Forbes' Gibbs on E-Cat Fraud Claims

An article by Mark Gibbs has been published at discussing some of the skeptical responses to the recent 3rd Party E-Cat test. The title of the article is “Rossi’s A Fraud! No, He’s Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn’t!” and it looks at some of the charges leveled at the Rossi and the test by critics.

It’s somewhat of a tortured piece. Gibbs states that there is no credible evidence of fraud being involved and he considers it unlikely that the testers were in on a scam, or that Rossi had rigged his premises to give fake indications of excess heat, but he allows that there is an outside possibility that fraud could have taken place.

Gibbs says he is more persuaded by the arguments against the E-Cat on the grounds that the rules of science don’t allow for cold fusion — but having said, he says you can’t discount “something interesting” going on given the experimental evidence that has been published over the years.

Gibbs postulates four possibilities about the test and gives his opinion of its likelihood:

1. Rossi is a fraud and the testing was a fraud (i.e. the testers were in on the scam) . . . highly unlikely.
2. Rossi is a fraud and the testers were incompetent and or hoodwinked . . . more likely than option 1, but implausable
3. Rossi is not a fraud and the E-Cat works as claimed. Of the three previous options this is the least implausible but the hardest to believe given what science and scientists tell us.
4: Rossi is not a fraud and the E-Cat works but it’s not LENR. Of all the options, this is the most plausible but it’s still very hard to believe.

He seems to be honestly conflicted — and that is probably the case with many people observing this story. Gibbs concludes by saying if you held a gun to his head and demanded he take a stand he would say the E-Cat didn’t work, but since there is no gun pointing at him he is going to stay on the fence. He’s certainly interested enough in it to keep writing on the topic, and I hope he continues. This is a topic that I believe deserves the attention of the public, and Gibbs and Forbes deserve credit for not ignoring it.

  • Jack

    All Rossi needs to do is deliver working devices to customers. All of the discussion of fraud then becomes irrelevant. Science can play catch up later as was done with the hot air balloon and the steam engine.

    • Gerrit

      The discussion will not become irrelevant. The scam believers will argue that the customer bought a non working device, the customer should check the power cables. The customer is incompetent or in on the fraud.

      Do you see the pattern ?

      • Paul Stout

        At that point, they will have the same relevance as the flat earthers.

        • fortyniner

          Not exactly sure what to make of this blog. “This website is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax.”

          It’s clearly meant to be tongue in cheek, but some of the commenters seem quite serious – as in seriously deranged. But that’s probably just my ego defending my fixed world view.

      • toussaint

        By the way any news of the delivery 1 mega Watt ?

    • Bernie Koppenhofer


  • Andrew PELCZAR

    In my opinion Rossi is making big mistake. His time, in very natural way is running out, and his corporate competitors know very well about it.

    • khawk

      Why do you say that Rossi is making a big mistake? How is time running out on him? In my opinion, the clock hasn’t even really started yet. What corporate competitors are you thinking of – folks who have learned from him or folks spending time on LENR electrolytics?

      • Andrew PELCZAR

        His competition are wealthy banks, oil and nuclear industries and conventional power station.

      • evleer

        Until now, Rossi’s biggest mistake was to try to partner up with Defkalion, the malicious Greek company that tried (and maybe succeeded) in stealing the E-Cat’s catalyst formula.

        However, we have yet to see any substantial evidence of their Hyperion claims. At this moment there’s no telling what they have of don’t have. According to peswiki, they expect their first product to hit the market in the second quarter next year. And they sort of promise a public demo during NI-Week in August.

        • khawk

          One would expect that Defkalion will be having some problems if they try to go to market with IP they borrowed from Rossi. I’ve often wondered why bullets weren’t flying on this one long ago.

    • fortyniner

      Two points:

      As we only (think we) know what Rossi has told us so far via JONP, we actually have virtually no idea what is happening behind the scenes, and therefore can’t say whether he (or his associates) are making any mistakes. Not that our judgement of his progress has any relevance anyway.

      From the POV of the average person it would actually be beneficial for competitors to emerge, and as soon as possible. Not only would that put AR and partner into high gear (although I would imagine they are already progressing as quickly as possible), it would make it even more certain that LENR will move into industrial usage without hindrance.

    • blaze

      Weird thing to say. According to Rossi, he already sold out.

      • Charles

        I am inclined to think the buyer was not GE. GE has invested $15billion in Fracking in the last few years. I heard it on the news so it must be true.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    Those are the right four options.

    It’s good to note that “Rossi is delusional” is not among them. I’m thrilled every day that we can/have put that one to rest.

    The options are:
    > fraud by a group,
    > undetectable fraud by Rossi alone,
    > or it works *somehow*.

    I think this is excellent. Stating that “the science says it’s impossible” is, frankly ridiculous.

