Essen Corrects: "We Can Definitely Exclude DC Current"

We reported earlier this week about comments Hanno Essen made in an interview about the 3rd party testing in which the following exchange took place:

> Q: Have you tried to test the output of the power supply to exclude that
> also a DC current is supplied to the device, which clamp amperometers
> could not detect?

Essen: No, we did not think of that. The power came from a normal wall socket
and there did not seem to be any reason to suspect that it was
manipulated in some special way. Now that the point is raised we can
check this in future tests.

Today, Essen corrected this remark in a comment responding to an email written by Bath University Computer Science professor Alessio Guglielmi questioning the ethics of scientists conducting this E-Cat test.

“In the interview I answered that there was no direct measurement of dc (since the clamps could not detect such). This was a bit hasty. In future I will not answer such technical questions without conferring with all coauthors. After analysing what we checked and measured (which were many more variables that those from the clamps) we can definitely exclude dc-current. (This is what comes from being nice to journalists.)”

It’s an important correction because the hypothesis of a hidden DC wire feeding the E-Cat to give the appearance of excess heat has been proposed by a number of critics of tests raising suspicion of trickery by Andrea Rossi. Essen here states here now that this was not a possibility.

  • Kim

    That is too bad, that was one of the Skeptics
    best theories.


    • Methusela

      Don’t worry, they won’t let it go that easily!

      • Jerry Jones

        Maybe “Jesse Emspak” of Discovery Magazine will check with Krivit again – before slandering REAL SCIENTISTS next time he researches articles he is putting his name on.

        • clovis


  • Sean B

    I’m kind of glad Essen made the mistaken comment, for entertainment value alone.

  • Morgan

    the most suspicious thing to me is that this company that Rossi is now working for won’t just admit they are even working with him? what’s so hard about just saying “yes, Rossi is now working for us on a secret project” etc? wtf!

    • khawk

      Because sometimes it is best to keep things quiet until the appropriate time comes to reveal the commercialization of important projects.
      Every heard of “Reardon Steel”, the iPhone, etc…?

    • lenrdawn

      I don’t know. Right now this whole thing is flying well below the radar. If you talk to friends and family, they’ve probably never even heard about cold fusion, let alone Rossi. But if, say, Siemens announces tomorrow that they’re working with Rossi and own his IP, all hell will break lose.

      • KD

        They don’t need to own his IP. Just have right to use it and profit from it.

      • fortyniner

        “all hell will break lo(o)se”

        Which is of course the full answer to Morgans rather desperate ‘skeptical’ talking point. A great deal of preparation and collusion needs to take place before such disruption is triggered, including probably legislative changes by tame politicians and not least, the development of a viable product and possibly the manufacture of sufficient stock to meet initial demand (depending on the game plan adopted).

    • Roger Bird

      Morgan, remember that your need for certainty is what drives you to ask this question. Remember that the company doesn’t give a fig about your need for certainty and probably doesn’t even know that you and I exist. What they do care about is not getting bad press before they are able to stand and deliver. When they stand and deliver, I will dance in the street, I promise. And there may very well be other reasons why that don’t want to announce. Why should they announce aside from our desire to know, which means exactly zip to them? It is certainly surprising that Rossi tells us anything. He may do so because he cannot contain his excitement.

  • Curbina

    I’m glad to see Mr. Essen took the care of finding himself telling something false and correcting it publicly. That speaks volumes about how the scientists team approached the work, and how themselves were as exhaustive as possible to check all sources of error. We were talking about evidence the other day, and I said then that there was not a shred of evidence (regardless of what I thougt of the e-cat and Mr. Rossi), but now there is. And this evidence will only keep building upon. Hence, we are assisiting to the birth of a new era for mankind.

    • Roger Bird

      Do you ascribe to the theory that a data point is either there or not there, as in binary data points. My data points are more analog. Sometimes a data point might be just a slight smudge or a data point. Social data points, for me, are clearly analog. One PhD saying that Rossi is for real is just sort of a 7 out of 10 on the data point scale. With seven scientists from two different countries, their 7/10 data points paint a pretty picture.

  • Sanjeev

    It will be nice if they can update the report with new data on how the exclusion was made.

    This will kill almost 90% of debate, if done.

    I guess they will do a more thorough input measurement in the coming test, but its report is at least one year away.

    • lenrdawn

      “This will kill almost 90% of debate, if done.”

      If done properly, it would probably kill even more than that. As it stands, we have a rather vague description of the input power measurement in the paper itself (until Rossi commented on his blog, it wasn’t even clear where they measured and what the voltage was – still isn’t, really), then an interview of Essen saying he didn’t think of DC, another from Hartman saying he can’t think of how DC would have worked but wouldn’t exclude it either, now one from Essen again where he “definitely” excludes DC but doesn’t say why.

      “but its report is at least one year away”

      Isn’t there still the chance that this report appears in a peer reviewed journal? My impression was that this is a pre-print and peer review is still under way and the official publishing still to come. So IF they really can exclude DC and did many more measurements to exclude all sorts of other things, they can still report them in the context of this paper. Any peer reviewer would demand that (at least as supplemental material) anyway.

      • Sanjeev

        I’ll have to agree that the clarifications are coming in bits and bytes. The team needs to meet up and clear this for once and all, amending the report with suitable data.

        About peer review, there is no indication from anywhere that they sent it for publication elsewhere, and that the editor(s) have sent review requests to peers (as is usually the process). We do know that Rossi has many times said that it will be published in a well known “magazine” (or was it a journal ?).

