Physics Today on Media Reaction to the 3rd Party Test

An article in Physics Today written by Steven T. Corneliussen, media analyst for the National Institute of Physics looks at the media response to the publication of the 3rd party E-Cat test and singles out as the only major media source showing a positive response. He mentions it is much easier to find criticism of the report, citing articles in MetroNews Canada, the Register, Popular Science, and New Energy Times as examples.

I find this all very interesting and sadly quite predictable. As we have discussed here many times, LENR is not going to spark the imagination of the public unless there is positive reporting of it in the media. I think most people don’t take things seriously unless people and institutions they trust tell them something is true — and this includes many writers for media sources. If the overall response among people with influence in the media is that the report is unfounded, then then many people will accept that and move on without investigating too much further.

I don’t think there is a middle ground with this report. If you are going to take a stand on the report you have two choices: The E-cat is either a powerful new source of energy, or the test was a complete fraud. I find no reason to suspect that fraud was involved, therefore my stance is that a new and highly important form of energy has been discovered, and this deserves attention for obvious reasons. This is the purpose of this site.

I have added a new page to E-Cat World to try and provide concise information about the 3rd party report for people who may be new to the topic. If you have any suggestions on how to improve it or corrections please let me know (comments are closed on the new page).

  • Bertuswonkel

    Good work on the new page! I would suggest adding some critique to the report and the responses given by the authors.

    • Thanks — good ideas.

      • Timar

        And please also include Pekkas brilliant comment regarding the emissivity issue.

    • AB

      Essén’s statement about DC should be included.

      Also a rebuttal to the claim that Levi is an old friend of Rossi:

      • Barry

        Good vid that shows where Levi is coming from. Thanks AB. Skeptic’s thin ice melting rapidly.

        • Jerry Jones

          Corneliussen, never spoke with Levi he would rather quote non-scientists clearly negative to cold fusion.

  • I sent a comment to the Physics Today piece. The system sent it to moderation, hopefully it will appear.

    • georgehants

      Pekka, has your comment been shown yet.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        yes, and others’ as well

  • David Kaiser

    Actually, the solution to this issue is quite simple. Clients are contacting Mr. Rossi for a possible purchase of a plant. Due to the magnitude of the purchase price, they will request their scientists to evaluate the situation on a working prototype. Either they are convinced that the prototype is working and therefore giving green light to purchase a plant from Mr. Rossi, or they are not convinced. EUR 1mio. is not a big amount and surely Mr. Rossi has been contacted by possible Investors to do so (as he already confirmed). It’s up to the investors then to confirm that the plant is working or not. Very simple. At the moment, we have no customer confirming that the asset bought is really working. Until then everything is speculation.

    • JohnM

      Indeed. And if Prof. Rossi doesn’t go along with such an offer, we are free to draw our conclusions.

    • Biggwilly

      It just doesn’t sit right!

      So someone can buy an un patented cold fusion device right now for 1.5 million? If I had the doh and was sure Rossi was for real I would buy it, patent it and then take all the credit for it.

      • David Kaiser

        Rossi sold already some 1MW plants to “secret” customers. I think through NDA’s they are bound to secrecy. However, my statement is still valid.

  • Timar

    Maybe it would be a good idea to include a link to that Physics Today article? 😉

    • David Kaiser
      • Timar


        • Nigel

          Here we go again…

          “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.”

          Ok, so Steven has written for NASA. The same NASA who supports W-L Theory. The same W-L theory who gets support from Steven Krivit? Steven Corneliussen then quotes Steven Krivit.

          The circle is complete.


          • GreenWin

            Nicely pictured Nigel. And it all is top down driven by the Physics Today publisher’s CEO.

          • psi

            The article is an impressive argument to the effect that science as is daily practiced in the hallowed halls where Corneliussen treads is simply a matter of multiplying a hypothesis by the number of people who already agree with it. This is how science, according to the esteemed journalist, functions. I especially love the part about him contacting a hot fusion lab for comment and they being “unfazed.” This is more handwriting on the wall. Rossi may be erratic but his critics are certifiable.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Pulling from earlier page, not everyone probably noticed it (original message by “Petter E”, not sure if he’s Ekström or some other Peter). The text is in Swedish, I try to translate it here manually:

    Peter Ekström recognizes errors,

    “Hello kirneH!

    It’s wonderful that you are helping us with your knowledge of IR cameras. As I say in my report, I’m not an expert (neither are the authors), and the section was meant to raise a question, not to say that it was absolutely in error. Because in such case the discussion would be over, wouldn’t it. If it had been described pedagogically and finely in the report then I might have understood. But now you can perhaps find it out for us.

    If one assumes a greybody radiator (little bit less restrictive assumption than a blackbody), it should be possible to determine the temperature by fitting a Planck curve and finding a maximum (Wien’s displacement law). Without other assumption about emissivity except that it does not depend on the wavelength. But this is apparently not used?

    I understand what you are saying that if one puts in emissivity below unity, then one obtains a higher temperature from the meter. According to Planck the radiating power then becomes higher. But one has to multiply it by the emissivity. Does it then give the true value of the power?

    My conclusion was that I don’t think IR camera measurements are the best method and I had talked about water flow/temperatures. About this you probably agree even if you have made IR cameras yourself (or perhaps just because of that). The problem is in fact the same than when Rossi cooked some water and we discussed how much steam he had. It’s always so fuzzy when Rossi is around.

    I still have one question:
    Can one actually just put in an IR camera and get the right temperature? Without some calibration?

    Thank you again for taking your time to educate us.

    Best regards, Peter”

    • Timar

      Like other skeptics, Ekström was wrong about the simple fact of how the emissivity affects the temperature readings of the camera. It astonishes me though, how an academic physicist like Ekström can publish such a harsh critique of their colleagues work without even bothering to get such a basic thing right. If reflects badly on him – on his capabilities as well as his intentions.

      Except for you, Joshua Cude and a few others, most people seem to be completely ignorant of how the measured temperature actually relates to the calculated power, considering the basically nullifying double role of the emissivity in the camera software as well as the Stefan-Boltzma-Equation. Ekström didn’t thought of that – so with regard to emissivity, just like Motl, he got everything wrong one can get wrong.

      If you follow the conversation in the Swedish forum, someone actually cites the definite conclusion Pekka has given here a while ago and Ekström and kirneH agree upon that. Now if everybody finally got that, we can go on to discuss more important things – especially as this was ever only of concern for the December test, which some people seem to (deliberately?) have forgotten.

      • AB

        However that he admits being wrong reflects positively on him.

        Since no valid technical criticism of this test remains standing at this time, I suppose maryyugo et. al. can now go back to discuss older topics such as steam dryness and suspicious coffee machines.

        • Timar

          >However that he admits being wrong reflects positively on him.


          I think your last point indeed has some relevance. It only adds to the many unfortunate ambiguities of this test that with Levi they chose someone, who accordingly to his publications specialized in coffee machines, whereas rational and authorative skeptics always demanded a cup of TEA as the definitve proove for excess heat. If they had choosen an expert in tea kettles instead, this could indeed have been the definitive report it was supposed to be, but an espresso falls just far short from the level of evidence such an extraordinary claim requires, which only a cup of darjeeling would have satisfied.

          • psi


        • fortyniner

          Actually the mary milstones are still intent on trashing the reputations of the scientists involved, using vague and completely unsubstantiated insinuations of incompetence and collusion. It seems to be all they have left.

          Anonymous blog posters of unknown background slandering qualified, named researchers, knowing they can avoid any comeback by hiding behind their anonymity – it leaves a rather bad taste in the mouth.

          • psi

            Yes, it does rather more suggest politics than science, doesn’t it?

      • Sanjeev

        Everybody forgets that they did calibrate the camera using “dots”, a material of known emissivity, provided by makers of the camera.

        Now for the next test, they should simply heat up a tube of known emissivity and temperature and capture it with camera. The calculated value of temperature should agree with the actual temperature and that will be enough to shut up wannabe physicists.

        • Timar

          Yes, that’s why that criticism would have been valid only for the December test by Levi and Foschi.

      • Torbjörn
  • GreenWin

    “I strongly believe that the US’s 60-year investment in this “holy grail of energy sources” [hot fusion] has allowed scientists to make tremendous progress, and they are positioned to take a major step forward.” H. Frederick Dylla, Executive Director and CEO, American Institute of Physics

    Yesterday we published the background on Discovery Communications Inc. DCI, and reasons why they would quash the Italian-Swedish verification of LENR. Today we point to one, single person whom we believe is responsible for retarding acceptance of LENR – Fred Dylla. Fred publishes Physics Today via his non-profit, The American Institute of Physics.

    “AIP is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit membership corporation created for the purpose of promoting the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics and its application to human welfare.”

    Dylla started his career at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, where he helped develop technology for nuclear fusion reactors. He then spent 17 years as Chief Technology Officer and as Associate Director of DOE’s Jefferson Lab in Newport News, Virginia, where he spearheaded the Free Electron Laser (FEL) naval weapons program.

    “The science behind nuclear fusion is well understood; it’s a fundamental principle in stellar dynamics and in thermonuclear weapons technology.” Fred Dylla

    Fred, the DOE, the people at PPPL, ITER, General Atomics, MIT Plasma, etc. all believe they fully understand nuclear fusion, atomic structure and stellar dynamics. To them, the Italian and Swedish scientists’ LENR verification puts their belief system to shame.

    Dylla wrote a long essay (in his own magazine) last year, extolling the virtues of hot fusion, likening its pursuit to the construction of “a Middle Ages cathedral.” Cathedrals took centuries to build. Cold fusion can be applied to human welfare today. It is only the misplaced ardor and, dare we say, arrogance of Mr. Fred Dylla et al, that prevents this.

    • georgehants

      GreenWin are you daring to suggest that the premier journals may be biased or something.
      O’dear now what will scientists read to find out the Truth, instead of just believing every fairytale put in front of them by their high priests, maybe they will actually have to do some Research on reports.
      Cold Fusion would be a good place for them to start.

      • GreenWin

        Yes George, especially the priests of this particular cult of HF. I am quite happy to see the media’s ordered ignorance of the Rossi-Focardi Effect. It confirms cognitive dissonance in the ivory towers. Their continued silence makes compelling evidence when the hearings and prosecutions begin.