    I’m sorry, I’m no physicist, but if something is happening, and the scientific model doesn’t account for it, YOU CHANGE THE MODEL.

    The Standard Model – however brilliant – doesn’t account for Gravity.

    Moreover – as many have noted – it doesn’t matter if it’s LENR, CF, or the body heat from angry fairies, it is a measured event. The rational course of action is to measure it again, and again.

    For me, I don’t doubt the veracity or competence of the testers. I think *something* very cool is happening. Irrespective of the model we use to explain it, there is a bu44load of heat coming off that thing.

    • Ben

      You said “but if something is happening, and the scientific model doesn’t account for it, YOU CHANGE THE MODEL.”

      That’s exactly right. I watch a lot of these astrophysics shows about how the universe works, and on major scientific questions like these, the models have changed a lot. Galaxy doesn’t rotate as expected? No problem! Poof! Dark Matter is born. Galaxies expand too quickly? No problem! Poof! Dark Energy is born. Models change all the time on the biggest questions in science and nature. If Rossi’s invention works, it will be studied and the models altered accordingly.

      • Gerrit

        You are saying that Rossi’s ecat actually burns up all the dark matter that the astrophysics invented ?

        • Woo

          ha ha.
          indeed 🙂

      • Charles

        Change the Model??? Do you think the Climate Change Promoters should change their model just because it is wrong and a fraud?

        • Mop

          Uhm… aren’t you doing the exact same thing you blame E-Cat skeptics for? You have a strong opinion about man-made global warming being a lie because you think there’s no solid theoretical model that can prove the idea. Meanwhile there’s real changes to the climate and somewhat reasonable guesses about why it’s actually man-made. You should definitely at least not throw around words like “fraud”.

          • psi

            Meanwhile there’s real changes to the climate and somewhat reasonable guesses about why it’s actually man-made….

            Newsflash: there is a rapidly declining list of “somewhat reasonable” guesses about the alleged anthropogenic origin of the 20th c. warming signal (that took place during the periods 1930-40s and 1980s-2000). Generally speaking the view that these increased temperatures were caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions is becoming scientifically incredible, especially in light of the fairly extensive misinformation campaign by the IPCC and others involved in promoting the theory. How many adherents to the view, for example, understand that warming leads CO2 emission by some 600-800 years in the geologic record, or stop to consider what the implications of this really are. All that warming that Al Gore told us was caused by by CO2 was just the cause of the CO2. It does make a difference….. : )

          • Mop

            Well, we’ll see what happens in the future. I suppose in practice it does not matter who is right. Most of the fossil fuel that exists will be used and burned anyway as it seems impossible to negotiate a deal to limit this.

          • psi

            I am not talking about what will happen, but what has happened. I was for over ten years a total believer in the anthropogenic warming meme. Until I started actually looking at the science, and realized that it was far less secure than the science of those who proclaim LENR to be impossible. It routinely ignores known phenomenon like the correlation between global temperatures and sunspot cycles (on the pretense that the relationship cannot be causal since the *known* causal pathways are insufficiently robust to account for the known effects), in favor of the rickety theory of AGW, which seems to proceed from the premise that climate does not change from natural causes — or, alternatively, that if it does, those are so well understood as to allow researchers to rule them out as factors and isolate the demon C02 molecule and the rash of Hurricanes and cyclones that it has caused. Sorry. this may be popular, but its claim to science is rather minimal.

          • Omega Z

            Follow the Money

    • clovis


    • AlainCo

      By the way, despite the fact that you are absolutely right, it is not even necessary to change the quantum theory for LENR.

      LENR is clearly not possible if you restrict your choice to plasma physics, or accelerator environment.

      However it is absolutely impossible to reject it in a lattice environment, or even in the void, because of possible unexpected collective effects…

      Sternglass have found neutron produced when electron where slightly accelerated by X-ray tube in H-filled tube, despite the naive application of two-body quantum mechanic. at that energy, one electron could not be captured by one proton.

      Einstein worked at the end of his life on that problem, and found no solution, yet he naturally say that it must be a collective effect that explain the phenomenon.

      Preparata , later, with LENR said the same.

      so yes theory have to surrender to facts, but even more than theory, simplification and bad assumptions, should surrender to experimental results.
      I’m nearly sure that LENR respect good-old-QM, like all superconductors and semiconductors. (just a feeling, an easy bet)

  • Timar

    My original comment to that article in the last post is still in moderation so I try it again to put it up here:

    Gibbs 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 infuri-ates 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.

    • GreenWin

      Well put Timar. The battle now comes from the hot fusion camp which perceives it will lose everything – especially its pride. The media moguls have aligned, exchanged secret handshakes, and pledged to honor the LENR blackout orders. Curious though, there was coverage for the 2011 successes; this momentous success strikes fear.

      But the underground press is alive and exhuberant. The industrial moguls are circling Bologna, Sweden, NASA LaRC, SRI, SKINR etc.