        • lenrdawn

          I think Rossi usually says “magazine” (lost in translation) – but he has hinted often that the report was late because the “reviewers” demanded further tests (and I remember that there was a lot of speculation going on here and elsewhere on the web about what those demands could possibly be). I know it usually doesn’t work like that. You write a paper, the reviewers chew on it for a while and demand changes – not follow up tests – but that was rationalized by the potential magnitude of the paper. Of course back then, people expected to see the paper in Science or Nature and possibly somebody other than Levi as the lead author.

          • Sanjeev

            They can still send it for publication. (Would be cool thing to do, we will know who rejects and who accepts)

            A lot of informal peer review has already taken place.

      • Timar

        No, it won’t kill the debate because unfortunately there are always people like you who are obviously unable to read what they are criticizing or debating about. Except for the DC, which was a moot point anyway, everyting has been clearly stated in the paper. Most debates only arise because people are too lazy to do their homework.

        • lenrdawn

          I admit I couldn’t find even the voltage measured in the paper, let alone current. Good to hear that you could – a pointer to the relevant page would be nice.

          Another question to you. Somebody on vortex posted a new theory some Italians came up with which would account for the excess power.[email protected]/msg81470.html

          Of course, the wiring diagram in the paper clearly states that this couldn’t possibly work… only I am too lazy to find that either.

          • Sanjeev

            Only one test used 3 phases, so this criticism fails for the second test.
            I’m not worried about it, and didn’t check their math.

          • lenrdawn

            From my understanding (all that should be in the paper – but it isn’t so we can speculate) the second test was single phase from the control box to the e-cat, not from the wall to the control box.

          • lenrdawn

            Actually it IS in the paper, sorry. Page 15: “the TRIAC power supply has been replaced by a control circuit having three-phase power input and single-phase output”

            So it was three phase in all tests (from the wall to the control box, which is where they measured in the second test). I can’t find anything about them ever measuring single phase anywhere in any of the tests.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, I agree to that actually.

            Both cases use 3 phase power. However, for the second test, they do not mention where the meter was connected. In the single phase loop or in the 3 phase ? Perhaps you can find it somewhere.

            They do mention the clamp meters on 3 phase upstream. So they could have seen that the power meter and clamp meters do not agree, but no discrepancy was found, obviously, and the test went on.

            I’m sorry we do have indirect evidence, but Essen should clear it up.

      • Roger Bird

        I am glad that lenrdawn is here. He is the sounding the board that helps us convince others. I am convinced, but that is only one vote. We have to convince hundreds of thousands for everyone of us. Or else we can just wait until Rossi starts selling them.

        • GreenWin

          Roger, this is where you are simply wrong. We do NOT have to convince anybody of anything. People can think what they want.

          But when E-Cat HT starts heating millions of gallons of water in remote locations, or producing un-meterable electricity in an industrial district, who gives a shiet what people think??

          Did Henry Ford have to convince anyone his car worked? A few. Proof is in the pudding. The pudding here is very simple: cheap, low-cost, process heat. That game is nearly over.

          • lenrdawn

            Finally we agree on something.

          • Roger Bird

            Did anyone buy a Ford if they weren’t convinced that it would run? We can help the LENR by convincing more people before a roll-out. We can increase the chances that there will be a roll-out if we convince more people that the LENR/E-Cat is real.

            I am sure that this disagreement is a semantic problem; otherwise what I am reading of what you are saying doesn’t make any sense. I wouldn’t be going to the grocery store today unless I was convinced that it was still there. If I were a utility, I wouldn’t buy an E-Cat plant unless I was convinced that it would work. If I were a residential customer, I wouldn’t buy an E-Cat unless I was convinced that it worked. Just as I said elsewhere that credibility is very important, conviction is the desired result that makes credibility so important. Without conviction, we got nothing. If you show someone a working E-Cat and he burns his finger on the E-Cat, what you have accomplished is conviction. Rossi got conviction when he burned his finger.

      • Thinks4Self

        I think is clear where they attached the clamps during the March test, you just have to look for it.

        Page 16 of the report:
        “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 nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements themselves.”

        They really need to put up the videos and all pictures taken so that anyone can analyze the data.

  • Dave Lawton

    “Q: Have you tried to test the output of the power supply to exclude that
    > also a DC current is supplied to the device, which clamp amperometers
    > could not detect?”

    Not true it shows his ignorance .They will detect DC current in the AC mode .It will give a reading although not accurate.The questioner most likely cannot change a light bulb let alone a fuse.

    • NJT

      Yes he can, if he holds the bulb while someone turns the chair!

  • Winebuff

    The skeptics are the only ones that are mistaken.

    • Deleo77

      This answer about the DC current puts a dagger in their biggest argument. I wish they had included this in their original paper. It allowed the skeptics to do some major shout-downs over the past week. Without the DC current, you would have to think the main stream press has to start to pick up on this. The chances and means by which Rossi could be conducting a hoax have only dwindled with these follow-ups from the authors in the past few days.

      • Roger Bird

        For anyone to be able to run a such a GREAT scam, he could make so much more money with so much less hard work if he found an honest job. Heck, he could have gone into politics if he was such a GREAT scam artist. Why bother getting one’s finger burned and such? And in politics at least some people would love him.

        I notice that some skeptics (not all skeptics are pathological, only those that don’t look at the evidence and those that lie) are beginning to use the word “impressive” in front of the word “scam”.

  • stefan

    Is this a scam?

    Remember the last test produced
    A quite low COP. And Rossi and all
    His mob is assumed to control the
    Setup with staged instruments and a bought Levy to just reach that tiny

    Sorry but the liklyhood of a scam is shrinking.