        Remember what it cost the Boston Archdiocese to defend the misbehaved priests there?

        • Jim

          Interesting to consider the number of professionals and family members that have a vested interest in HF. There must be thousands of mortgages and tuitions on the line.

          For them, the day LENR is demonstrated to be commercially viable will be like the day the last Apollo capsule landed. Only NASA can actually claim credit for having gotten to the moon (or so some people believe…), whereas HF hasn’t (to my knowledge) even produced something as interesting as Tang.

          • GreenWin

            Jim, you are correct on the downside. However, isn’t it ironic that HF scientists insist they fully understand how fusion works – yet have been unable to deliver for 62 years?

            On the other hand we have hard evidence of a completely new, unidentified, nuclear-type reaction that will need clever, young minds to unravel and put to use.

            Little reason for those mortgages and tuitions to go unfunded – provided the physics community show some grace and humanitarian concern, by accepting LENR.

          • Jim

            I was probably being a little obscure. The mortgages and tuitions are part of what drives the “ignoring” of the mainline science community. Shifting those incomes to LENR will be like shifting from mainframes to PCs; some will make it, some won’t. Lots of fear involved, lots of fierce protection, lots of defensiveness, and finally, a wall of false pride in the story that HF is the holy grail, to hide a secret guilt. Imagine how you would feel if you knew how much money you were taking away from ALL other scientific lines of investigation, and all you could say is, “HF will be here…someday”.

          • Roger Bird

            Part of the issue with CF vs. HF is that big money impresses. It is the same in the health care field. Big and costly hospitals, medical schools, diplomas, equipment, studies, pharmaceutical companies, etc., etc., carry more weight than humbly taking responsibility for your own health, fish oil, paleo-indicated eating, self-study, exercise, herbs, etc. etc. HF is massively expensive with tons of special metal alloys and super-duper magnets and lasers. CF are these little pathetic tubes and cells smaller than a whiskey bottle. People don’t always think real clearly.

            Even those working in HF are going to be impressed by the superficial differences. How can turmeric be of any value when big pharmaceutical companies spend gazillions of dollars developing and testing ultra-non-natural drugs that are ***scientific***. It is almost as though those that eschew right brain thinking have their right brain (pictures, intuition, impressions) come back and bite them right in the attitude.

          • GreenWin

            Good comments Jim, and Roger. Perhaps one lesson learned here is human science should start looking for the Occam’s Razor in Big Science. Specific, simple solutions requiring little or no “hammering.”

            It will not always be found, but it must not be excluded.

    • Roger Bird

      Don’t forget his greed.

  • Sorry — forgot to include the link. It’s now added.

    • Timar

      Thanks! The article suggest that the positive article in Forbes could be explained by the magazines ideology but for me it seems rather evident that Gibbs has been brainwashed by the vortex collective.


      • Timar

        It seems like the moderation software lacks an irony detector…

  • CP in FL

    Does anyone know how long it will be before any commercial E-Cat products are sold where the customer is allowed to verify that the product is working? I am still not convinced that the E-Cat works as described and the latest test did nothing to quiet any skeptics. I want to believe that the E-Cat works but the longer it takes to get a product to market, the less confidence I have that the E-Cat is the real deal.

    • Sanjeev

      Product is already on the market.
      I’m not sure you’d buy this one for your pool.

      • Roger Bird

        I would like to see the flow chart of the flow. Does a lot of water come out at e-cat temperature, or does less water come out at a much higher temperature. In other words, does one e-cat reheat the hot water from another e-cat? Or what?

    • Kim

      So far every E-cat that has been sold
      falls into a communication black hole

      This lack of customer communication is
      the next landmark that needs to be

      Its top secret because the money is trying
      to figure out how to open the flood gates
      make quick money before the secrets get out
      and dilute the money flow…

      some my dispute this, but I know this is
      what is going on at this time.


      • Bernie Koppenhofer


      • atanguy

        Kim: Do you know the names of these customers or are you just guessing?

      • Jerry Jones

        Kim – is right on here > ” The money is trying
        to figure out how to open the flood gates
        make quick money before the secrets get out
        and dilute the money flow… “

        • Omega Z

          Actually Jerry & Kim

          There probably trying to figure out how to maintain the status qua. As in Who keeps or loses their money.

          The Game will stay the same, but some of the players may change. Consider it like football. Some old timers may be replaced by Rookies.

    • mcloki

      Why the goose chase convincing skeptics? There is no overarching need to help them out.

      Skeptics be skeptics, Haters be haters, Does Dragon X worry about people that say we didn’t land on the moon, no they just let the yokels stagnate in their ignorance. Nobody is losing money on this. Unlike Hot fusion which is costing billions. That is where the skeptics should target their venom. At least they would be working with facts attached to dollar amounts.

      • georgehants

        Nobody losing money maybe but many people losing their lives through lack of clean cheap water.

        • Mcloki

          Access to clean water is a political decision not a technological hurdle.

          • georgehants

            No sir, the delays caused by scientists unable to do their jobs because of bias, incompetence and corruption means that politicians are advised by the same people today that debunked and denied P&F.
            Every life lost by unwarranted delay in Cold Fusion Research is the responsibility of Science

          • Jim

            I’d say it’s half and half.

            Cheaper energy would accelerate access to clean water. However, without political will it will still take much longer than necessary. And it could largely be accomplished for most people with the right political will and no new technology.

            Changing political will, on the other hand, may be harder than developing the new technology.

          • georgehants

            Until the science administration is standing up and advising politicians that it is necessary and legitimate to invest in Cold Fusion research, one can only I think blame them, or are you suggesting that politicians start doing the work of Science.
            You may be right they could hardly do any worse.

    • freethinker

      ” I am still not convinced that the E-Cat works as described and the latest test did nothing to quiet any skeptics.”

      In what way would not ECAT work as described? You get out far more energy than you put in. The report clearly show that. Or it does not work, and all scientists involved testing it are in cahoots with Rossi and his team in the scam.

      What does “did nothing to quiet” mean? Are you sure that no fence sitters have accepted the new level of evidence? I would say the paper have made more people accept, or being more favourable to the idea that, the ECAT is real.

      The laud-mouthed paid pipers and the patho-sceptics have always cried “faul” (as did I when the level of public evidence was low, 2 years ago), and will continue to do so until the end of their days, or for those paid when there is no more money coming for shrilling publicly on this subject.

      I you haven’t I suggest you read the report. Really.

      • fortyniner

        We seem to have more than our usual quota of new-ID ‘skeptics’ these days. That alone confirms the significance of the 3rd party report.

    • Stephen G.

      I think there is something that many people are overlooking. LENR will have enormous and widespread economic repercussions. There are large companies which stand to lose heavily, there are even countries whose economies will be more or less ruined – if the E-Cat works. Once it is common knowledge that there is a new technology that can produce very large amounts of energy cheaply and cleanly, the value of investments in petroleum and other fossil fuels will fall dramatically. There are already companies which are trying to sell some of their gas- and petroleum-related assets – they will not get much for them if everyone believes that Rossi’s technolgy really works. Therefore, it is very much in the interests of a lot of people (and a lot of rich people) to rubbish LENR and the E-Cat. The truth will probably come out sooner or later, but for some, later will be very much better than sooner.

      Personally, I think that there is no longer any doubt at all that there is a real phenomenon underlying “cold fusion”, or LENR, or whatever anyone wants to call it. Pons and Fleischmann were right, all those years ago. The physics of what is happening may not be understood yet, but that does NOT mean that the phenomenon isn’t real.

      As for Rossi and the E-Cat – personally, I am inclined to think that there is no scam, that Rossi has a technology that works. He does not understand fully HOW it works, but, again, that does not mean that it doesn’t work. He has already sold at least two of his 1MW plants to customers, who must know, or will very shortly know, that they work. Rossi may get annoyed by the sceptics and their criticisms, but he surely doesn’t care too much, because he knows that the E-Cats work, and he is starting to sell some of them, so that, very soon, the truth must surely become widely known. I think there has been far too much discussion and speculation, much of it showing a severe lack of patience, and some of it possibly motivated by ulterior motives. Wait and see – if it works, we shall all know within the next couple of years. If not, it will sink without trace.

      What is really important, though, is that those with vested interests in rubbishing “cold fusion” (or LENR, etc.) should not be allowed to get away with further delaying the development of a technology that the world really needs. Hot fusion has failed to produce any worthwhile result, after decades of research and huge amounts of funding. Fossil fuels are environmentally damaging and will run out, sooner or later. It’s time to move on.

      • Bruce Williams

        An excellent comment !

      • atanguy

        You forget what maybe the most important: Since the technology is safe -No radiations and no dangerous waste- and seems relatively compact. This open a future where individuals will have and control the source of their own energy, and that my friend will change completely our society.

      • fortyniner

        It seems likely that alongside the losers at the corporate level there are a number of potential winners who would like to exploit the technology. However, as most large corporations are ultimately owned by banks and other global financial concerns, the reaction of TPTB (money elite with NWO agenda) is likely to be strategic, i.e. with no regard to the interests of individual businesses, which will be overruled.

        As Rossi has been allowed to proceed with development of the e-cat, although in all likelihood only along certain (military/industrial) lines, it looks as if the decision to incorporate LENR into the energy ‘mix’ has already been taken at the level of global ‘shadow’ government. This presumably means that the profit/power calculations of TPTB indicate a net increase in profits and agreement on plans for containment within a monopoly.

        • fortyniner

          Correction: For “and agreement on plans for containment within a monopoly” please read, “and that agreement on plans for containment within a monopoly has been reached.”

    • GreenWin

      CP in FL is commonly known as a “concerntro11” – a Pthscep who feigns ignorance but introduces “genuine” uncertainty. We can expect more of these type comments as apparently Pthscep HQ has issued orders to that end. Uncertainty is a tactic deployed by psyops as part of their overall Deny Defend Delay disinfo programs.

      • CP in FL

        I think your tinfoil hat may be too tight. I am just wondering how many years it will be before we see the E-Cat sold to satisfied customers that will go public. According to Rossi, by now there are supposed to be robotic factories making E-Cats for sale to the general public. Where are these factories? Rossi is the one who raised expectations with all of his announcements, very few of which have come true. If the E-Cat works as Rossi says, why aren’t there more companies buying them?