      Rossi HAS met and delivered his every major promise. We can expect news of an electric generator prototype in 90-120 days. The big players are thoroughly intrigued and… worried. All is good. The news is spreading.

      • psi

        Timar writes:

        What really infuri-ates 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.


        I have seen exactly the same behavior in orthodox colleagues in my own field. They come, participate, should be able to absorb new data, but come away like classic deer caught in the headlight of their own indomitable presuppositions about what must and what cannot be. Their field of “fact” seems to be defined by social, not strictly scientific, considerations. But they have professional associations, institutions, high salaries and big budgets. So they must be the scientists…. Right? : )

        • Timar

          Yes, I am afraid you are right… science and religion often have more in common than science and reason.

  • blaze

    At this point, it really doesn’t matter who writes about LENR and ECat, except for entertainment value.

    It’s either going to work or not. Public attention to the issue is 100% meaningless.

    If they ship 1 working unit, everything will change. If they don’t, it’s back to fossil fuels and solar/wind/etc.

    • Charles

      If we go back to solar, I hope that two electrons per one photon works and EESTOR or MIT comes up with a supercapacitor we can store those electrons in for night usage. Oh yeah, use wind for second source electron production.

      • Timar

        I think that in the medium term, LENR will nicely integrate with wind, solar and natural gas/biogas. While LENR will bit by bit replace base load generating energy like conventional nuclear, coal and oil, solar helps to satisfy the increased daytime demand (which already works quite nicely in Germany) and offshore wind turbines generate relatively cheap energy and thus will be able to compete with LENR at least for a while. Declining energy costs due to LENR on the other hand will have a negative feedback effect on the competitiveness of fossil fuels – “big energy” will be forced to provide them with the lowest possible profit margin and lower energy costs will enable it to mine them more cost efficently. Gas fracking will particulary profit from that, because it is energy intensive and is particulary suited to fill the gaps left by the renewables.

        • Timar

          Now I got the economic term for that kind of feedback: it is called rebound effect.

      • RGCheek

        deep cycle batteries already can hold enormous amounts of electricity, but other methods are often used still like water reservoirs, gyro wheels, etc.

        We cant be that far away from a super-capacitor with all this nanotech they’ve been developing.

  • Gerrit

    Poor admin. With all those posts going into moderation I can almost hear him clickety-clickety-clicking them out of moderation.

    • lol, Gerrit, the bot has taken over!

      • Timar

        It must be a very sensitive little bot 😉

        • fortyniner

          No, its mean and malicious. If it had control of weapons, most of us would be toast.

          • Timar

            I guess it only let that comment through for that it may stand as a warning… poor Peter!

  • Barry

    I have a new respect for Mark Gibbs. I used to think he was an obstructionist, but it’s okay if someone does not believe and his earlier article showed flexibility. Though Mary Yago the poster girl/(guy?) sure gets a lot of airspace in the comment section.

    • fortyniner

      Guy – real name George Hody, retired director of an instrumentation company and ubiquitous tro11. It’s not known whether he is a paid shill or just needs professional help.

      • mcloki

        Nobody is that deluded/fanatical without a financial motivation. seems like astroturfing to me.

    • Gerrit

      Gibbs started early with writing about Rossi. He listened to the critique he got, did some investigations and is capable to make up his own mind. I think he is very capable in writing a balanced story.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    The article is indeed somewhat tortured, like standing in swimming trunks on stairs of a pier on sunny day at end of May and hesitating to go to swim… because the water might be CF.

    • GreenWin

      There is certain shrinkage in its stature.

  • BillyGiuseppe Rosencrantz

    Have you noticed Rossi keeps referring to his partner as “he”? Maybe it’s rhetorical, but his partner is beginning to sound like some tycoon, like Musk, Ellison, Koch, or Gates. The secrecy fits the Koch Brothers. I’ve read that one of the Koch brothers commutes across the country each week to manage some “green” project.

    • Janne

      I’ve also entertained the possibility of it being Musk. He’s really the only person who I think has the bravado to do this.

      Tbh, it might just be Rossi struggling with his English. In one documentary on the E-Cat, he said “this is his house…” referring to an E-Cat unit in the 1 MW Bologna factory.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        But Rossi is very ground-based, not an aerospace enthusiast at all. Doesn’t sound like he would be interacting with someone like Musk.

        • Speaking of Elon Musk (I don’t think there’s a Rossi connection) I found this article interesting. “Elon Musk Has Plans For A New, Magical Form Of Transportation Called The ‘Hyperloop'” He says about it: “This system I have in mind, how would you like something that can never crash, is immune to weather, it goes 3 or 4 times faster than the bullet train,” said Musk last July. “It goes an average speed of twice what an aircraft would do. You would go from downtown LA to downtown San Francisco in under 30 minutes. It would cost you much less than an air ticket than any other mode of transport. I think we could actually make it self-powering if you put solar panels on it, you generate more power than you would consume in the system. There’s a way to store the power so it would run 24/7 without using batteries. Yes, this is possible, absolutely.”