    • Roger Bird

      You’re saying that the low COP on the third test indicates that it could not be a scam since no one would fake such a low COP. But a paranoid patho-skeptic (this assumes that not all patho-skeptics are paranoid) would just say, “That’s what they want you to believe. That’s just part of the scam.”

      • stefan

        Well in principle your point are right, If you want a hard proof and cannot believe
        that LENR is real, then the conclusion is that they staged it that way just so that they can
        get comments just like I wrote earlier. On the other hand I bet that the production of that low COP really risk of causing some harm to Rossis project which is really what have happened.

        So it is not a proof but the fact really lowers the probability of a staged test.

        Have fun

  • ken

    There’s still a chance to bring me on board as a believer in Rossi but for now i’m disappointed with the testing methods and the incorrect claims of independence. I’ll add the redacted DC current to my article but my opinion still stands at the moment. You can read my write-up at


    • freethinker

      It is funny how you state that as if it really mattered to anyone.

      Your inner woes in comming to terms with if you believe or not must be your own business. Atleast at this point in our journey, where we have a lot more facts than did we two years ago. I would rather say that this is more a matter of accepting the level of evidence.

      Most people frequenting this forum has reached the conclusion, especially adding the latest statement from Essén, that there is only one remaining negative path, and that is that they are all scammers, in it together. If one find, weighing their credentials, that them being scammers is not within reason, then there is only the positive path left. All things equal, the simplest explaination is most likely to be the right one.

      • psi

        Very well put.

      • Roger Bird

        The entire scam possibility rests upon the social sense, and patho-skeptics an impaired a social sense. I am “color-blind”. I cannot see a big distinction between red and green. I could say that all of you people are making such a distinction up. But since it is objectively verifiable, I choose just to believe you-all. But with social-blind, it is much more subjective, and most patho-skeptics would be in denial about their social-blind. So dozens of disparate people (different languages, walks-of-life, different countries, different classes, etc) running a con for more than 2 years doesn’t seem odd to them at all.

    • AB

      The excess energy is not a measurement error. The method provides adequate accuracy for the level of excess energy involved as demonstrated by the dummy run. The excess energy is either beyond chemical sources or deception is involved somehow.

      • Wes

        Roast a chicken over the thing. Serve it to the media. If they ask for second helpings, ship it.

        • Roger Bird

          I say, “Roast a crow over the thing. Serve it to the media. If they ask for second helpings, ship it.”

          • GreenWin

            The media we have will wolf the crow, ask for more and never grasp their indefatigable ignorance.

    • NES

      Ken, I liked your piece on Gary Wright and how you exposed how he tried to extort Bob Rohner. Talk about hypocrisy. The proper authorities will deal with Gary now.

    • Zedshort

      You don’t need to believe in Rossi. You only need to understand that an energy balance performed on the system produced net energy out and of such a magnitude that the energy released by the system could not be explained as due to energy stored in the system by any conventional means.

    • GreenWin

      Ken, you will need to grasp the idea that your opinion “doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy… world.”

    • Dr. Mike

      Thanks for your offer to “pick apart” your opinion. I’ll tell you why I disagree with your opinion. First the issue of the dc voltage/current now appears to be resolved so I assume that you are able to remove this from your list of issues.
      I actually would have agreed with you on your issues of the test equipment and test methodology had the March experiment not been included in the report. The key parameter of the March experiment was running the “dummy” test run in which the Ni charge was removed from the e-cat. (The March experiment also included an improved temperature measurement both by using the emissivity calibration dots and by using an independent thermocouple temperature verification.) What this “dummy” test did was permit an evaluation of the heating effect of the active component (the charge) of the e-cat independent of the accuracy of the measurement equipment or methodology. The dummy run at 910-920W input power produced the same temperature (~300C) as the active run as was stated in the report on page 18. (Note: Although the report does not list the measured “dummy” run temperatures, the calculated radiant heat for the “dummy” run at 457.2 W is nearly identical to the calculated radiant heat for the active test at 459.8 W.) Since the active run for the March test had about this same power input (910-930W) for only 35% of the time (and essentially zero power for 65% of the time) and achieved the same average temperature, the relative effect of active device to the dummy device is 1/.35 = ~2.8. This calculation is independent of the accuracy of the measurement equipment and is independent of the measurement technique for the output power, but depends only on the precision of the temperature measurement, which should be better than +/- 1C.

      • Barry

        I like your style Dr Mike.

  • Paul Lynch

    Until this is peer reviewed it will never be believed by many, many people including me. I believe there is something behind LENR, but given Rossi’s background and the E-Cat circus, I don’t believe Rossi.

    • Roger Bird

      Paul, I agree that this is all very difficult to believe. It is all just too amazing. If you keep reading, you will notice that the Internet is serving as a peer review. And given that Halton Arp, the famous astronomer, had to work in Europe the last time I checked-up on him because the peer review process did not take kindly to his questioning the Big Bang theory, and other peer review brain freezes, I don’t really trust a peer review process with this case of such a potentially paradigm shattering discovery. I will do my own peer review, and I am very glad to be getting help from other peer reviewers like Bruce Fast, Simon Derricutt, and many others who have absolutely nothing to gain by lying.

      Paul, I am the smartest person that I know socially, as in the flesh. People roll their eyes when I start to talk. I can honestly say that I am so smart that I am socially retarded; my wife says that I have Asperger’s Syndrome, and this was a relief for her to believe that she can rest assured that my lack of social skills has a nice label. But in this forum, compared with many others including Simon and Bruce, I am just another grunt trying to understand what is going on. This is an excellent peer review. Please, stick around.

    • GreenWin

      Paul, you will need to grasp the idea that your opinion “doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy… world.”