        • GreenWin

          Realize it’s hard for psyops to stay on topic CP – it’s a disability to focus. Why not write to Rossi’s company for your answers? That would save us here from your inanity.

        • Jim

          @CP in FL

          If there is a connection between your incredulous questions and the credibility of the e-Cat, why isn’t is spelled out? If your incredulous questions have any value, why aren’t there dozens of answers to them? If you really have an agenda other than to post incredulous questions, why have’t we seen praise for it?

          • CP in FL

            Jimbo, I think it is obvious by the lack of customers for the E-Cat that people with physics knowledge far greater than me are not convinced that the E-Cat is a viable technology. If the E-Cat works as advertised, I would think that you would see a rush to purchase this technology. Do you know of any companies currently using an E-Cat? I didn’t think so.

          • GreenWin

            CP, “people with physics knowledge far greater than mine” were convinced the Alcator C-Mod at MIT would help deliver clean, unlimited fusion energy. But it didn’t. It just took $$ millions taxpayer dollars to keep 70 physicists, technicians, engineers, and support staff employed. It delivered nothing.

            Which is why the project has been terminated.

          • Roger Bird

            There is still the credibility gap, which is huge. And remember, oh, please keep in mind, that doing a paradigm shift has little to nothing to do with one’s IQ or one’s expertise in an established science. So people are looking to established physicists for answers, and the only answers that established physicists have are wrong. Because it is not about being able to solve advanced calculus in one’s head. It is about a paradigm shift, and only certain people have the nimbleness and flexibility of mind and good luck to be able to shift paradigms. And those people do not necessarily have impressive credentials.

          • NJT

            Ya hit the nail Roger, +1

          • AlainCo

            If you read Norbert Alter, Nassim Nicholas Taleb…
            The innovators are typically people with double culture, or at least from the tinkerer/garage culture.

            It is surprisingly true to discover that recent breakthrough get pushed (often without thanks) by half-blood alien, and practitioners.

            History is then rewritten, and when the paternity is not stolen, their CV is rewritten to be more academic and theoretical.

            Note that according to Kuhn, fact won’t be accepted until there is a new paradigm build, this mean some theoretical corpus plus some assumption, vision, methods…

            Note also that what a community like physicist seems as an unacceptable anomaly, may be absolutely benign to accept by another. Defkalion accepted LENR, like I did, because we are not physicist but engineers.
            Some engineer know QM as well as physicists, but they intimate relationship with theory are different.

  • AB

    News about a LENR seminar at Sapienza university in Rome on 5. June.

    The event is divided into two parts. The first part is titled “Conference on low energy nuclear reactions” with the following program:

    From LEDA to Constantan by Massimo Scalia, CIRPS.

    Low energy nuclear transmutations (LENT) from “smart” materials by Yogendra Srivastava, Physics Professor, Physics Department & INFN, University of Perugia, IT.

    LENR experimentation: the basic questions by Sergio Bartalucci, Staff Scientist LNF-INFN, Research Division.

    Anomalous heat effects in thin Constantan wires and hydrogen interactions by Francesco Celani, 1° Researcher INFN-LNF, Vice-Pres. of Int. Soc. Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, England.

    Anomalies in experiments with transition metals in hydrogen atmospere by Ubaldo Mastromatteo, fellow, STMicroelectronics, R&D Non Conventional Technologies.

    Weak Interaction Neutron Production Rates in Fully Ionized Plasmas by Allan Widom, Professor of Physics, Physics Department, Northeastern University, Boston.

    Concluding remarks by Vincenzo Valenzi, Center for Biometeorology, IT.

    The program for the second part, titled “The Fleishmann-Pons effect: 24 years of Research”:

    Status of Research on Anomalous Heat at SKINR by G. Hubler, Dept. of Physics, SKINR University of Missouri, USA.

    Anomalous Effects in Deuterium-Palladium Electrolysis and Gas Systems under near ambient conditions by M. McKubre, SRI International, Stanford, USA.

    Material Science for Understanding the Fleishmann-Pons Effec by V. Violante, ENEA, Frascati, IT.

    • AB

      Celani will also comment on the recent e-cat test.

      @admin, my previous post is stuck in auto moderation it seems.

    • Alp

      It’s a pity that this meeting will not include live demonstrations by Rossi and Defkalion. That would be a lot of fun.

    • Gerrit

      La Sapienza.

      Last year a LENR seminar got cancelled at the very last minute:

      “Just within the last couple of weeks there was a cancellation of a presentation by Celani and Srivastava at La Sapienza University in Rome. The cancellation was abrupt and by the edict of the head of the Department of Physics at this University. No plausible explanation was ever given for this abrupt cancellation.”

      It seems this time the head of the department couldn’t stop it from happening. Nevertheless, he was able to stiffle scientific discourse at his university for a year.

      • fortyniner

        The current director of the Department of Physics is Prof. Egidio Longo. He appears to have been in the position for some time. One more for the list of names who may need to answer for their actions.

      • Roger Bird

        It didn’t stifle much. People can still communicate in the halls and on the Internet.

  • Omega Z

    Here is My Question-

    I Said, “How would we know if some Energy Conglomerate hasn’t already sent a dozen or so Scientists to test Rossi’s E-cat.”

    And I Said, “How would we know if said Conglomerate hasn’t already diffused said Information to a dozen additional experts to Study that Data in their own Research Departments.”

    And I Said, “How would we know if said Conglomerate hasn’t already proposed an additional, More in depth 6 month longevity test of the E-cat.”

    So In Conclusion, “Is there any information out there that we may have overlooked that may indicate this may be the case. Anything- Any such kind of preliminary report published that would indicate this?”

    And if So, “Have they Officially acknowledged any such test they may have funded?”

    • freethinker


    • Woo


  • BillyGiuseppe Rosencrantz

    A couple of nights ago I asked Rossi if he and his partner still planned to mass produce in Florida. By the following morning, my post had vaporized.

    • AB

      Hello Maryyugo.

    • GreenWin

      Vaporized like NIF ignition??

    • Alp

      Forget who wrote it. What’s wrong with the question? A million unit robotic factory being built should leave some traces, should it not? Help wanted ads maybe? Interviews? Permits?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        A million unit home E-cat factory is less dramatic than it sounds. Million units per year means two E-cats per minute and about 1-2 truckloads of finished E-cats driving out from the factory gate per day. Given that the E-cat is not much more complicated than a coffee machine (a steel tube, electronics box, some pipes, valves and resistive heaters), such factory would fit in one industry hall, especially since some parts are made by subcontractors as Rossi has said.

        • Barry

          Pekka thanks for all of your comments. I appreciated the one you wrote in the Physics Today article as well.

  • Roger Bird

    If doing a dummy test run along side of a real test run is easy to do, why wouldn’t doing a calorimetry test along side the heat-gun test also be do-able. The “summer” test could be three E-Cats. One with no charge. One using the heat-gun-measuring thingie like in tests 2 and 3, and one using calorimetry in the water. Why is this not do-able? It would also be an excellent test of the test. And it could provide productive activity for a bunch of geniuses who are going to be bored to tears for 6 months.

    • Alp

      Liquid calorimetry of the hot cat seems like a good idea, Roger, but theorists claim, in the Vortex email list, that such a test could quench the reaction and prevent a proper run.

      I have two alternative suggestions. First, why not retest an earlier, cooler, easier to handle ecat? Somehow Rossi has avoided doing that. It would involve a dummy run, (using only the electrical heater as an energy source to show that the output heat is properly accounted for) and it would measure heat either by envelope calorimetry or by steam collection and condensation (sparging). This has been asked many times of Rossi and each time he has refused. Rossi never did dummy runs on the cooler ecats using the excuse that he knew what the results would be in advance (!).

      The other simple way to prove that the ecat works properly is for Rossi to reveal just one client with a megawatt plant who is willing to have it tested by a nationally well known laboratory and who can show it to the press. That would also settle this issue.

      Repeating the same test that was just done on the hot cat but running for six months will only raise more questions. Who will watch it for that long? Will it involve Rossi’s lab and his associates again? How will they make, log and evaluate the measurements? It’s a very difficult logistical problem!

      • Andrew Macleod

        They have already stated that there will be a security camera watching for trickery. I could care less what the sceptics think, they asked for a 3rd party test got it, and still are wearing their horseblinders. No matter the test someone some where will have a way Rossi could have fooled the testers. Their main point now is “Rossi didn’t disclose the fuel”….. All these people want is to know how the device works, not if it works.

        • Alp

          Their main point isn’t “Rossi didn’t disclose the fuel.” Their main point is, the test was done in Rossi’s facilities, using his power sources, and a friend of his (Levi) furnished the instruments and devised the measurement methods. The other point is that the dummy test, an excellent idea, wasn’t carried out like the actual experiments so it has less value than would seem. But the main issue is whether or not this is truly an independent test in which every precaution has been made to avoid deception. The critics say this is not the case. Obviously, the believers disagree.

          • Omega Z

            The Point is of who ever posts. Many are upset because Rossi wont divulge the secret. Doesn’t matter, as few have the where with all to do anything with it any way.

            As to the Dummy, It was set up Identical except for the removed charge & Test Run.

            They then changed it & hooked it up direct bypassing the thermostat. The Only difference.

            Clarity in the report as to why would have been nice as would a Temp Chart of this run.

            Speculating on my part- is that it produced no excess heat in the exact configuration & they wanted to see the heat measurements if it ran continuous without the inline thermostat cycling.

            They did say it produced no excess heat. But Details in clarity would be nice For Us.

            But then this test was not for us or our benefit. It was for the Entities financing the tests. They would have ALL the Data, Not just a 29 page snap shot. They would have the Video of the full 100 plus hours & all the other data logged by the computers along with more specific details from the Testers. Plus the Personal contact with them.

            And the scenario I’ve speculated above would provide a lot of info with just a single Temp Chart & a paragraph along with it. That in itself would pretty much have ruled out the DC power scheme.

          • Roger Bird

            We believe probably because large numbers of people from different countries and walks-of-life can’t all be in on a scam.

      • fortyniner

        “such a test (liquid calorimetry) could quench the reaction and prevent a proper run.”