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I like the idea of vacuum maglev tube trains because their speed is in principle only limited by the acceleration tolerance of passengers. But perhaps made by routing individual cars like Internet packets across the network rather than normal long trains, however. Such system might potentially provide a car-like individual station A to B travel experience while being faster than airplane. In principle it consumes no net energy, produces no noise and does not wear down. In principle the technology is already there: maglev, vacuum pump, underground tunnel construction.

            The Swiss have a vactrain project idea named Swissmetro. I’m not sure if Musk’s idea is a vacuum train or not. He seems to be secretive about the details.

          • Andrew Ma

            Another article on hyperloop just got published 3 hours ago –

            We Think We Know What Elon Musk’s Hyperloop Is, And How It Can Get You From LA To San Francisco In 30 Minutes, by Jay Yarow

        • Janne

          Musk is a lot more than an aerospace enthusiast. He’s the CEO of Tesla and the Chairman of SolarCity, the leading residential solar provider in the U.S.

          Clearly, he has an enormous vested interest in renewable energy.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            True. I didn’t mean to imply that the two men would be mutually incompatible. I meant that if they would be mingling daily, I would expect to see Rossi gradually having absorbed some Muskian regions of interests and that should be visible on his daily comments on JONP. And since I don’t see any such signals, I consider it likely that he’s not in bed with Musk but someone else.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I noticed it also and was wondering the same thing… but having very little knowledge of those people I didn’t comment on it.

    • Andre Blum

      Good comment!
      I hadn’t heard of Koch before, but the Wikipedia article explicitly lists some of his donations towards cancer research and states:

      “Since 2000, David H. Koch Charitable Foundation has pledged or contributed more than $750 million to cancer research, medical centers, educational institutions, arts, cultural institutions, and public policy studies”

      This fits very nicely with an earlier statement from Rossi that he and his partner are very much in line with regards to his plans to donate for a cure of cancer in children.

      • Andre Blum

        Andrea Rossi
        December 16th, 2012 at 10:13 AM
        Dear Frank Acland:
        The philosophy of our USA Partner and of us is based on the following 4 pillars:
        1- this technology has to be consolidated and put at the service of Mankind
        2- industrialization of the manufacturing must reach low prices to lower the cost of energy in the World
        3- give back the money we earn as much as possible to cure cancer in children in the World
        4- produce good jobs
        Warm Regards,

        • David John

          Curing cancer with what? The stuff we give our poor souls over here, with a death rate of about 70%? And you want to give that to children? Good lord, there are as many suppressed cancer cures as there are suppressed alternative enrgie technologies out there. Please widen your view!

      • Anonymous Reader

        Koch is the largest private oil refiner in the world. He benefits from the petroleum economy. Koch would have every reason to put the kabash on the Ecat.

        • Andre Blum

          Not if LENR is real. He has more reason than most to jump the new bandwagon.

    • Chris I

      You know that Rossi’s English is less than perfect.

      You might not think this relevant to your point but, rest assured, Italians don’t know the word “it” exists until their English becomes absolutely flawless (which Rossi’s clearly isn’t). If you heard him discussing his furniture in English, you might even catch him in the act of calling his table “he” and his chair “she”.

      Believe it or not!

  • GreenWin

    Classic waffle. There is no fraud. Nor has been any since the first Rossi/Focardi demos. Gibbs once again disappoints by back sliding, waffling, fearing the saber rattle from the AIP.

    Eighteen highly qualified scientists and technicians assisted the Levi-Essen E-Cat HT experiments. Not ONE of them detected secret, hidden, surreptitious chicanery?? So, they and hundreds more LENR researchers are all in on the conspiracy?

    Looks like Gibbs got a phone call from Steve Forbes Jr, who got a phone call from…

    • Chris I

      Did you read it properly before saying this?

      OK, I know he isn’t saying what you would like if he did say, if he could say, but he just can’t. He can’t, unless he shares your approach of taking all on faith. He can’t. He must rely on what “the scientists” say at least as much as on what the ELFORSK-Varrenfall dudes say; he doesn’t have the competence to do otherwise. He’s playing the role of Sagredo between Salviati and Simplicio. Only with far less chances of following the arguments of each, in detail.

      • GreenWin

        I am impressed Chris. However I do not expect Gibbs to operate all on faith, nor do I. There are plenty of facts; one of which was the orthodoxy’s demand for a third party verification. Here it is. Unhappily for the church it does not say what Simplicio wanted it to say. But the report is written by highly competent and qualified scientists; supported by the ELFORSK scientists. And hundreds or thousands of other Salviatis.