    • Blanco69

      What kind of circus shows have you been to? From memory, mine mostly involved animals, acrobats and clowns. I would be asking for my money back if I turned up to a circus and got a perfectly valid ecat demonstration instead!

    • fortyniner

      Three very consistent markers for the kind of ‘skeptics’ who are sent in to try to put out a fire seem to be a professed belief in LENR in general, constant references to Rossi’s supposed past, and dismissive phrases applied to actual events.

      This post seems to fit all of these criteria.

  • Sanjeev

    Just a nitpick on the use of the phrase “DC Current”. The C stands for current, so there is no need to add another current after DC.

    • Roger Bird

      Eventually someone would abbreviate DC current to DCC. And then some smart guy would call it DCC current, and along comes another smart guy and would abbreviate it to DCCC, and along comes another . . . you get the point:

      DCCCCCCCCCC current.

    • Steve R

      I couldn’t resist. Actually, “DC current” is correct — just as “DC voltage” is correct.

      In this use, “DC” is an adjectival phrase” (a group of words whose meaning has to be considered as a single unit) modifying the noun “current” (or “voltage”, as the case may be). It should be used just as we would use “large” or “surprising” or any other adjective to characterize a current or voltage.

      We do not use “direct” by itself to classify electric currents or voltages (unless we’re talking about pathways) – i.e, you’ll never see “direct voltage.”

      Of course, “DC” is sometimes used on its own as a noun phrase — as in “the house was wired for DC.” But there are many phrases and words in English with such dual roles.

      So yes, we may need to say “DC current” in any circumstance where we need to make clear we’re talking about a current rather than a voltage (or even to indicate we’re talking about electricity). And in those uses, it’s correct.

      The “attorney general” is not a general — and English can’t be logically assembled from single atomic words.

      • Sanjeev

        I find your perspective very funny for some reason. 😉

  • daniel maris

    An important correction which adds to the overall credibility of what was, clearly, a combined effort.

    I would add as before that if Rossi is/was a scammer he would have to be very, very certain of his ruse. It is difficult to think of any scammer who would be sanguine about introducing people from some top physics labs to study their dodgy device.

    So in the absence of contraindications, I think that is all very good news.

    • lenrdawn

      I would buy the “he would have to be very, very certain” part if he had given the e-cat away for testing in another lab and/or wouldn’t have restricted what tests and measurements could be performed. He still could have been there (or some of his assistants and a guard) to protect his IP inside the e-cat and let the researcher sign an NDA keeping them from publishing details about the secret waveform and whatever else he feels needs protection.

      • Zedshort

        You don’t need to know the inner workings or the waveform in order to perform an energy balance on the system. The purpose of the test was to show that substantially more energy came out of the system than went into the system and to show that the energy density of the system was so high that no conventional stored energy in the system prior to the start of the test could explain the output of energy.

    • Roger Bird

      You must understand that the more patho-skeptic a person is the weaker is their social sense. The idea that a large group of people from different language groups and walks of life might all conspire to con the world (very slowly, I might add) does not bother them. And all of the other social problems. For those of us who are more socially savvy, massive cons by disparate people doesn’t ring true. If even the Manhattan Project people couldn’t keep such a desperately important secret, it seems inconceivable to us that Rossi and everyone else could be conning us. If the testers were Rossi’s brother-in-law and son and cousin, well, yes, certainly perhaps. But Swedes and Greeks and Italians, the PhDs and business people and engineers and gun-toting guards and head scratching technicians, it just doesn’t compute for those of us who have social lives. But to patho-skeptics, they cling to certainty and consensus “science” and the social cues are meaningless.

      • Jordi Heguilor

        I’ve read many times the word “pathoskeptics”. How about “pathobelievers”, the people who believe EVERYTHING Rossy says?

        If ever Rossi gets arrested and convicted for fraud, regular believers will stop believing. Pathobelievers will blame the Great Conspiracy for the world never getting the E-cat… even though, according to Rossi, it’s already in production.

        • Roger Bird

          Jordi, you are absolutely right. Patho-believers are like hippies that believe in unicorns. They are less obnoxious, but just as wrong. A patho-believer does not follow the evidence; he/she dances around in the unicorn field believing in his/her wishes. A patho-skeptic is avoiding looking at the evidence and sits in gloom secure in the knowledge that there is no hope in the world. Someone who looks carefully at the evidence is either a skeptic or a believer, but not patho.

  • Joaquim Procopio

    Another source of criticisms of the third party report has come from the method employed to measure the radiant output. An easier and less prone to critics method would be calorimetry. If the apparatus cannot be immersed in water, it could be encased into an air compartment, thermally insulated. A known flow , F, of air enters the apparatus compartment at a temperature T1 and exits at a temperature T2. From the air flow and the temperature difference the thermal energy generated can be estimated using a variant of Fick`s Law.

    • wolfgang gaerber

      Measuring black body radiation is straight forward.
      There is no hassle using Plancks Law among scientists.
      Calorimetry is way more subject to potential errors then that.
      I still think that it was a good decision to do it that way.
      Generated heat is always a compound of radiation and convection.
      For high temperatures as 800 degrees the radiation compound is dominating – so its better to do it that way.
      For the “classic” e-cat with temperatures <200deg, calorimetry would be the favourite choice.

    • Sanjeev

      Water/air flow calorimetry is just another can of worms, with its own set of problems.

      Plus, the steel melting temperatures make it tricky. As many have agreed, if the COP is so big, black body radiation measurements are good enough. I’m sure, the testing team must have thought a lot about what method to choose. You can always write to them and ask for a justification for chosen method.