        Yes, I’ve raised the same point in earlier comments. I’m reluctant to join the ranks of those suggesting better ways to carry out calorimetry, but here goes anyway…

        There is a way around this potential problem. A coil of thin copper tube could be wound around the hot cat, mounted vertically, to form a heat exchanger. Insulation would then enclose the whole assembly to maximise heat retention other than that carried away by water flow in the copper tube.

        Flow rate from the bottom could be adjusted from zero upward to a point where the reaction begins to show signs of distress, then backed off a little. Over a period the temp. and volume of water pumped, and the temp. of exiting hot water could be measured, these data being used to calculate heat production.

        Alternatively the water could be circulated through an insulated tank to measure total heat produced over a period, or flow rate could be adjusted to produce dry steam only from the tube, and the volume of water vapourised would then form the basis of calculation.

  • georgehants

    This guy is “director of the Institute of Thermal Physics of Extreme States,” so he should know all about Cold Fusion.
    RIA Novosti
    Russia Elects New Science Chief
    MOSCOW, May 29 (RIA Novosti) – Vladimir Fortov, a prominent Russian physicist, was elected on Wednesday as the new head of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS).
    Fortov, director of the Institute of Thermal Physics of Extreme States, received 766 out of 1,313 votes in a secret ballot at the general meeting of academy members in Moscow. He needed 658 votes to be elected.
    The runners-up – RAS members Zhores Alfyorov and Alexander Nekipelov – received 345 and 143 votes, respectively.
    Fortov was favored to win the vote, with his candidacy supported by the RAS presidium and the majority of the RAS branches. He must now be approved for the job by President Vladimir Putin. If Putin refuses, a new election should be held within six months.

    • Wes

      The real voting was done prior to the public voting. The Winner and losers were “pre-approved” by Putin.

      • Ted-X

        There is a difference between elections (where there is something to chose) and voting (just putting the votes into the black box). It was voting in this case (as in almost all other cases there). Historical continuity.

  • CP in FL

    From “… Nickel and Hydrogen merge to produce Copper.” I thought Rossi said that some other mechanism was responsible for the heat production. The fusion of Nickel and Hydrogen to form Copper is not even possible for our sun. This reaction is only possible for stars much larger than our sun late in their life cycle. Also, I believe Gamma Rays would be produced by this reaction. I will remain skeptical until this reaction can be reproduced by reputable scientists or there are many satisfied customers showing off their working E-Cats.

    • GreenWin

      CP, I have labelled you a “concerntro11” for good reason. Your attribution of the quote to is intentionally false. The statement is made at the Hydro Fusion North European Licensee web site which is not operated or authored by Rossi. It is incorrect. However, transmutations are found in LENR experiments and confirmed by Mitsubishi Heavy and Osaka University. The following may help educate you:

      • CP in FL

        The quote is from this page:
        So I guess I was not being intentionally false. You sound like a person that will believe anything with minimal evidence. Rossi has made claims for years about the E-Cat. Most of these claims have proven untrue.

        • Timar

          His most crucial claims*, however, have always turned out to be true. Remember how Rossi wrote that he obtained a safety certificate, Gary Wright accused Rossi of having made that up, and Rossi responded by releasing that very certificate. And don’t forget: the same skeptics who are now busy bashing the report once swore blind that there would never be such a report. One could ask himself whether their recent hyperactivity results from the wish to live down that misjudgment.

          *That is, those claims relating to what he actually accomplished rather than those claims regarding the obviously overambitious plans he had for the large-scale production of E-Cat devices.

          • GreenWin

            Commenter DSM claims Mr.Wright (of Shuttup Rossi!) is under investigation for fraud and extortion. Unsurprising.

        • GreenWin

          Yeah, the brain trust at Atomic Energy Commission put $8 billion taxpayer dollars into PPPL starting in 1951 and promised “in twenty years we’ll have clean, unlimited fusion energy.”

          Where was it in 1971?? Seems like the entire science community, Congress and guv’ment contractors would believe anything with minimal evidence. They bamboozled $$billions more from taxpayers and again promised, “Clean, unlimited fusion energy in twenty years.”

          Needless to say in 1991 the pattern of promises (lies according to Dr. Bob Bussard Asst Director AEC) repeated for another round with the same broken promise of “Clean, unlimited fusion energy.” Well. WHERE IS IT?? It’s 62 years later and our science gurus have taken $100 billion tax dollars and delivered only the September 2012 failure at NIF. F A I L.

          Rossi planned on a robotic assembly line to build a 10kW home water heater. When it became clear that domestic safety certification would delay the schedule, those assembly plans were put on hold.

          If you only have a problem with this “promise” from Rossi and none from the white collar welfare program that’s bamboozled $100 Billion from American taxpayers… you need a checkup from the neckup CP.

    • Invient

      The false equivalence to hot fusion is getting old, no one claims that the reaction involves the strong force… All your analogies with stars make this assumption, and therefore are useless.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        The assertion “strong force=hot fusion, weak force=LENR” is Krivit/WLT/NASA rhetoric, or should I say propaganda. As far as I know there is no experimental or serious theoretical basis supporting such claim. There is nothing a priori incompatible between the strong force and LENR, and even in the realm of hot fusion the strong force is capable of producing radiation-free reactions in certain cases (examples: p+B11->3He4, p+Li7->2He4) while the weak force is usually associated with radioactivity.

        An equivalence between cold and hot fusion might exist (i.e., cold fusion might conceivably be explained by a binary radiation-free reaction such as one of the above), but such explanation path is only one possibility among many and to my understanding not the primary one that most working LENR researchers are actively studying.

        To test whether the weak interaction is involved or not, one should measure experimentally what is the net reaction (which nuclei turn to which). Then one counts protons and neutrons before and after the reaction. If the counts show that protons have transformed to neutrons or vice versa, then the weak interaction must be playing some role (not necessarily a primary role, but some role). If not, then the role of the weak interaction is ruled out. Experimentally this task is not easy, but perhaps not impossible in a 6 month long run of the E-cat.

        I agree with your post in other respects except the subsentence about the strong force.

    • Green

      “The fusion of Nickel and Hydrogen to form Copper is not even possible for our sun. This reaction is only possible for stars much larger than our sun late in their life cycle. ”

      It is possible to transmute bismuth into the gold. Glenn T. Seaborg did it in 1980 (

      So why do you say that it’s impossible to transmute nickiel into copper ??

      • CP in FL

        I said that it was not possible for our sun to fuse Nickel and Hydrogen to form Copper. I did not say that it was impossible.

        • Barry

          Sorry CP, you’re backpeddling, you said “The fusion of Nickel and Hydrogen to form Copper is not even possible for our sun. This reaction is only possible for stars much larger than our sun late in their life cycle.” The Alchemist dream of transmutation is a scientific reality now. Scratch another one off the “can’t be possible list.”

          • Barry

            ps CP sorry to rub salt into the wound but you may want to check out the Rome Conf. below on June 5th. -Low energy nuclear transmutations (LENT) from “smart” materials by Yogendra Srivastava, Physics Professor, Physics Department & INFN, University of Perugia, IT.

    • Andrew Macleod

      You don’t know what you don’t know. It’s funny that these theories are spoken about as fact. Has anyone ever directly observed the interior of a star to see what’s happening? Our current understanding of physics and the universe are all in relation to how things(we think) work here on earth. The “laws” may change depending on where you are.

      • Roger Bird

        When faced with an Earth shaking paradigm shift, a lot of things get questioned. I doubt that there has ever been a paradigm shift as big as this in the history of science. Please correct me if I am wrong.

        • John De Herrera

          Yes Roger Bird. The third party test report shows a large amount of heat released – that indicates a ‘paradigm shift’ is coming! jdh

  • Redford

    I think you’re missing a step here, Franck. Before media can give this consideration, they need a peer review publication of the article.

    Then, and only then, may they embrace it. Maybe they won’t. But they have every right to expect such a review to happen. I don’t get why you’re not covering this key question? Is it of no importance to you ?

    • georgehants

      As peer review has been clearly show in many cases to be fraught with bias and incompetence it is clearly of no use in Science.
      We have here open-science and unfortunately as with P&F the agenda motivated “opinion experts” are happy to slander and deny the guys actually doing the experiments rather than trust until their work is shown clearly with more Evidence and Research to be in error.
      Science has become a joke.

      • Woo

        and a pretty bad one.

      • HHiram

        “Science has become a joke,” he says, posting to the Internet (created by science) on a computer (created by science) …

        • georgehants

          HHiram, now that sounds like the logic of a very highly qualified scientist.
          Because a clever good scientist invented the Web and computers then all of science including Cold Fusion, Global warming and a hundred other incompetent areas must be good.

          • Roger Bird

            I didn’t know that Al Gore was a scientist.

          • fortyniner

            He just plays one on television.

        • Gerrit

          If science hadn’t been a joke we wouldn’t be posting to the internet anymore and we wouldn’t need a computer anymore. We would deposit our dismay directly into your brain and you wouldn’t be reading it, you would be feeling it.

      • Redford

        George, you may have missed my point here. The topic is about big press and at what they may cover the story. I am just saying, the way scientific journalist work, they’ll immediately check the availability of peer review. Without one, it will just go in the pile “another idiot claim to have discorvered an energetic miracle” and go back to astonomic or genetical bread & butter news.

        Myself, I don’t value it too much because I can hardly see what a peer review could do to really improve the strenght of the study. But it’s not relevant toward the question.

        • fortyniner

          As many (including Rossi) have said, such opinions might change when a working LENR boiler is offered for sale, regardless of whether or not it is supported by a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal.

    • GreenWin

      The initial press furor at University Utah in 1989 preceded the publication of the P&F paper in Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. Perhaps some press is still gun-shy. But the petulant bias against Rossi and LENR is due to orders from the ivory tower.

      Point is, media does not matter to industry. The Edison Electric Inst. has warned utilities of irrepressible, disruptive Distributed Energy Resources. Academics cannot stop the commercialization of this economic giant. Peer review and press are powerless.

    • Andrew Macleod

      The MAIN problem with peer review is that it requires a willingness on the other end to review. There is little reward for a peer reviewer but in the case of “cold fusion” there is great risk.

      • HHiram

        Reviewers are anonymous.

        Really, the ignorance about the scientific and peer-review processes among the regular posters here is very disturbing.