        Simplicio sounded the fool because he refused to hear what the multitudes were telling him. Will our Simplicio insist on renewing his membership in the Flat Earth Society? Or gracefully accept change??

        • Chris I

          Exactly, there are plenty of “facts” (as far as Gibbs can tell) with some pointing one way and others pointing the opposite. The latter have that sacred label on them:


          and you can’t expect Gibbs to rely on much more than faith in this domain. I don’t think he has a particular training in the topics which are being discussed, he is trying to guide layfolks in judging. I can’t blame him for giving weight to what most nuclear and HEP physicists are saying.

          BTW the Flat Earth Society had nothing to do with it and was nonexistent at the time; Simplicio was a Peripatetic and, mostly, Gibbs is not him but Sagredo. Folks like Siegel are not even like Simplicio either, they are more like Cardinal Bellarmino.

          • GreenWin

            Chris, I agree. I do not think Gibbs the Simplicio, rather the Huizengas, Koonins, Robert L. Parks, and pathosceps of the old school. Of course I should have referred to the Ptolemaic Kingdom, but hoped to speak to layfolks with Flat Earth.

            Still, I am disappointed in Gibbs and the rest of the cowering press. In a non-synthetic world, the underground press would trumpet the Essen-Levi validation. It would be extolled by Pacifica, published in the Voice, splashed across the Weeklies.

            It is interesting how similar this saga is to The Inquisition of 1633. “Joshua Cude” is Simplicio in this reenactment.

          • Chris I

            One thing you’ve missed:

            In Galileo’s dialogue, Simplicio stood for the run of the mill Peripatetic who followed Galileo’s arguments and understood them. It was the few most stubborn ones who resorted the the Holy scriptures when they were left with no philosophical ammo.Of them, the cardinal is the one that persuaded Urban XIII that his old friend had decieved him to get his book approved, stirring up Papal Wrath. That’s more like what these skeptopaths are trying to do.

  • Job001

    Standard negotiation for IP, slander the IP, the inventor, the science, the history, the product, then buy it cheap. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s negotiation. Check BLP, same thing.

    • cx

      What ever happened to BLP they released some convincing validations last year and they were completely ignored by the media. The tech from what i read seems really promising just as world changing as the ecat.

      • Kim

        The only thing out of BLP is Reports
        Tonnes of Reports.

        Randall Miller Lovers to write technical reports
        and ponder the universe.

        I don’t think he has a heart to get into the
        thick of it with the Main Stream Media.

        He’s happy working on the next report!


        • GreenWin

          Fascinating if he was an uncredited adviser to other LENR inventors. He is brilliant.

        • Visitor

          He is talking about BLP’s 3rd party report sgined by 6 highly gualified persons. It did catch the headlines ( CNN) but since then we heard nothing from them.

  • Jay

    I’d be interested in having other readers’ views, but personally I cannot escape the impression that several of these articles appearing are the work of Mr. Steven Krivit. Is he now stepping up his anti-Rossi campaign by inciting other journalists to write negative reports on Rossi ? The Discovery article definitely gave that impression… It would be rather ironic, given the fact that these articles are damaging the general CF/LENR field just as much as Mr. Rossi…

    • Pedro

      He probably has a nice press kit with stories, links to related stories,octures, charts, etc. that he sends to every journalist and blogger. Journalists love press kits because it provides for an easy story.

  • Kim

    Its a big hornets nest and the hornets are losing.

    LENR has indisputably been proven.

    Both by highly qualified Scientists and Ingenious

    They need to understand how it works, and that won’t
    happen until the hornets nest is calm again.

    They will be forced to find an answer, and will use
    this as an excuse to slow down the inevitable.

    OK Corral. Baby!


  • frank sedei

    Maybe the progress of marketing this product is purposely being slowed or controlled. LENR is such a historic breakthrough it would seem unlikely the government would allow the secrecy surrounding it any possibility of falling into foreign hands– at least until the USA fully captures the illusive science and technology. (Think US Military and NASA.) Could Rossi have been given an offer he could not refuse and taken the money and ran? We may have a very long wait for LENR products entering the geneeral market.

    • fortyniner

      I think that your speculation is probably correct on all counts. If we’re fortunate then a downgraded form of LENR will be ‘sanctioned’ for use by the international energy cartels under enforced monopoly conditions.

      I think Rossi is still involved in development, but is probably kept on a fairly short leash. He has to be pragmatic about the options available to him.

  • fortyniner

    Slightly OT but I’ve bought this forward from the last thread as I’m hoping that one of our physicists or other knowledgeable people will comment:

    artefact on May 29, 2013 at 6:58 pm

    “I have not seen this patent:

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

    This seems to be a very interesting patent that might deserve more attention. 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 a prepared palladium/zirconium powder instead of nickel. Apart from the metals used, the other main difference is that instead of heating the cell to initiate the ‘reaction’, an electrical current is passed directly through the powder charge.