    • freethinker

      Measuring the emitted energy using thermographic equippment is nothing the 3rd party invented. My understanding is that it is commonly used as it is non-invasive and easy to apply.

      Granted. There are some things that have been ad-hoc’ed in the tests, but i would conject that it is a matter of a minor systematic error. If the method of thermographic calorimetry was error prowned, difficult to apply, giving data that would be a nightmare to interpret, then there would be no market for it.

      Granted. Good old fashion calorimetry as you have described would be best. But not really critical in concluding the fact that a substantial amount of excess energy was produced during the tests.

      • Roger Bird

        Remember that most people haven’t even accepted LENR, so even “substantial amount of excess energy”, if accepted, should blow their minds.

    • Zedshort

      The method used is calorimetry. As long as the energy added to the system and energy leaving the system is counted it is calorimetry.

    • Omega Z

      Regardless of what method of measurement is Used,
      They will question why another wasn’t used.

      They did exactly that when Rossi used water calorimetry.
      I believe I recall them asking why The current technic wasn’t used at that time.

  • Kimball

    Sorry if this is a bit off topic,
    But why is no one doing this?

    Sign the petition if you agree:

    Stand up and be counted,
    Number 32, and proud of it!


    • Zedshort

      Now that we know it is there we can sign it. Thanks for the heads-up.

    • Thinks4Self

      Thanks for the help! I wish we could convince the Admin to give it a link on one of his oh so precious sidebars for the next 22 days 🙂 hint, hint, nudge, nudge. I’ve been afraid to SPAM the forum with it too much. If we get 150 signatures it will appear on the White House website.

    • pachu on Xperia

      Remember that most of is are no Yankees!
      Seriously regular readers here seems to be from several countries.

      100% -> moderation posts

  • Alp

    Perhaps Essen would also care to explain exactly *how* he ruled out the use of direct current (or high frequency current) by Rossi when the clamp on ammeter sensors do not respond to either one?

    • daniel maris

      So Alp, how did the fiendishly omniscient Rossi know that they would not look for DC? Do you think he asked them? “Will you be looking for DC?” or perhaps he told them: ” You can’t search for DC” What do you think?

      • Robyn Wyrick

        You laugh, but Rossi is a mind controller with a power radiator plugged into his shoe, which vibrates supersonic energy into the E-Cat right under everybody’s nose. He has electrodes springing out of his head – haven’t you seen his hair?!!

        He’s a super genius of fakery, whose master stroke was to pipe standard, DC power through a plainly visible cable that the testers were testing for a couple hundred hours, certain that they could not find it.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Dennis M. Bushnell, NASA Chief Scientist, University of Missouri, Dr. Edmond Storms, Nobel laureate Brian Josephson are all part of Rossi’s grand scam. Give me a break!!!

          • Robyn Wyrick

            Sorry Bernie, I meant satire – and I meant such a ridiculous satire as to poke fun at the skeptics’ arguments.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Robyn Wyrick….yes I know, I was trying to reinforce your point (satire)

        • Shane D.

          So you see “electrodes coming from Ross’s head”?… Well I see a cheap hair plug job. Not to say they don’t look like electrodes.

          Hopefully with the billions he’s about to make he can do something about that. Some better style clothes wouldn’t be a bad idea either.

          • GreenWin

            So Shane, you’ve sunk to whining about the man’s hairdo and clothing. Proof positive the skeps are weak-kneed, on the ropes, awaiting the final blow. It’s coming.

          • Alex

            So… Was Einstein less brilliant because he looked much the same way that Rossi Does. A bit more exotic really.

          • Shane D.

            Oh come on you two, I was only having a little fun.

            Rossi dresses and looks the part of a genius scientist. Not as much so as Albert E., but not bad.

            Now, It would worry me if he had a full hair plug and an expensive wardrobe… Then he would appear to be a slick con artist.

            And GW; since when did I become a skeptic?

        • lenrdawn

          “He’s a super genius of fakery”

          He wouldn’t have to be. Look on youtube to find hundreds of really puzzling wiring experiments (like that cheese thing). So it doesn’t need a “super genius”, just a talented electrical engineer and your own lab.

          But what would be the alternative? Most LENR researchers never get any result at all. Some get a Watt or so. Main stream science says it is impossible. And now there is Rossi who claims kilowatts and megawatts. So IF that is true, THEN he is a “Super Genius”. Fooling a clamp on ammeter in your own lab doesn’t require anything like that.

          • AlainCo

            Most LENR researchers find results many sigma above the precision of their measurement…

            some are mW at more that 5 sigma, some are W at more that 5 sigma… some are hours with more 50sigma..

            those who believe ins science don’t care of the level, but of the sigma ratio… ask CERN LHC for detail.

            Anyway it is long time I’ve lost my illusion about scientific method, in “normal science”.

          • fortyniner

            Rossi doesn’t have to be a ‘super genius’ – and there are plenty of indications that he is not. But he does need to be inspired, intuitive, informed, dedicated, open-minded, incredibly persistent and very lucky – and there are plenty of indications that he is all these things.

            I sometimes wonder if even ‘skeptics’ such as yourself don’t feel a sense of grinding ennui each time you feel compelled trot out one of these tired insinuations. I know I do when read one.

  • Roger Bird

    Hanno, I question the ethics of anyone who would question your ethics for doing the tests. Such a person would have to be morally retarded to question your ethics about doing a test of cold fusion. If the E-Cat was a fraud, then your test might, should, would probably discover that. How can that be bad? If the E-Cat is for real, then everyone in the world benefits. Unfortunately that includes moral midgets like the jerk that questioned your ethics.