        • Roger Bird

          Don’t be disturbed, HHiram, it’s not good for your blood pressure. Rather inform us.

          But don’t forget to include the FACT that sometimes papers get rejected because they say things that aren’t within the box of the dominant paradigm, EVEN when the reviewers acknowledge that the paper is perfectly scientific in the fundamental sense. Halton Arp comes to mind. There are many others. Halton did not believe in the Big Bang and tried to publish papers that presented evidence and ideas saying as much. Even though he was and is a big shot astronomer, he had to move to Europe to practice his art.

          • Ted-X

            Historically, the first peer review happened to Galileo. Peer reviews should not be considered a way to evaluate a ground-breaking experiments, processes or theories. Pure logic.

          • Sanjeev

            Rossi has no peers in his field, as he is the first, a pioneer (if you consider the use of a catalyst to produce KWs of heat).

            But still, the validation/testing process can be easily peer reviewed. Which is what everyone is demanding. Its just simple measurements and stuff.

          • zvidenyosef

            Pons & fleischmann were the pioneers.

        • Redford

          The reviewer are most often, but not always, anonymous. But that’s not relevant because the editor board is not. And without their will to send your article to reviewer, peer review wont happen. Now if you think getting published in Nature is as simple as sending them an article good enough, you’re the ignorant one here. There are obviously a ton of other factors, cold fusion being known as a negative one, for instance.

  • Kommisar

    The US Patent Office assignment records do not reflect Rossi’s assignment to the company that allegedly now owns the E-Cat technology.

    Also, and more importantly, Rossi’s applicant status is “small” in the PTO records. Assuming that the new company is not a “small entity” under US law – which I don’t see how it could be – then a change in entity status MUST be filed with the Patent Office, else the patent could be at risk.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Why would you think Rossi would share his patent rights with his new partner?

    • Morgan

      this is what is bothering me. there has to be some connection to whatever this alleged company is that is public. there must be a way to check public record or something and see who rossi is working for? unless it’s some top secret military program I guess…

    • Zero

      Please post this on rossi blog so we can see his response. I wonder what he will say.

      • Kommisar

        Which blog is that?

        Rossi may be reluctant to respond because it furthers discovering the identity of his new partner. Nonetheless, to protect his patent rights, he must retract his status as small entity, and I assume that the partner would want to record the assignment of patent rights at the Patent Office.

  • Stefan


    For a rational observer of this entertaining saga, one will probably start from the knowledge of ‘can this really be physically possible’. If you believe that the ECat is physically almost impossible and combine that with the fact that the assumption of a scam is unlikely, the observers conclusion consciously or unconsciously would be that of a likely scam. Now, I believe that this is the main logical process that explain the harsh critique.

    After following the LENR field combined with my physical intuition I assess the physical feasibility as only unlikely on par with the unlikeliness of a scam.

    I do not think that we will get much further in discussing the tests, I’m sure the authors will try to address most of the issues brought up.
    We have found that they are not incompetent, that the method of calormetry is good enough and we can probably rest assure that the 6 month test will try to address most issues that have been under the flashlight.

    What is missing of the assessment of the test is why one can take the stand to assume that the physics not a miracle. Here is my 2c.

    1. The Coulomb barrier is a really tough guard of the energy of the nucleous, but from my understanding one can note (or I am wrong, please correct me, I want to mainly start a discussion)

    i) Physical System has a tendency to equalize energy variations, so there is a physical principle that will try it’s best to release the confined energy.

    ii) Hydrogen loaded solids seams to pack the lattice and get the atoms closer that what can normally found in chemical compounds where mainly the valence electrons are behaving different. Here one can expect that a ‘larger’ part of the atom will participate in the global overall system than normally seen.

    iii) A very common phenomena throughout the physics landscape that have explained many spectacular phenomena is Resonant behavior. You could if you put a physical system in a certain state get it to behave vastly different than what you normally have due to this effect e.g. you have to search, sometimes hard, to find such phenomena.

    iv) Quantum mechanical system leak! You may have a potential barrier but still the energy can leak through. Now people have evaluated this phenomena before in simple systems and found that the Coulomb barrier still holds. My point is that this should not be taken isolated in view of the above, one could imagined that the overall system via resonance and global behavior will magnify this effect many orders of magnitude.

    2) Lack of typical high energy gamma ray’s.
    i) By definition hydrogen loaded solids are a completely different setup from other fields. We should be careful to extrapolate too much from we know from other physics as described in 1)
    ii) The whole process of a possible nuclear reaction would probably be damped by the global fields.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Stefan….thanks for your insight

    • AB

      For a rational observer of this entertaining saga, one will probably start from the knowledge of ‘can this really be physically possible’. If you believe that the ECat is physically almost impossible and combine that with the fact that the assumption of a scam is unlikely, the observers conclusion consciously or unconsciously would be that of a likely scam. Now, I believe that this is the main logical process that explain the harsh critique.

      There’s a hefty dose of assumption in that knowledge, or more precisely, the assumption that we know everything there is to know about nuclear reactions. Put it like that and most will agree that this assumption is wrong, yet it’s still routinely treated as fact.

      • Stefan

        Yes, the intention for the post was to try take this treated fact down to earth.

        Have fun!

        • AB

          I fully agree with the message, I’m merely reaffirming it.

    • Pieter

      Might there not be some kind of an in between case.
      No it is defenitely not a fraud and I know Andrea is playing fair.
      The scientist who did the job are capable.
      But there still can be an conventional explenation for the excess heat.
      Something little thing no one has been thinking of.
      AR is maybe making an mistake.

      • daniel maris

        I doubt it. It’s either fraud (probably from delusional motives) or its genuine.

      • Roger Bird

        Nice try, Pieter, but the difference between the best fuel (gasoline) by energy density and the E-Cat is just TOOOOO great. If it were, like, 2 times better than gasoline, then maybe there could be something explainable going on. But 50,000 times better, that is not measuring error. I like compromises too. But in this case, I don’t see any room for compromise.

    • Roger Bird

      Stefan, lets get back to the Coulomb Barrier. You seem knowledgeable about these matters. How is the value of the Coulomb Barrier determined? What are the speeds and energy levels of the particles that were used to determine the value of the Coulomb Barrier?

      • Stefan

        There are better informed people on this matter, but they seam
        to not be here so here I go,

        I think that the Coulomb barrier is deduced from a pretty theoretical arguments together with a clear verification with physical experiments probably ranging from molecule physics,
        atom physics and nuclear physics. So in these regimes I would not question it. My point is that solid state systems are really hard to analyze thoroughly and completely and there seams to be an conceptual opportunity for a behavior not carried over from the knowledge of atom physics, molecule physics and even nuclear physics as of high energy physics.

        I really don’t view electrons as point particles and the field functions as just a probabilistic notion on where to find the particle. I see more the charges as fields when it comes to the LENR energy levels. Now consider the nucleus charge of the hydrogen, that is a field as well and that fields identity are the protons, what can happen if that field to a degree get molded like it never used to be when you have normal chemistry, what effects can happen?, Can the field be streched? and weaken the barrier, can the field interact with other fields so that we have an aggregated effect that in sumarium weakens the effect of the barrier. I do not know, I just don’t think that we can answer all these question as certainly that many seam to think.


        • Pekka Janhunen

          In other words, by molding do you mean that protons may get delocalised, similar to metal valence electrons, i.e. that proton wavefunction becomes more like a plane wave rather than a delta spike? If so, then I have been thinking along similar lines.

      • Colin Aldridge

        The coulomb Barrier is that two positively charged Nuclei repel one another and it needs a lot of energy to get them close enough to cause a nuclear reaction, energy normally provided by getting them to collide at high speed.
        Rossi’s device doesn’t work this way, since the temperatures are way too low so it must be something else which relies on quantum tunelling/ neutron capture or something no one understands. There are some theories around but nothing very convincing.

      • Wes

        Surface geometry is the key. Craggy surfaces created by nanotech or electrolytic reactions (think SPAWAR) allow high speed particles (Hot Cat driven) to enter surface tunnels where Coulombmetric vectors essentially cancel, allowing for ready capture. Optimization beyond random captures requires nanotech preparation of the surface to ramp up the catalytic effect.

    • Gerrit

      1.iii and 1.iv mainly

      Also lattices haven’t been researched enough. We must admit that we haven’t got a clue.

      Consider posting that also on Vortex-l

      • Stefan

        Yeah ii) may be wrong, correct me if it is!

        i) could probably be stated better as systems tend to seek to attain it’s lowest energy state, or usually dissipate the excitation energy to the surrounding.


        • fortyniner

          i.e., entropy.

          The very interesting patent linked to by artefact above seems to demonstrate an effect on what should be (according to the current view) an entirely random process unaffected by local conditions – radioactive decay.

          If the probability of atomic decay can be affected by something happening in the ‘cold fusion’ process, in some way that moderates the radiation released by such decays, then it seems that several ‘well established’ tenets of physics may be up for grabs.

      • John De Herrera

        Strange things can happen in a Lattice Assisted Nuclear Environment (LANR). When you infuse Hydrogen into a metal lattice, add a catalyst, add RF energy pulses, and heat that metal – WOW, you get the P&F Effect!
        Does the heated metal exert pressure on the hydrogen inside? Are the electrons from each proton carried away – making the proton a neutron with NO repulsion? Further testing may reveal the true nature of the P&F Effect.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Great comment from Joseph Fine in the PhyicsToday article comment section.

  • daniel maris

    Since when have Physics Today taken their lead from rags like New Energy Times and Popsci? Hardly authoritative are they? You’d expect them to be surveying Nature and other journals of similar reputation.

    • georgehants

      daniel, has Nature written a truthful accurate article on Cold Fusion, I must have missed that.

      • Gerrit

        I can only imagine the shit storm that will brake loose of the first scientist who will send his cold fusion paper to Nature or Science for publication.

      • daniel maris

        That wasn’t the point. I am no more a fan of peer reviewed science (as opposed to free speech science) than you.

        I am simply noting that in scientific circles Nature has a very high reputation and New Energy Times doesn’t.So the issue is why have they relaxed their standards on this occasion .

        • GreenWin

          daniel, you might want to ask Mr. Fred Dylla the magazine’s CEO and Exec Director that question. He’s a died in wool hotfusionista.