    One claim is that a radionuclide mixed with the charge displays accelerated decay but with reduced radiation relative to the normal levels associated with radioactive decay – potentially an answer to the high level waste accumulating around the world, and possibly helpful dealing with massive contamination such as at Fukushima.

    “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, although the implication seems to be there.

    If this effect can be replicated and verified then this may be a major invention, and also seemingly very closely related to what Rossi is doing. I half recall that one of the Japanese researchers also reported something similar, but can’t find a reference. There appears to be a whole new science out there for physicists who are able to open their eyes to it.

    • Jim

      Thanks for the callout, it’s worth a careful read.

      The science debate around LENR is shaping up to be like the “Central Dogma” of molecular biology, originally posited in 1958 by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA (and later amended by him), which states that information only flows from the DNA to RNA to proteins, and as such the environmental influences on living organisms can’t be transferred genetically to their offspring.

      Add 60 years of scientific data to the mix and…

      ENNNKK! Wrong answer! Next contestant please!

      The “Central Dogma” of nuclear physics seems to be that “nuclear reactions” can affect “chemistry”, but “chemistry” cannot affect “nuclear reactions”.

      Add 24 years of CF/LENR Research to the mix, and…

      ENNNKK! Wrong answer! Next contestant please!

      • georgehants


      • AB

        The “Central Dogma” of nuclear physics seems to be that “nuclear reactions” can affect “chemistry”, but “chemistry” cannot affect “nuclear reactions”.

        From what I read, it’s more about the notion that nuclear reactions are unaffected by environment, whereas LENR seems to show that the environment does matter. But maybe that’s exactly what you’re saying

        In LENR experiments it is crucial to create the right geometry and conditions, otherwise nothing happens.

      • RGCheek

        The central dogma is ALREADY demonstrably wrong since muon-catalyzed fusion reaction can occur at room temperatures and these have been known since the 1950’s, and they were then known as cold fusion reactions.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer


      • fortyniner

        One of my old colleagues will have nothing to do with the idea of epigenetics even now. Probably just as well he retired several years back.

    • GreenWin

      Peter, one thing caught my eye was the reference to the Patterson Power Cell which was patented in the US. The Patterson Cell made an appearance on American television (1996) doing the very same thing, speeding decay rate, thus lowering half life of radioactive materials. For unknown reasons, the Patterson Cell disappeared after its inventor died.

      Compare the applicant’s “cell” drawing to Patterson’s:

      Here is an overview of Patterson’s invention:

      • artefact

        John A. Thompson was also a co-inventor of this patent:
        Electrolytic cell
        US 20040246660 A1

        together with patterson.

        • GreenWin

          Ah, that’s the connection. Thanks artefact.

      • fortyniner

        Thanks GW – that must have been what I was thinking of when I mistakenly thought it must have been one of the Japanese researchers.

        As artefact points out, Patterson is listed along with Thompson and Entenmann as an author on the version of the patent (pub 2012) that deals with heat production.

        Perhaps in the Celani wire experiments the current is more important than the heat? Time for MFMP to try an electric current through H-loaded natural Ni or 62Ni enriched nanopowder perhaps.

        • artefact

          probably with a special frequency

      • fortyniner

        GW – replied, but moderated (no idea why, as usual).

  • artefact

    Pre-loaded hydrogen fuel an engineering answer for efficiency, ease and safety

  • GreenWin

    A worthwhile review of the validation from James Bowery at Majority Rights:

    Nice to see the news greeted without the patho-hysteria from usual suspects. 🙂

  • georgehants

    So is this just the usual bias and incompetence of science or are we seeing an orchestrated conspiracy.

  • Stefan


    One thing a scientist on say a company is, is allergic to is power talk,
    I really cant’t understand that basically all open scientific critique is done so blatantly unprofessional that it is hard to take them seriously. So I really do not view the links to the critics in Gibbs article especially problematic. Actually that article shows that he is following the field and he exposes a slightly pessimistic stand although the magnitude of con or not con is on the same level on the richter scale.

    Now, please note the following, although that you link to a person that seems to do nothing more than badmouth this whole thing does not mean you agree with him. And he must show both sides of the coin doesn’t he and there is basically nil of good professional independent commentaries from the critique side to link to. I see that as a proof of that the work done, although not perfect, was OK.

    Anyway, After Listening to McCubre I think that the experimental proofs for LENR really really call’s for at least a significant part of the scientific community to put effort into understanding and developing this phenomena. Actually the bit that got me was actually that one can mathematically say under what circumstances one can succeed with the Fleichmann and Pons experiment and how well it fitted with the history of that event. If this was just hokus pokus I would not expect such a result, but just a random scatter plot of fringe successes and non fringe failures.