    • Gerrit

      “The pressure for conformity is enormous.”

      Julian Schwinger

      • fortyniner

        Schwinger is certainly in a position to know that.

  • Alex

    Form a National Commission to research LENR energy production from devices such as Andrea Rossi’s ECAT.

    Created: May 21, 2013
    Issues: Climate Change, Energy, Science and Space Policy

    I am number 49.

    • Alex

      Share it on Facebook, Tweet your friends. We the People…

    • Dana

      I was 51.

    • Bruce Fast

      No, please don’t. The government is the most bent bunch going. If they don’t want to find any results, they will find none. Hasn’t the DOE already studied and written off “cold fusion” even when there is clear evidence of success in the literature?

      • Gerrit

        Here you can read how the DOE panel was setup and what target they had from the start.

        Glenn T. Seaborg was asked to brief president George Bush (sr) on cold fusion.

        “What should I do? I decided to take my background as a nuclear scientist and really come to the sensible conclusion that this work was not right, that it was really cold. You couldn’t do it. So that’s what I told him at that time. I said, “You can’t just go out and say this is not valid. You’re going to have to create a high-level panel that will study it for six months, and then they’ll come out and tell you it’s not valid,” and that’s what he did. “

        • Gerrit

          (while my comment is still in moderation)

          Glenn T. Seaborg was asked to brief president George Bush (sr) on cold fusion.

          “What should I do? I decided to take my background as a nuclear scientist and really come to the sensible conclusion that this work was not right, that it was really cold. You couldn’t do it. So that’s what I told him at that time. I said, “You can’t just go out and say this is not valid. You’re going to have to create a high-level panel that will study it for six months, and then they’ll come out and tell you it’s not valid,” and that’s what he did. “

          • Gerrit

            (while 2 of my comments are still in moderation)

            person x told person y something.

            (i have tried to avoid mentioning anything that could trip the filter)

          • Gerrit

            Admin, if I would understand what trips the filter I could try to avoid it AND write interesting posts at the same time 🙂

          • fortyniner

            I’ve played that game for quite a while. I have concluded that the AI is simply capricious and fundamentally malicious, and has bad days on top of that.

      • b4FreeEnergy

        Exactly! Who again is hiding all those energy related patents for reasons of National Security?

    • Bruce Williams

      I am No 53 to sign The White House Petition. You need to enter your name , email address and your Zip code (Postal Code).Since I am living in France,I used a friend’s US zip………anything for a good cause!

    • georgehants

      Should we not be asking why scientists and their administration have not already Demanded that these people investigate the proven phenomenon.

  • Thinks4Self

    For the next test they need to bring a UPS system or an isolation transformer for the power. As well as their own test stand with isolated feet. Mount 6 thermal cameras like a cube twisted 45 degrees off of directly above the reactor so you don’t cook a camera. Add a complete faraday cage and there will not be anything to complain about.

    • Gerrit

      AND make a cup of tea.

      • Thinks4Self

        I would make it my source of heat for my tea if I was watching it for six months. Just a well placed bracket out of camera view and you’re set.

        • Roger Bird

          Why be out of camera view? Put it in camera view so that we can show that not-fusionist dude that cold-fusion can heat a cup of tea. (“not-fusionist” was a typo, but then I decided to leave it like it was. Much more descriptive that way.)

  • Stew

    It’s quite simple. There are two main points of critiscm. The source of electric power and measurement of output power. These can easily done better in the next test by using a generator and by proper calometry.

    • AlainCo

      the calorimetry was the one that patho-skeptics were demanding, and the new proposed was the one that was rejected and accused of hidden smoke and mirrors…

    • fortyniner

      The best point by point refutation of such criticisms (in this case by Peter Ekstrom) I’ve seen comes from a surprising source – Paul Story of ( Well worth reading.

      • GreenWin

        It is a strong refutation of all Ekstrom’s criticism. It does not fit with the Paul Story of old – so I doubt the authorship, but the refutation is commendable.

        There is no fraud. Never was.

  • b4FreeEnergy

    Yep mr. Rossi has nothing better to do with his life and time than setting up huge swindles and con the world for several years by now!

    Hiding a DC current inside the AC coming out of the wall beats it all … bwaaahahahhahaaha  – Maybe he prepared special wires hiding wires inside wires, shielded of course. Or maybe he is beaming in microwaves from the top of the building next door … or he has that special bunker right below the test-setup so that he can still reach the setup from underneath without anybody seeing him …

    Come on guys get over it, he has something and it is real! It’s not the first time someone came up with such a “free energy” device but it probably and hopefully will be the first time its pulled through suppression and he will survive his invention!

    • R101

      “he is beaming in microwaves from the top of the building”

      The thought of having a magnetron above it did cross my mind 🙂

    • Charles

      The microwave suggestion means that all future tests should be done in a “screen room”. A screen room is a room enclosed on all sides and top and bottom by screen such as you see on your screen door except the screening is made of copper of close mesh, a fine conductor as you know. Even the doors have conductors such as you see around your door to screen out cold air, and to keep in warm air. We used them to test for radiation emitted by the device and to protect the device from any externally generated interference, you know, we stopped it coming and going. This would totally clonk any radiation from a magnetron operating into wave guide, such as used in radar and microwave ovens to generate transmitted waves.

      In addition, to the screening, Rossi’s room should also have temperature insulation by at least a foot of fiberglass so no one can beam heat in on invisible infrared rays or ordinary room heaters thereby adding heat to the device by infrared radiation.

      Oh yeah, watch those waveforms with Tektronix Oscillosopes.