        • georgehants

          Does having this “high reputation” mean they are not biased and incompetent, at least the other publications do not cover up and hide Cold Fusion and many other subjects.
          Time I think for “scientists” to start acting like scientists and not religion of “high reputation” worshipers.

    • zvidenyosef

      No other mainstream scientific sources will touch the subject, although Scientific American did allow their resident skeptic Michael Schermer, to print an extremely negative article about it, with information that was over 20 years old. They refused to print my letter, pointing out that his article was based on old data.

  • georgehants

    Mats Lewan: The biggest shift ever.
    How technology’s changing the world.
    Criticism, praise and comments on the Swedish-Italian E-Cat report.

    • freethinker

      I read the printed NyTeknik today and there was an article by Lewan.

      There was no attempt to analyze the report itself, but its more a pick of different opinions from sceptics and how the team members answered(like a short version of his blog). My impression on of the article was as a whole that it communicated a negative message, the sceptics firing from the hip, and the test team trying to fend it off.

      I hope there will be a more deeper article discussing the tests and report in a not too distant future.

  • artefact

    I have not seen this patent:

    Electrolytic cell and method of reducing gamma ray emissions
    US 8114257 B2

    “Each gas passage is sealably closeable, one gas passage being connectable to a source of pressurized hydrogen or deuterium gas deliverable under pressure into the chamber to charge the catalytic particles. A distal end of each end member is connected to an electric power source wherein, when electric current flows through the chamber, the gamma ray emission count decays at an abnormally high rate.”

    • freethinker

      Yes interresting! That may imply that ARs design is inherently safe when it comes to escaping gamma.

    • fortyniner

      Yes, this is a very interesting patent. Although it is described as an ‘electrolytic cell’ with H2/D2 ‘electrolyte’ it is actually in essence very similar to Rossi’s original e-cat cell, but using palladium/zirconium instead of nickel. Apart from the metals used, the main difference is that instead of heating the cell to initiate the ‘reaction’, a current is passed directly through the powder charge (something that hasn’t been entirely eliminated in Rossi’s apparatus).

      The claim is that a radionuclide mixed with the charge displays accelerated decay but without dangerous emissions – potentially an answer to the rotting heaps of high level waste accumulating around the world (the idi*ts running the UK are actually buying in the stuff because they think they can run fission reactors on the plutonium in it).

      “heat is produced within said chamber for external use and gamma ray emissions from said gamma ray emitting material decays substantially faster than a known decay rate therefor.” Unfortunately no attempt seems to have been made to determine whether the heat produced exceeds the thermal equivalent of the electrical input.

      If this effect can be replicated and verified then this is a major invention, and also seemingly very closely related to what Rossi is doing. There appears to be a whole new science out there for physicists who are able to open their eyes to it.

      • fortyniner

        Correction: For “something that hasn’t been entirely eliminated in Rossi’s apparatus” please read, “something that hasn’t been entirely eliminated as a possibility in Rossi’s apparatus”.

        Lessons learned: (1) drink more coffee before posting (2) read what I have written before moving on.

  • MStone

    I hate to break this to everybody….but it really doesn’t matter what we think. E-Cat success isn’t, in any way, dependent on our peanut gallery…and thank god for that.

    Rossi has a successful 3rd party report….good.
    Rossi has a powerful partner building manufacturing capacity…good.

    So really, we just need to sit and wait for the “bloom energy report” where someone like Google bought this thing to run a server farm.

    Actually, lack of press coverage might be a good thing.

    • Cliff

      You are SOOOOOO right. We just have to wait for some pretty big corporation to use the E-Cat. Nothing else matters.

    • Peter Roe

      Thank you, but I doubt that this is a revelation for many contributors here.

      • freethinker

        Good to here from you Peter 🙂

      • Gerrit

        I am pretty sure 49er would disagree with you

        • fortyniner

          My ‘ID’ seems to vary according to which gadget or browser I’m using!

          I used to be schizophrenic but we’re both fine now.

    • Gerrit

      (note to the moderation AI: this is a joke)

      wrong. It is very important what I think. It could be that it’s utterly unimportant what you think, but that’s your problem, not mine. Go get help.

      It is also very important THAT I think. Descartes said “I think, therefore I am”. In the internet age that translates to “I think, therefore I am … not a troll”

      • GreenWin

        Wonderful line Gerrit! To be spoken with the passion of Mr. Joseph Merrick.

      • Roger Bird

        I intuit, therefore I am.

    • Omega Z

      Doesn’t matter what any of you think, You are all a figment of my imagination.

      If any should troll to hard I can make you all go away with a click of my button. 🙂

    • Roger Bird

      Rossi needs someone with whom he can share his joy and excitement. Giving birth to the New Humanity is not easy. The joy could overwhelm someone.

    • George N

      I think a plausible and impactful goal would be to focus on pressuring the USPTO to issue Rossi a patent — the independent verification should be enough of a reason for this. If we frame every argument in this context, the opposition has a hard time refuting “now that Rossi has independent verification, don’t you think he at least deserves a patent, which then we will be able to see his trade secret if granted — and then we can get full scientific scrutiny — what harm is it to just give Rossi a 20 year patent?”

      • Roger Bird

        I sent an email to them, just now, in response to this your comment.

  • freethinker

    About the article in physics today…

    When looking at the article there is one section that kind of stick out layout wise. That is the part where the Forbes article is cited in a larger chunk. I find it interresting… As that part is quite positive to the report.

    Also the author, Corneliussen, seem to strangly to be satisfied with citing people and articles that so clearly are negative to cold fusion. Infact so rabidly against it, that it almost seem like ridiculous.

    Final thing, I thought they were not really stonewalling the opposite opinion in the comment section either.

    Why is that, I wonder…

    • Gerrit

      Here is Corneliussen is a video

      • freethinker

        🙂 And all the others following would be the Krivits and the MaryYugo of this world, no doubt.

      • freethinker

        🙂 my comment went into mod.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Galileo renews attention to widely disparaged “Copernican Model”.

    • artefact

      Go Galileo!

      • GreenWin

        Church sentences Galileo to life in prison. For heresy.

        • Manuel Cruz

          Note that Galileo didn’t got in trouble with the Church for defending Heliocentrism (though contradicting Aristotle was a big deal at the time), he got in trouble for “accidentally” mocking the Pope in his book “Dialogue”.

          • simon

            It’s nice to see someone noting that. I don’t know if it is somehow too pro catholic church, but the sleepwalkers is a great book which talks about this…

          • GreenWin

            16 years BEFORE “Dialogue” Galileo was ordered by Paul V, “To abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it… to abandon completely… the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.” -The Inquisition’s injunction against Galileo, 1616

  • Launch Command Officer Bob

    Hello Everybody,

    I appreciate you guys are very busy discussing technical details and this is gonna be a bit of topic. I just started working for a Space Company in Seattle and we are doing a kick starter to launch a few space telescopes. (they are 1 million dollar each)

    The more people clicking my link to our kick starter campaign, the bigger the chance that we can send a Cold Fusion Scientist to space.

    I think that would be fabulous commercial for Clean Energy and Creative Thinking.

    Here is some information about what we do:

    This is the link that needs to be clicked:

    Have a nice day everybody!!!

    Great things are just around the corner!!!

    Peace and Love / Dr Bob

  • Andy

    I am one of those people who is out trying to find more information (rather than relying solely on the articles), and I’ve found my way here. I’m still unconvinced, as I suspect the rest of the world is, because the technology has not been explained, and because there is a great deal of skepticism within the scientific community. However, when I can buy one and power my house/car/business, my skepticisms will be irrelevant 🙂

  • Winebuff

    Everyone should send rebuttals to all journalists saying that getting their information from people who are not qualified to answer to the study is rediculous and they should concentrate on speaking to people that are balanced and don’t hold petty grudges.

  • TPaign

    While aspirin was refined by Bayer in 1897, no one said that it couldn’t work because the mechanism was not proven or understood. It wasn’t until 1970 that aspirin’s basic mechanism was discovered, and a fuller understanding was reached just last year.
    The use of aspirin, prior to 1970, is a good example of empirical knowledge. We knew that chewing on willow bark cured our headaches hundreds of years ago, and back then many thought it was magic, but empirical knowledge (i.e. knowing that it works by evidence and trials) eventually leads to scientific knowledge (i.e. knowing why it works), it just takes time and effort.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes good point TPaign, and when we thought we knew the science and made COX-2 selective inhibiting drugs to replace aspirin some of them caused significant increase in heart attacks and had to be taken off the market.

    • AlainCo

      Right comparison. However medicine was also plagued with denial of fact, when it was opposing the paradigm of Humor theory. See the tragedy of Semmelweis.

      The concept of paradigm, I start to get it, is very different from theory. A main element of the paradigm is the relation with the contained theory. Some paradigm are very loosely dependent on the theory, by may be more on some other facts like morality or experiences.
      Some like physics are strongly dependent on some basic accepted fact (conservation of impulsion, mass, heisenberg…) and some necessary habits (simplifications, twobody,BO), yet the highest theoretical (quarks, strings, spacetime foam, higgs,…) are let as modifiable…
      This give the impression that physics accept change, but it accept SOME changes, that it is prepared for…
      Part of the paradigm is also related to what is important, and what is real…
      Some paradigm put the focus on repetability and statistic stability, while some accept just existence, and some ask for usability…

      paradigm is an education, not a theory.

      from LENR tragedy, one could analyse the key point in Physics paradigm.

      note that LENr was accepted at the beginning, because people expected there will be a theory and reliability quickly… whan it seems that is was very hard to control, and impossible to theorize, most tries to convince themselves it was just an artifact, and when it could not be artifact, it was fraud…
      because it could not be a fact without a theory, nor perfect reproducibility, thus it was error or fraud.

      they even said it so publicly, and this convince me they abused LSD during their College. In fact it was just the Physicist paradigm.

      the Kuhn notion of paradigm is much more rich and pertinent than the Popper concept of theory (which is a toy for academic discussion).

      I can understand now, what is the paradigm of economic science, like the one of Roland Benabou or Freakonomics… what is the paradigm of French politics…
      Paradigm is a good tool.

  • Barry

    Boy. Discovery and Krivits are getting lambasted in their comment section (except by Mary Yago).

