

    A somewhat interesting development is the Director of the SKINR Center at University Missouri, Dr. Graham Hubler’s attendance at the 18th Conference on Surface Modification of Materials by Ion Beam in Kusadasi Turkey.

    http://www.smmib2013.net/203/graham-hubler

    He will present a paper on “Research Progress in Anomalous heat from Hydrogen-Metal Systems”

    Hubler will also be in Brussels at the Euro-Parliament for ENEA, NRL, SRI, SKINR progress report on June 3rd, 2013. Ion beams used to stimulate surface plasmons on metals is a current research trend in LENR, favored it seems by NASA and chemo-nuclear theorists in Sweden and Japan. He’s probably having a lot more fun at U Mizzou than at NRL.

  • blah43

    Let’s assume that excess energy is generated through some previously undiscovered chemical mechanism. In that case, the chemical source is 10 to 100 times (or more) greater than anything in use today and I want to use it!

    • BillyGiuseppe Rosencrantz

      Especially if it continues on a very hot smolder for 6 months with refueling.

      Hey! Even if it was mysteriously “sucking juice from the grid”, it still might prove useful (E-Chupacabra).

    • Job001

      Let’s not assume that it is due to chemical energy.

      Let’s assume the historically supported fact that experts typical failure to think outside the box (weak force essentially ignored since 1941) and their self serving greed and antipathy were the issue.

      This fits human nature and weakness, science facts, and historical evidence best.

      • Roger Bird

        But there is no chemical reaction that could explain this result. Remember Hegelstein running his “reactor” for more than 100 days.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    Andrea Rossi
    May 24th, 2013 at 9:03 AM
    Dear Giuseppe:
    We want to arrive to produce steam at 350°C in a stable situation to get a good Carnot cycle, and we are close.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • h_corey

      “close” in Rossi time is 3-6 years

      • Roger Bird

        LOL

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        How can you say that when he moved from zero to this third party test in two years?

  • Thinks4Self

    There is one aspect of the tests that I believe hasn’t been covered very well. The Hotcats are being designed to run in a liquid cooled environment, I believe a dielectric oil is what Rossi has said would be used in the first stage to cool them. Since the hotcats are meant to be liquid cooled they cannot run at full designed power when being air-cooled. I believe the November test had a NiH load calculated to be right on the line of max power output when air-cooled and obviously the output was still too high. The next two tests I believe had ever smaller loads of fuel. So these tests are like running a water-cooled internal combustion engine at idle without water-cooling.

    Thermodynamics and heat transfer are not my specialty. Can anyone make an educated estimation of what the heat output would be of the hotcats tested, if they were oil-cooled and maintaining a temperature of 350C – 400C?

    • AlainCo

      Defkalion met the same problem.
      after pathoskeptic campaign against Rossi’s flow calorimetry, they decided to make simila static calorimetry…
      finally the was a pathoskeptic campaign and they closed the forum, and accepted flow calorimetry by nelson (who bashed Rossi before for too few freedom to test)…
      now there is a pathoskeptic campaign against the static calorimetry done by rossi with thermometry…

      beside tha similarities they designed the cooling of their hyperion from the beginning…

      diathermal oils can work up to 350C as they say…
      above you need molten salt, and for very high temp (like 800C) best is molten metal…

      normally that fluid is not used straight and there is a secondary heat-exchanger.

  • Sanjeev

    phys.org article received approx 200 comments so far, most of them negative and knee jerk responses.
    If there were internet in dark ages it would have looked very much the same, with everyone mindlessly accusing the one who dared to speak something different from what is written in their favorite book.