      • Christian Treczoks

        Weelll, regarding “Rossi’s room should also have temperature insulation by at least a foot of fiberglass so no one can beam heat in” – Just remember that the e-Cat is a heat-producing device. Heat that cannot pass into the room will also not get out of it. This might make working with the device and controlling the experiment a but uncomfortable, don’t you think?

      • b4FreeEnergy

        And what will we do about that bunker beneath? He could get in you know, wearing his stealth suit!

        Or wait … no …, with that stealth suit he doesn’t need a bunker, he can simply walk in via the door …

      • Jordi Heguilor

        Wouldn’t it be simpler to conduct the experiment NOT in Rossi’s room?

  • georgehants

    Mr Rossi seems to have had some success with Wiki-rubbish.
    Is it possible the reactions on this Website where noted and helped to make changes.
    Rather than just going round and round discussing the same things would it not be more useful to be asking why the scientific establishment, journals etc. etc. are not interviewing the professors etc. involved in Cold Fusion and getting their act together.
    Asking what is wrong with Science.
    We pay these people to know and act, not sit in ivory towers giving irrational “expert opinion” on subjects they clearly do not have a clue about.
    Maybe time to change things.
    Andrea Rossi
    May 28th, 2013 at 2:16 PM
    Dear Wiet van der Brink:
    This reaction of Wikipedia is correct, I appreciate it. Is a sign of honesty.
    Warm Regards,

  • graham bell

    Where has Peter Roe gone?

    • georgehants

      +1 hope he’s well.
      Edit, Just seen a 49’er below, welcome Peter.

    • fortyniner

      Alive and well thanks Graham, and just returned from a brief sojourn on my narrowboat (no comms as my phone is too ancient to access the internet). As georgehants says I’m now using a new (to this forum) tag as my old one was blocked by software for a while.

      The AI moderator has obviously identified me despite the name change, and many recent comments are in mod or deleted as spam!

    • Barry

      I just read an article “5 reasons why Peter Roe does not exist.”

      • fortyniner

        They are probably all correct. I am almost certainly a figment of my own imagination.

  • AB


    This may be of interest to some readers here. It could be evidence for naturally occurring LENRs in nature.

    • georgehants

      AB, good one, something Interesting and useful.

    • Bob Greenyer

      MFMP has been citing this as the “Easy” way to prove LENR for some time (over and above the far harder Mitsubishi/Toyota experiments).

      I met this affable man in Rome and at some point we want to run these experiments live – who wants to see rock being crushed??

      • robiD

        That’s interesting, do you have the link where the guys at MFMP talk about this?

    • Gerrit

      Last year the mainstream pressured Italian research minister Francesco Profumo into cancelling funding for Carpinteri’s research.

      • AB

        In large part due to a disinformation campaign which claimed that Carpinteri was asking for ridiculous amounts of money. So the signers of the petition to not fund the research were largely convinced that they were stopping unreasonable amounts of money being funneled into this research.

    • Roger Bird

      More proof that mainstream nuclear science has a limited perspective. I have seen this before. Very interesting.

      Could you spend the time to write a 3 sentence synopsis?

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Copied from Vortex by Mark Iverson:

    “There have been more than 60,000 papers published on high-temperature superconductive material since its discovery in 1986,” said Jak Chakhalian, professor of physics at the University of Arkansas. “Unfortunately, as of today we have *zero theoretical understanding* of the mechanism behind this enigmatic phenomenon. In my mind, the high-temperature superconductivity is the most important unsolved mystery of condensed matter physics.”

    After over 60000 published papers, way more than LENR, and as the expert himself says, “we have zero theoretical understanding of the mechanism.”

    sarcasm ON

    Obviously they don’t know how to make simple measurements, and must be engaged in a massive instance of self-delusion/group-think, or the grandest conspiracy to maintain their funding. Makes LENR look like small potatoes.

    sarcasm OFF

    • AB

      Sometimes I wonder if the conspiracy theories are true. Did the US government order the DoE to oppose cold fusion because it would have threatened the US petrocurrency dominance?

      Since the agreements of 1971 and 1973, OPEC oil is exclusively quoted in US dollars. This created a permanent demand for dollars on the international exchange markets.[2][3] As of 2005, OPEC continues to trade in US Dollars, but some OPEC members (such as Iran and Venezuela) have been pushing for a switch to the euro.

      Petrocurrency article on Wikipedia

      Note that other countries that wanted to switch from the dollar to another petrocurrency include Libya and Iraq. See what happens with countries that try to do so.

      • Gerrit

        do not attribute to conspiracy theories what can be explained by simple stupidity and self-overestimation

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Vacuum is a better approximation to government than a conspiracy.

      • eernie1

        It took Fermi 10 years to get a patent on his nuclear reactor.The reason from the office,”military secret status”.

  • evleer

    Rossi exposed?

    Since the standard model cannot explain LENR, it was obvious that Rossi must be a fraud. But how does he manage to fool capable scientist time and time again? Hidden wires? Using DC? No – the risk of detection would be too high. A hidden microwave or laser device heating up the E-Cat from a distance? Not likely.

    So it had to be something we skeptics have overlooked. But, thats how impostors operate, right? And today, the shocking possible truth hit me and I feel a strong urge to share it with you.

    Why won’t Rossi allow anyone to open the inner cylinder and look at the ‘fuel’? The answer is simple: there is no fuel. Nickel and hydrogen? A load of crap, obviously. No, what’s really hidden inside the cylinder are psychoactive components, that are released into the air when heated by the resistor coils, leaving all spectators in the surroundings of the E-Cat susceptible to suggestion.