    • Roger Bird


      • Jimr

        Oh,Oh. In the US you would be investigated by the attorney general and double checked by the IRS for using the term “fairy”.

  • George N

    The argument should be framed this way: “if you want full scientific verification, then the USPTO should grant Rossi a patent” — Rossi has third party verification at an engineering level, so this should be good enough to be granted a patent — besides, what is the downside of Rossi obtaining a patent? if he still does not reveal his trade secret, we can then call him a fraud (but patents were originally made so that people would have to reveal their trade secrets, but that is another issue). With a patent, the scientific community will then gain access to Rossi’s trade secrete and then they can either confirm or refute the ecat. The worst thing that can come out of this is that the USPTO issues a useless patent if the scientific community finds that the ecat does not work as described

  • Bruce Fast

    What a pitiful attempt Physics Today is. No analysis of the evidence. Only a summary of what others have said. What a voiceless, spineless magazine.

    • Roger Bird

      I’ve told you this before, Bruce. Don’t hold back. Tell us what you really think!

      • Blanco69


  • Jim

    Re the MSSM (main stream science media) reaction to the report…I’m detecting a lot of squirming going on behind the blustering denialism.

    It’s not kind of me, however, I have to confess I’m finding it rather enjoyable.

    And that I look forward to more eruptions of red-faced gasping, frothing and sputtering as the story unfolds.

    Right up to and including the congressional investigations.

    Ooo, gotta watch the negative karma. They’re people too…

    …the old road is rapidly fading
    so get out of the new one if you can’t lend a hand

    • Kim

      I agree.

      They are scrambling like crazy to find any negative.

      Its so very predictable

      Why not just embrace it and enjoy the fruits and
      the new industrial creativity it will bring to
      every ones life.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Think of it. These are the same people how killed the funding for George Miley’s “Scientific Feasibility Study of Low Energy Reactions for Nuclear Waste Amelioration” in 1999. Perhaps (yes, perhaps because we don’t really know) all those spent full rods at Fukushima would have been processed and rendered harmless years ago if it had worked. Perhaps Japanese children wouldn’t be dying from heart failure because cells in their hearts have been killed by cesium-137.

  • Kim

    We need to be asking Andrea Rossi the status
    of the 1 megawatt unit shipped to his partner.

    Are they going to google at it, or are
    they going to actually fire it up!

    When are they going to fire it up?

    Are they going to use it in an industrial

    or are they going to use
    it to draw big money to it.

    Is it going to sit and collect dust while they
    wait for the elite to give them the green light.

    Will politics call in the radiation card and
    call foul.

    At some point some customer is going to want
    to talk it up or talk it down.

    I think this where this is going next.

    Testing and Chatting could go on for years.

    We need actual customer verification.

    That is the bottom line.


  • Methusela

    New Gibbs article at Forbes:

    Rossi’s A Fraud! No, He’s Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn’t!

    • Kim

      Mark Gibbs gives very good unbiased opinion.

      Mark Gibbs is sitting on the fence and has no

      This is definitely going to be a show down at
      OK Corral type scenario, and this is healthy
      it will drive the skeptics to get the answer.

      The answer is there is a new fire in town and
      people just can’t contend with the paradigm
      shift its going to create.

      This could go on for 2-3 years or until like
      the wright brothers people get to see the first
      flights, or products in this case and the corresponding



      • khawk

        I don’t see the backers of Rossi really caring about the recent unpleasantness from the detractors. They have seen and understand the truth and could care less about those who pontificate from the dark. My guess is that the naysayers are a sideshow and one to me that is getting more entertaining. Let the gnashing of teeth continue while E-Cat product(s) / derivatives are safety-certified and commercialized.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Yeah, his backers must have done their own testing.

      • Roger Bird

        Gibbs is a weak philosopher. If he had resolved the battle down to a conflict between theory and observation, he might not be sitting on the fence. In any case, it would have clarified his thinking. I have dozens of very credible people saying that they have observed LENR and more than a dozen credible people saying that they have observed the E-Cat putting out excess heat. On the other side of the debate we have a large group of people saying that theory says that it is impossible. I have no trouble choosing the observers, many of whom have a lot to lose. The theory oriented people think that they have nothing to lose by saying that LENR/E-Cat is bunk and a lot to lose by saying that LENR/E-Cat is real.

        Little to the theory oriented people realize that their debunking LENR/E-Cat means that they could lose a lot.

  • BumRushed

    You know. If Rossi said nothing, and continued on with his research. Then came out with a mysterious blue box that seems to defy the laws of physics. Without an explanation, like Cold Fusion or LENR, of what was in the box, he would be in every Main Stream news source from here to China. He let them get the lead, and they didn’t have to get him to tell the trade secret. Now, it is very likely, someone else will have to stand upon Rossi’s shoulders and offer the “mysterious blue box” without describing the science or sharing every detail of development, and needing to fight off the snakes. It needs to be a product in level 10 development, where the final product is the proof. The powers that be will keep this up, until someone surprises them.

    • BumRushed

      It’s like being the obvious star of the talent show, but unwittingly told people what your act was. When you show up to perform, and your rival does your act right before you do. You then look like the fraud.

      I beg you Rossi. We love to hear the news, but stop telling us already.

  • David
    • LB

      Could you please clarify what the good news is?

      • David

        to match water temperature of the active chamber (with constantan wires) they have to increase power input to the passive reference chamber (with nichrome wires).
        It means that that active chamber produce more heat, so it works.

        • LB

          Thanks David.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Good spot David, unfortunately the data repository raid was down in the US and a software “update” conspired to prevent live data publishing, on this, the second apparently positive experiment on the very simple to grasp differential experiment. We will be putting together a report blog post and it is planned that this will also be presented to EU.

      At some point the gathered data will appear on the repository and people will be able to look at it by reference to the logbook.

      We are planning to have more advanced versions of these cells available for others to join the replication. We also hope to run more using these type of cells. Differential experiments (having an active and control running at the same time) is definitely a good approach.

  • b4FreeEnergy


    Maybe not immediately on topic but it could be more related than one might think at first sight. If they dragged in one of those saucers it would be very interesting to find out what they fly on …


  • Visitor
    • daniel maris

      Excellent article I think. A very fair summary of where we are. One couldn’t ask for more from a journalist at this point I think.

      • Timar

        That’s irony, isn’t it?

    • Timar

      This article is nothing but a cowardly retreat by Gibbs. He seem to have become afraid of his own courage he has shown in his previous two articles. Who is he to argue with a physicist like Siegel? Well, who is he to argue with all those highly accomplished physicist and chemist who actually *have* a clue about LENR? Siegel, like many other, doesn’t argue as a scientist but as a dogmatic high priest of the brotherhood of Hot Fusionists. What really infuriates me, though, is that he should actually know that. He has been into this and educated by the vortex collective for long enough about LENR. He knows and the cumulative evidence from all the research happening since Fleischmann & Pons.

      If that wasn’t poor enough, at the end of the article he stoops so low as to get downright nasty towards those people at vortex to which he owns so much:

      “I’m going to continue to be skeptical veering towards pessimism as, I believe, anyone with any sense should be.”

      That remark is a brash slap in the faces of such people as Jed Rothwell, whom I always have esteemed as a calm voice of reason in that at times hysterical debate during the last years. No tactical considerations can exuse that.

      • Roger Bird

        I agree. I thought Mark Gibbs seemed to be retreating, like he didn’t trust himself.

        • psi

          We’ve seen this before. He must be under a lot of negative pressure, so we should probably cut him some slack.

  • Torbjörn
  • John

    I can completely understand the critisism. The new test has not really shown anything. It was

    * not performed by completely independent individuals, i.e., persons completely new to the whole e-cat matter;
    * performed in an independent lab; The e-cat could have been sealed to avoid stealing secrets;
    * key characteristics were apparently not measured; Clamping wires is not relieable if you don’t exactly know how the wire is built.

    • kasom

      instead of repeating krivitesq mantra, can You tell us why the Hot Cat is glowing red with shadows of the colder resistors?

      • khawk

        This is the best question I have seen yet if that is in fact what we are seeing. If those shadows are the resistor wires then it is mostly game over as that appears to be the coldest part of the picture – nice one!

        • Al S

          It works. Makes heat.

          You researching scientific proper procedure persons, get in line the rest of us. We will buy and use e-Cats of whatever variety. You can see then how to research yourself.

      • John

        How should I know?

        Different materials show different behaviour when heated. That something is glowing more, or is “more red”, does not necessarily mean it’s hotter. It might as well be a result of the same heat, but a different material. Since I neither know what the resistor was made of, nor the cylinder, and both materials were not tested in the report, there is no way of saying why it’s darker.

        In fact, if the e-cat would really have heated up this far all by itsself, the resistors would heat up with it. They are connected, and heat is conducted quite fast by metal. Meaning that after 1-5 minutes, they would have the same temperature. So, this question would actually go to Rossi: Why are the resistors darker?

        • khawk

          I think that is because they are turned off, as is indicated in the report, for 60+ percent of the time. I think this picture was taken when the resistors are off. The shadow of wires thru a stainless steel metal casing doesn’t leave much to the imagination.

          • John

            Yes, but they should still have the same temperature. Metal conducs heat.

      • Zero

        Very nice call on that.

    • fortyniner

      What criticism are you referring to? – unless it’s the endlessly repeated quibbles and character assassinations of tro11s and tinfoil-hat ‘skeptics’ who see conspiracy in everything connected with Rossi.

      If that’s the best you can come up with, then please stop wasting everyone’s time, including your own.

    • Roger Bird

      The need for absolute independence is only important for those far removed from the action. Long time followers know (of) these people, and this test is, for me a long time follower of this story, absolute proof.

  • artefact

    MFMP will be represented at EU meeting

    “.. Hopefully some attendees would like to come and visit one of our experimental sites in order to get a better understanding of the kind of work that is involved. Maybe, just maybe, we can convince them to support our effort in some way.”

  • Sciences matters – not media!

    Although media plays an important role in spreading the word it will not change the e-cat. If the e-cat really works it will only be a question of time. I don’t think Rossi’s work will be impacted in either way of positive or negative media.

    • evleer

      Exactly. The big question is: can the scientific establishment afford to keep discrediting LENR as impossible, like they did the last 20 years?