  • Jerry Jones

    I have to hand it to Gibbs he is trying to be even handed as possible with this circus atmosphere surrounding the ecat, at what point will this all end?

  • artefact

    From JONP:

    May 30th, 2013 at 9:33 AM
    Dear dr Rossi,
    we are interested to ask you a short interview. We leave here the questions. Thank you in advance for your readiness
    Kind regards
    Roberta De Carolis on behalf of

    The independent test results confirm the scientific validity of the Hot E-cat equipment. As it has been reported on the publication report, the performance has been verified successfully. But how could you explain the difference between the COP you stated in the past (11.6) and the results obtained on E-cat HT (5.6) and E-cat HT 2 (2.9)?

    Which are the main differences between E-cat HT and E-cat HT 2? Are you agree with the explanations provided by the researchers about the difference observed in the COP values?

    The tests are essentially based on the measurement of the incoming and the outcoming energy, so they could not prove the reaction mechanism. Why should we be sure that this is a nuclear reaction?

    Hot E-cat is co-generation thermal-electric system, and you stated that production of electricity has been committed to Siemens AG, developing a suitable turbine to be coupled to the reactor. Could you confirm this collaboration?

    Do you believe that this important result could speed up the certification procedures for security? Could you estimate the timings?

    The delivery of three plants of 1 MW E-Cat in the U.S. is now official. However, in an earlier statement you mentioned customers, but now we came to know that they are industrial partners. Could you tell us if this delivery is just preliminary to the real one and when this will happen?

    We know that that a US client representative attended the test. Could you tell us whether he is the client buying the plant? Could you communicate to our readers the satisfaction degree expressed by him about the testing?


    Andrea Rossi
    May 30th, 2013 at 12:16 PM
    1- COP depends from temperature and many other factors. The Examiners also considered all the margin of errors in the worst situation against us, to be conservative at maximum. They wanted to be sure beyond any possible and reasonable doubt. For example: they wanted a wood plan to put on all the electric and electronic devices, they wanted to use their own cables of their own measurement devices, they wanted to lift and seat themselves any conponent to be sure no other cables or any kind of contact was there…combining all the margin of error against us we lost a lot of efficiency, but it is fine, since the scope of the test was not commercial, it was merely scientific: the Professors wanted to know beyond any reasonable doubt if there was an excess of energy or not
    2- Yes, I substantially agree. The differences are described in the report
    3- Because of the 1st principle of thermodynamic. See also the Ragone diagram
    4- We are under NDA
    5- No, I do not see any nexus. The certification for the industrial plants has been granted, though
    6- We delivered to our US Partner. He will deliver to his Customers
    7- Wrong: the test of the Indoipendent Third Party, made in March, has nothing to do with the test made by the US Partner on April 30 and May 1. The test made by the Customer has made possible for us to continue to work for the Customer. It has been better than expected, we got results better that what we has guaranteed.
    Good Luck to your magazine!
    Andrea Rossi

    • AB

      No, I do not see any nexus. The certification for the industrial plants has been granted, though

      He means “No, I do not see any link.”

      It’s a bad translation of “nesso”.

    • Jim

      Thanks, nice post.

  • Morgan

    if we rule out hidden wires or some hidden power input, is there some chemical or fuel or something that could be in the box that would put out that heat for that amount of time?

    • fortyniner


    • Omega Z


      This is answered in the report.
      Taking the Entire wait of the HT-Cat into consideration, it provides a worst case scenario magnitude of (1) or 10 times more energy output then any known chemical fuel.

      • Omega Z


    • eernie1

      Yes,a minature fission reactor.Ha Ha

    • GreenWin

      No. That’s the focus of the validation report Morgan.

  • Anonymous Reader

    Commenting on the Forbes article,

    Unfortunately Rossi doesn’t allow a complete enough test to rule out conventional effects.

    I think Rossi is operating in good faith and he believes he has a working breakthrough technology. But the design of his demonstrations have been thus far left enough open issues to not be able to rule in or out LENR.

    I think Rossi can do better in his testing and communications strategy.

    With regard to childhood cancers, why not use the profit to cure ALL cancer. Regardless, I appreciate the thought and the highest ECAT benefit is in the cheaper energy if the ECAT technology can be brought to market. This solves problems like food and water availability, because with sufficient cheap energy, water can be pumped or desalinated, and fertilizer can make existing land resources more productive.

    • Owen

      So, you know more about analyzing heating devices than these scientists from international universities? Please list your credentials and specify how the report is lacking.

      • Anonymous Reader

        I was a physicist from a major university and then an engineer. My specialty was always in the lab and on the workbench. More than that I will not say.

        I don’t criticize the team members credentials. I criticize Rossi for providing only 90% of what was needed to make a truly convincing demonstration that the effect is not chemical. I criticize the report for not measuring before and after the mass of the contents of the chamber and proving that it was not combustion or a conventional metal hydride reaction. I also criticize the report for using thermal imaging to estimate the heat being produced by the device when flow calorimetry would be conclusive.