    • lightning mike

      I hope we can get a working theory of what is happening in these lenr reactions experimentally demonstrated. It would help the cause a lot! I have been following Nassim Haramein’s work towards a unified field theory for a long time and he finally just got a paper published in a well known peer reviewed journal. His site is resonance.is and some of his papers are there. I don’t totally understand it all but think his framework could help make sense of lenr reactions. Part of his theory postulates that the vacuum fluctuations are not random but that there is a structure to the vacuum, specifically a 64 tetrahedron vector equilibrium (forces balance in all directions making it capable of dissappearing in a way) Things that are structured in a way that is resonant with the structure of the vacuum like tetrahedrons and octahedrons then can access the nearly limitless energy of the vacuum. This can help explain the unique elecro-magnetic properties of metals and crystals and even how living systems with thier tetrahedral carbon bond can defy entropy and evolve towards greater complexity. Since these reactions seem to happen at ky points of an octahedral lattice there might be something here. Anyways would love to see a theorhetical thread and hear people ideas!

  • p. varrone

    Forse in giro per il mondo c’è gente che non sa leggere.
    Nelle prime pagine c’è scritto che è stata notata sulla superficie esterna del cilindro l’ombra termica della resistenza elettrica accesa. Ciò significa che essa ere più fredda dell’interno del cilindro e ciò lo dice la legge di Stefan-Boltzmann. Da dove proveniva quel calore? Vogliamo mettere in discussione anche la legge in oggetto?
    L’invidia è sempre una cattiva consigliera. P. Varrone

  • georgehants

    From Metro News Canada
    Burnaby fusion lab unfazed by claims of Italian cold fusion breakthrough
    http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/682614/burnaby-fusion-lab-unphased-by-claims-of-italian-cold-fusion-breakthrough/

    • AB

      More like: Burnaby fusion lab wants a slice of the attention the e-cat is getting. That and $150 million.

      • Barry

        150 million, what a deal. Steve Cowley is askng for 20 billion.

    • GreenWin

      “…a device invented by notoriously secretive Italian scientist Andrea Rossi.”

      How secretive is a guy who publicly blogs his progress each day??

      • psi

        Lol. Well, apparently “skeptics” must invent facts about Rossi.

  • georgehants

    From Wired
    24 May 13 by David Hambling
    Cold Fusion gets red hot and aims for EU
    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-05/24/cold-fusion-research

    • georgehants

      Sorry Eric for the repeat post. 🙂

  • georgehants

    Just interesting that on the reports picked up, the key words Cold Fusion are giving about eight returns for every one of LENR.
    Cold Fusion has won I think.

  • Daniele Rasenna

    Frank,
    I honestly think some of the technical issues raised by Lubos Motl (string theory), but particularly from some of his readers would also deserve some attention.
    http://motls.blogspot.de/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html?
    I would leave aside the extra-scientific contents of the post

  • Larry Siders

    Extraordinary claims do NOT require extraordinary proof… they require proof.

    • Rockyspoon

      That’s true! What was once considered “extraordinary” is, a few years later, considered “old hat”.

      Rossi sounds like he’s in good hands now with an American partner that will push this forward in a business-like manner.

      Thank you, Mr. Rossi, for all your hard work!

  • Al S

    Like many laymen may comment. If it makes heat, it works great. You all can find out why later. Let’s just get on with using it!!!

    • Dan Woodward

      I agree. Humans used fire for thousands of years before any one published the theory of oxidation!

  • psi

    Just “thanks” for such a sober and clearheaded analysis of where we most likely are. Extrordinary claims require extraordinary investigation. Let the professional “skeptics” think about that for a moment and see if they can wrap their dull brains around it.

  • D R Lunsford

    Siegel is a dark matter cosmology fabulist. I doubt that he is capable of doing simple calculations in classical electrodynamics. He doesn’t understand general relativity (this is obvious from his blog scribbling). These “physicists” have no actual interest in phenomena, are very poor theorists because they have nothing real to model, and are only loud and vocal to cover-up their all-too-deeply felt shortcomings. They are no different than the priests who refused to gaze through Galileo’s telescope.

    The implications of LENR go far beyond its interest as a new phenomenon and possibly revolutionary energy source. The committed fabulists who have given the world string theory, holographic universe, quantum mysticism, dark energy, inflation, and all that nonsense, are going to be called onto the carpet. Their days are numbered, and we’re going to return to actual science.

    -drl