      I mean, how foolish will it make them look when Rossi starts mass production of a device that they always persisted cannot exist, even when testreports suggested otherwise? Don’t you think they will try to avoid being exposed as arrogant, incompetent and narrow-minded at all costs? I’m sure that prospect is keeping some of them awake at night.

      I think it’s not implausible that we can witness more scientist shift toward a more favourable opinion on LENR in the near future. It’s too bad that this shift will be motivated by fear, rather than by curiosity, but the outcome will be the same.

      • Gerrit

        great words !

      • John De Herrera

        “exposed as arrogant, incompetent and narrow-minded”
        This description must extend to cover the pseudoskeptic, who starts off with a strong opinion, then creates an argument to justify that opinion – NO OPEN MIND. jdh

        • psi

          John, I like that clear phrase “starts off with….then creates.” How true indeed.

      • marcel

        Kopernikus did not go public with his theory for 30 years, because he was afraid. Fleischmann and Rossi and many others are not afraid, but still does it take centuries. Even the internet does not help?!

  • artefact
  • Stanny Demesmaker
  • Rob Lewis

    Yet another reminder of the sad state of what passes for media coverage of science and technology. At least once a month I see an article by a “reporter” who obviously doesn’t understand the difference between kilowatts and kilowatt-hours.

  • Roger Bird

    Negative press is better than no press at all. Let the naysayers throw fits all that they want. They help doubly: (1) they spread the word. (2) they set themselves up for a big embarrassment.

  • marcel arias

    Most people are getting tied up by what the media is reporting with regard to the report.
    This to me, is of no consequence, what is really important is to see some credible scientific peer review of the report. This is how solid credibility is established.
    Does the facts & figures stand up to scrutiny and validation?
    Was the testing methodology rigorous enough to exclude possibility of fraud?
    It is reasonable to expect Rossi or any other person/entity to impose restrictions to ensure the confidentiality of their IP. It is up to the scientific community to devise a testing methodology within those constraints that would provide a concise and unambiguous set of results.
    The people working with Rossi are under NDAs yet photos where leaked, some might say deliberately, Rossi say different.

  • Magnus

    Maybe it is because not all scientific papers are written in english…in sweden where some independent tests have been made and the reports written in swedish they said they could not explain what happend with conventional science as they could not measure any radiation but the energy they got out far exceeded what they put in…guess braking the law of thermodynamics messes with some people’s perception of the universe.

    Instead of ridiculing people should encourage what he and other scientists and inventors are doing…the bumblebee can fly no matter what you believe…

  • Jordi Heguilor

    Believers desperately want the E-cat to be true. Skeptics like me… ALSO would like the E-cat to be true!

    I don’t mind wiping a little egg off my face, if it means living in an immeasurably better world thanks to the E-cat. But the evidence is just not there.

    • Roger Bird

      It’s not there because you are not looking at it. The three 3rd party tests. All of those demos in 2011. The word of Levi, Focardi, Essen, et. al. The LENR background that has been proven numerous times.

      So the 3rd party testers didn’t dot a few ‘i’. It is a report. Are you saying that they are liars and/or incompetent. That is what you MUST say in order to dispute their conclusions.

      • Jordi Heguilor

        Roger, I’m quite sure the testers are not liars. And quite sure that they are very competent IN THEIR FIELD OF EXPERTISE.

        But having these physicists test a staged demonstration is like sending a biologist to test the disappearance of a tiger from a Vegas stage. Sure, he knows all about tigers, but nothing about stage magic. You send a stage magician to test that claim.

        Considering Rossi’s past, you must admit at least the possibility of a trick.

        • Roger Bird

          Jordi, you are new here. So you are trying to extract credibility from a vacuum. We who have been here for more than 12 months know of these testers. We know that they are completely competent and untouchable. We know that the Rossi phenomena is happening within the bounds of a known and proven phenomena: LENR. We know that other start-ups are reporting that they have working LENR devices, ready or almost ready for market. We know that the testers have put their futures on the line. I know that I would say exactly the same thing that the testers have said about the reality of the E-Cat, but that I would do so with a great deal of trepidation.

          • Jordi Heguilor

            Roger, I may be new here, but I’ve been following the E-cat saga (or comedy) for years. It’s like an atheist and a believer reading the Bible, the more they do it the more the believer believes and the more the atheist laughs.

            I hope you’re right and I’m wrong. That would be the best case scenario for the world. Unfortunately, reality doesn’t care about what we hope for.

            In any case, with money now exchanging hands (sale of distributorships and 1 MW E-cats), we will probably know for sure within a year.

            I bet you a case of beer that a year from now there is no Hot-cat or regular E-cat in the market.

          • Roger Bird

            Bless your independent spirit and courage.

            I don’t drink beer and cannot afford it anyway. There are alcoholics all over my family tree, so I just avoid it. Anyway, I abhor the taste.

            I also doubt that we can remember a bet like that for a whole year, particularly at my age. (:->)

        • JohnM

          What an excellent idea. Let the JRF choose a team to try and substantiate e-cat claims.

    • ico

      If mr. Rossi just made the design public, the truth would be figured out. No, mr. Rossi want to make a lot of profit, and poor mother Earth has to wait for it.

      • Roger Bird

        So. Dr. Rossi gives it all away to the crowd, and he and his wife die in poverty. What a great idea! He works his tail off for more than 6 years with 16 hour days, 7 days a week, and you want him to not be rewarded. I want someone like Rossi to be rich and powerful. I want him to be able to make significant decisions.

        • If the world becomes a vastly wealthier place materially from cheaper energy through LENR, we will probably all be better off (including Andrea Rossi). Also, if the eCat worked, Rossi would be practically guaranteed jobs for life as a researcher or professor. So, if the eCat really worked, it would be unlikely Rossi would die in poverty as we now know it. As it is, it sounds like Rossi has already lost most control over the eCat by giving up financial control. Here is a letter I wrote to Rossi on that topic of open sourcing the eCat more than two years ago:

          Also, on your other point, even if Rossi was an inventor who found a way to make LENR work (including by hard work), does that mean we want a mechanical/electrical/material inventor, no matter how brilliant, making unilateral decisions about things like, say, social polices?

          The flip side of some people in a society being extremely rich and powerful is that many others tend to be extremely poor and powerless. Is that the world you really think we should be working towards? See for example, a book on economics and equality called “The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger”. Or see Marshall Sahlin’s writings on “The Original Affluent Society”.

          If we has something like a global “basic income” for all, then anyone who wanted to invent would have the time to do so.

          • Roger Bird

            Paul, notice that people in the USA are no happier than the people in Burma. Look at the people, not the numbers of bushels of grain or the number of cars. LOOK at the people. I think that the people in Burma are actually happier, despite their dreadful government and economy.

            What will happen, Paul, when LENR energy devices start being used, is that the misery caused by a lack of the fulfillment of needs will be greatly reduced. The misery causes by wallowing in the fulfillment of desires will greatly increase.

            I guarantee this. Misery caused by kardashianitis will greatly increase. Poverty induced misery will greatly decrease.

          • Paul Fernhout

            Roger, yes, that is a great insight, about two different types of misery and how they will change. Studies in the USA have shown that happiness increases with income up to US$75,000 a year, and after that there is not much of a correlation. Certainly there is “The Pleasure Trap” and “Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose” and the “The Acceleration of Addictiveness” (the first two are books, the third an essay).

            See also Suniya S. Luthar’s work like “The Culture of Affluence: Psychological Costs of Material Wealth” where she talks about how in the USA, materially wealth socially isolates people in various ways (including bigger land plots that physically separate neighbors, loss of extended families through a focus on the individual, no chance for others to prove they care by helping in times of trouble, fears others will take their wealth away, fears their children will fail in the competitive jungle they created and related high pressure on kids to “succeed” at abstract tasks, separation from the meaningfulness of basics like nature and performing the support tasks of daily living together with others in the same situation, etc.). If people in places like Burma or Nigeria are happier on average than US Americans, it is for these sorts of reasons — especially family and social connectedness. Still, the Netherlands and various other Western European countries score high on overall happiness to, so you don’t have to be materially poor to be happy — it is more an issue of how wealth is distributed and what the overall social context is in daily living.

            So, yes, you make good points. I also referenced the sci-fi book “Midas World” by Frederik Pohl in my letter to Rossi, which, with a lead story written in the 1950s, was about the development of nuclear fusion and some negative social effects (and where the inventor of fusion was shut out from decision making about the social consequences, finding that all his money did not amount to much when everyone else was wealthy too). So, I have no doubt that there is truth to what you say.

            None-the-less, LENR would make easier a lot of current challenges — recycling with zero emissions, desalinating water, launching space ships to build space habitats, and many others. So, that mood of optimism might have many social benefits, including people feeling less of a need to hoard material wealth the way that Rossi, who has gone through bad periods, seems to feel a need to hoard his apparent success and the related wealth. As I say elsewhere, the biggest challenge of the 21st century is the tools of abundance in the hands of people still thinking in terms of scarcity. Your point is well taken in that context — because with abundance of some things (including energy from LENR), the challenges we face will change.

          • Roger Bird

            I mention Burma because they are hardcore practicing Buddhists while at the same they have a government almost as bad as North Korea and a really bad economy (thanks to the government). When I have seen documentaries of Burma, they seemed very happy. Yet people in America seem unhappy and angry.

            LENR is very, very, very positioned to help poor people and NOT help rich people.

        • Jordi Heguilor

          Rossi and his wife dying in poverty? Not very likely.

          Just the TWO Nobel prizes (Physics or Chemistry) and Peace are worth 4 million dollars.

          And Bill Gates, who gave some seven billions dollars to charity, would be happy to write Rossi a check with eight zeroes on it. He would become the most famous person of the century, and rub elbows with presidents and kings. At a certain level (Pope, Dalai Lama, King of something, Dictator-for-life) money means nothing.

          On the other hand, what if Rossi dies tomorrow and takes the secret to his grave? The solution to humankind’s problem lost because Rossi wanted to make some extra bucks.

          • Roger Bird

            I hope to God that he has recorded his secret and given it to numerous lawyers for safe keeping in case he should die prematurely.

          • Jordi Heguilor

            It’s hard to imagine Rossi, who believes MIT would steal his secrets, giving his secret to… LAWYERS? 🙂