        I want to be convinced. I want the team to be successful. I am not convinced. I am waiting for more data to convince me.

        • Owen

          I’ve read most of the reviews/critiques of Rossi’s 3rd party report and it seems the general consensus is no one has been able to convincingly find fault with the test. You’re free to think whatever you want, of course, I’m just pointing out to casual readers that no one to my knowledge has found credible flaws in the testing methods. Thermal imaging, for instance, is a well accepted method of measuring heat. The thermal imaging measurements were compared to a thermocouple and heat from the ‘dummy’ reactor. The evaluators used the most conservative values throughout the tests and still they found 10x heat output over any conventional fuels. Elforsk, who paid for the tests, were satisfied with the report and will continue funding more tests. That right there says it all. Why would they continue funding these tests if the evaluators screwed up?

          • Anonymous Reader


            For the world’s energy sake and for Rossi’s business sake, I would like him to put the open issues to bed. He is 90% of the way there. Go all the way, prove it beyond any reasonable doubt with the scientific community, and then we can move on. I am hopeful he will do this in the next few months.

            And I also respectfully ask him to get a professional media consultant to write his company’s official public communications.

          • David John

            Have you thought about the possibility that Rossi doesn’t disclose 100% as an insurance for his life? Have you heard what happened to most scientists that challenged big energy interests with their work? Please get out of the lab more often, it’s not all black and white out here.

    • Joe Shea

      No one ever seems to consider the possibility that “independent” testers – like those cheap frauds from MIT who tested the Pons-Fleischmann device in 1989 – might be frauds themselves, representing utilities, gas, oil, wind, solar and other energy companies that have an interest in killing the E Cat. It might even be a huge mistake for Rossi to ever let anyone test it beyond the customers who will use it and have paid well for the opportunity. There’s no reason to think you could trust other sceintists more than the ones Rossi trusted.

  • Stephen G.

    Once again, I think it is worth pointing out that there are very strong vested interests that do NOT want the E-Cat to work. If it does work, then they want to delay acceptance of that fact for as long as possible.

    There are major companies that have invested very large amounts of money – billions of dollars – in drilling for oil at great depths under the sea, in fracking, and in various other high-risk, high-investment projects. If the E-Cat works, they will lose a lot of money. There are countries whose entire economies depend on oil and/or gas …

    Doesn’t anyone understand this? Of course, there will be many people who express scepticism about Rossi and the E-Cat. Some of them are genuine sceptics, but some of them have vested interests, of one kind or another, in rubbishing “cold fusion”, or LENR, or whatever it is called. Some of them are probably being paid to try to suppress any good news about the E-Cat, or at least to create confusion about it.

    There is sufficient evidence now to show that, whatever “cold fusion” may be, it is a genuine phenomenon. This evidence comes from many sources, not just from Rossi. Maybe no one understands the physics, but there is undoubtedly something going on.

    In my view, the third-party report is beyond doubt. It was funded by a Swedish energy company, which has posted a link to the report on its company web site. Has that company somehow been scammed by Rossi? It seems very, very unlikely.

    The sceptics are losing now. They are simply putting up a tough fight to maintain some credibility for as long as possible (incidentally, this will allow certain companies to dispose of assets that will be liabilities once the E-Cat is fully commercialized …).

    It is time to stop attacking Rossi, and the E-Cat, and “cold fusion” generally. As far as I am concerned, the sceptics can now go hang themselves.

  • Donald Duck

    Gibbs’s articles on Rossi are rare examples of a journalist doing his homework and thinking rationally about the issues involved. Would that there be more of it, instead of the usual knee-jerk crap.

  • Conrad

    “..but the hardest to believe given what science and scientists tell us.”

    Main stream scientists have ‘always’ dismissed absolutely new technological breakthroughs.
    Something absolutely new ‘of course’ is always implied as impossible to all scientists! It’s their job to say so.

    A scientist opinion can only be based on all information collected and quantified from the past. Something completely new and different will always after consideration calculate as ‘FALSE’ and ‘IMPOSSIBLE’ (Otherwise it is not new but only a combination of known science)

    In fact a scientist opinion is next to worthless if a completely new ‘thing’ has been discovered!

    Rossi is not the first inventor to stumble on to a brand new ‘thing’ that nobody can explain how it actually works (including the inventor)

    • RGCheek

      But this idea that fusion can take place at room temperatures is a well established FACT since the 1950’s when Muon-catalyzed fusion was discovered.

      Please read this Wikipedia article on it, and note that back then this process was referred to as COLD FUSION.

      For any scientists to say that room temperature fusion is known to be impossible or that there is no evidence such things can happen is a LIE or they don’t know nuclear physics very well.