    And here, my friends, is where the mysterious ‘industrial secret waveform generator’, supposedly to control the reaction, comes into play. In fact, it’s hidden purpose is to transmit brainwaves to the bystanders, planting delusions into their head, such as that they are measuring high output values when they are not, effectively turning them into believers.

    Here you have it. So, to all you serious scientists, stay away from this apparatus from hell! No one knows what the long-term effects of E-Cat exposure are, but looking at former skeptic Hanno Essen and his colleagues, indications are that the damage might be permanent.

    • khawk

      I believe the report reflects that an empty tube was inserted and the test was run in “dummy” mode. In fact, that appears to be an appropriate name for those who have not studied the test well enough to under stand that. This appears to now include you, whoever you are.

      • evleer

        I left out the smileys. Sorry if that has led you up the garden path.

        • khawk

          Glad that was the bent – it could have gone either way. Apology accepted – pls. accept my apology in return.

        • Chris I

          Gee, what smileys were necessary? They would only have trivialized the humour. Thumbs up.

      • Chris I

        No, khawk, your reasoning is trivially flawed:

        If the tube was empty during the dummy test, it did not contain the psychoactive stuff, so that’s obviously the reason why the comparison shows a striking difference. You studied the report through enough, but you didn’t think evleer’s point nearly as through.

    • Bento

      great! 🙂

    • Ivone Martin FitzGerald

      It’s a joke, people! On the pseudo sceptics.

    • Sanjeev

      Yes, I agree. Krivit is the living proof of the brain damage Ecat can cause. Finally, a real proof.

      • Karl

        A good one – and obviously not the only one!

  • Maks

    Interesting, is it possible that the main source of heat in the reactor is the synthesis of a proton and an electron (previously dissociated hydrogen atom) with the emission of a thermal photon. And key secret inovative technology is that input energy for dissociating hydrogen is less than the energy released from proton-electron synthesis (13 ev photon). Transmutation is result of rare events of proton become a neutron and B- decay,that is why there are coper and some x-ray photons 60-120 kev?
    Sorry if it sounds like BS. 🙂

  • georgehants

    Maybe we should stop worrying about understanding the theory of Cold Fusion to quickly.
    From Vortex
    On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Mark Iverson wrote:
    “There have been more than 60,000 papers published on high-temperature
    superconductive material since its discovery in 1986,” said Jak Chakhalian,
    professor of physics at the University of Arkansas. “Unfortunately, as of
    today we have **zero theoretical understanding** of the mechanism behind
    this enigmatic phenomenon. In my mind, the high-temperature
    superconductivity is the most important unsolved mystery of condensed
    matter physics.”****

    • georgehants

      Sorry Pekka, you must have been in moderation.

  • artefact

    physicstoday: renews attention to widely disparaged “low-energy nuclear reactions”

    • Gerrit

      Steven T. Corneliussen, a media analyst for the American Institute of Physics, monitors three national newspapers, the weeklies Nature and Science, and occasionally other publications. He has published op-eds in the Washington Post and other newspapers, has written for NASA’s history program, and is a science writer at a particle-accelerator laboratory.

      He lists all the negative news and notices that Forbes is not in line. Peer pressure ?

      • Gerrit

        today the moderation hates me

  • AB

    I’ve got a question for those who have been following this story since early 2011. Recently it was claimed that Krivit wanted to make a business deal with Rossi, and when Rossi refused, Krivit turned hostile. Does anyone know a source for this claim?

    • artefact

      I have not heared of a direct source for the business part.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I haven’t heard.

    • RenzoB

      never heard before

    • robiD

      never heard before too.
      In my *opinion* Krivit has ever been is in business with Lewis Larsen’s company (Lattice Energy LLC) even before he met Rossi.

    • Omega Z


      Don’t as for a link, it’s been to long ago.
      But I recall 2 sources, 1 I think was Jed Rothwell stated that Krivit wanted or expected a private demonstration (As in a Working Demo)of the E-cat. Words were exchanged & Krivit has been on Rossi ever since.

      Rumors? thou not collaborated is Krivit gets inside the inner circle of projects & uses this connection for credibility to attack CF/LENR. His M.O. His history lends credence to this. So effective that the Entire CF/LENR community threatened to ban him from any circles. Including personnel from NASA & others.

      Since this threat, he has focused mainly on Rossi & any who would give Rossi support.

      In the 1st conjecture, I give high probability as Krivit actually seemed to defend Rossi. He Pointed out facts such as being acquitted & providing links to the Military Report about the Thermal/Electrical converter that Rossi actually delivered on. The Report explained everything & why the project was shelved.

      So there’s no doubt to me, it all started with a falling out & Krivit allowed his personal feelings to cloud his reporting. All Krivit’s attacks on all in the field seem connected to 1 thing. All keep certain proprietary info secret & Krivit doesn’t like being excluded. Maybe looking for that ultimate Journalistic scoop.

      • Roger Bird

        How many people here like to be rejected? Raise your hands. Oh, no one. I knew that Krivit somehow had his feelings hurt and turned on Rossi. I thought that perhaps Rossi snapped at him, but this idea sounds more plausible. This is really childish of Krivit. If one is reporting something like this, one MUST put one’s personal feelings aside. At the very worst, Krivit could get his career ruined in a lawsuit. If I were Rossi, I most certainly would sue Krivit after the roll out and Rossi has more time.

        The other issue, of course, is the problem of trying to look one’s self eye-to-eye in the mirror while one is trying to shave. Lying, particularly at this level, is very bad business karmically and in the heart. Krivit is trying to harm a perfectly decent man because of Krivit’s own shortcomings; like hating and trying to harm people who turn away from you because you pick your nose.