E-Cat Test Critique Published on Arxiv

Göran Ericsson and Stephan Pomp of the Division of Applied Nuclear Physics at Uppsala University, Sweden have published a critique of the recent E-Cat Test published by Levi et al on Arxiv.org.

The authors are not satisfied with the test for a number of reasons. Here are some of their main objections:

  • The testers were not independent enough or qualified to do a black box test. They say it would have been better for this test to have been carried out by an independent agency in their own lab, and feel it was not appropriate for the tests to be carried out on Rossi’s own premises. They note that some of the testers had previous connections with Rossi.
  • They state that the reporting of electrical measurements is not thorough enough, and mention that there is a possibility that DC power could have been input into the system through ground leads or other ways.
  • They criticize the authors stating that nickel and hydrogen are used in the test when they were not able to determine this because they could not open the reactor.
  • By using the COSMOL physics simulation tool Ericsson and Pomp have been able to replicate a waveform that is similar to what is presented in the March test of Levi et al’s report without any anomalous heat being involved.
  • They question the authors’ reasoning in how they interpret the thermal signature of the March test, saying it is “unfortunately typical of a kind of thinking that otherwise is ubiquitous in pseudo science: the tendency to quickly jump to interpretations and conclusions that support the extra‐ordinary claim, rather than to try to find more mundane explanations based on already known, standard physics.” (p. 6)
  • No data is provided from the ‘dummy’ test, and the dummy reactor was not tested in the same way as the live one.

In their conclusion,  Ericsson and Pomp state:

“We note that the proposed claims would require new physics in several areas. Besides a cold‐fusion like process without production of any radiation also extreme new material properties would be needed to explain what rather seems to be a problem of correct measurement. We are surprised that the authors make such remarkable claims based on a report with so many shortcomings . . . Wishful thinking seems to have replaced scientific rigor in some cases. These are characteristics more typically found in pseudo‐scientific texts and have no place in a technical/scientific report on this level”.

My own reaction to this critique is that despite these objections, the results of the E-Cat testing show that Rossi’s reactor is producing far more energy than it consumes. The testing was always going to be black box — Levi et al do not begin to speculate about what is causing the excess heat. The testers were qualified scientists used standard measuring equipment and reported what they measured. To reject this report, you have to conclude that that either fraud or gross incompetence was involved, and I don’t believe either is the case.

I accept that not all will be convinced that we have a new and better form of energy at hand because of a report published on Arxiv.org. It is going to take a lot more for the E-Cat to be widely accepted — we’re going to have to see working plants in action, and satisfied customers reporting on its benefits. From my perspective, however, the May 16 report is a solid piece of evidence that Andrea Rossi’s invention is what he has always said it was.

  • dayton

    I believe that the authors of the critique are correct in their anxiety
    about protocols for experimental proofs. I myself will not believe that an
    E-CAT can exist until I see the 30yr. warranty card of my installed hot water unit.

    • fortyniner

      Their ‘anxiety’ is more likely to be related to their threatened belief systems, status and research than to the protocols used. Fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs are unlikely to affect the outcome of these events.

    • Roger Bird

      And you are bragging about this complete lack of confidence in your own ability to ferret out the truth?

  • Bob

    I agree with the statement of admin in that the tests are a ‘solid piece of evidence’. However, I do not see the tests as being positively conclusive evidence.
    I also agree with most, but not all of the points raised by Ericsson and Pomp. While none of the points raised are conclusive evidence that the device does not work, they are still points of possible dispute which should be completely eliminated before the tests can be considered as being beyond doubt.
    In particular, I was not at all happy to see prof Levi as being the one organising the tests and the write up because of his previous close association with Rossi on the earlier demonstrations which I still believe did not show an e-cat working as claimed. Particularly in the case of the demonstration to Krivit. If he could be swayed by Rossi into believing that this demonstration showed a steam generation of 5 kilowatts then I don’t know what else he could be persuaded of.
    He was also a friend of Focardi’s who we now know was in his last days. Levi would have had a significant motive to arrive at a positive result and that is unacceptable for a third party independent test, that a person with such motive be allowed to have such a prominent position in the test. I see it as only one step removed from having Rossi organising the test himself.

    I also agree that not subjecting the dummy to exaclty the same test conditions is another serious mistake. The whole point of a ‘control test’ on a dummy device is to determine the power parameters of the exact same device but with the active ingredient neutralised.
    To do the test with any differences at all can only create suspicion that the differences were made for the purpose of producing a favorable but false result.

    It suits me at the moment to just sit back on the fence for the time being and not make any decision about fraud or otherwise. I get some considerable satisfaction just from the thought that it might actually work and that we might be on the verge of solving the planets energy problems.
    However, if this is not followed up fairly promptly with some confirmation tests on a truly third party test with all the above points addressed, I will become less accepting of the one and only test so far which I think has shown some probablility of being genuinely successful.
    One thing which would have gone a long way to dispelling my doubts would have been to invite to the testing, the Swedish people who did the earlier test and found no excess energy.
    If they had given their endorsement to the results I would now be 99 percent convinced it is all genuine. Without it, I am probably still below 50 percent convinced, and a considerable part of that is from wishful thinking.

    • Warthog

      Why do you think it matters that Levi had done (or helped to do) the previous tests?? This in no way affects his credibility. He was originally brought in to do the tests by Dr. Focardi because Focardi (NOT Rossi) asked him to. The same comments are made about Hanno and Essen, with a similar lack of evidence of “bias”.

      And the test that convinced Levi didn’t involve the production of steam. It drew potable water from the building piping and fed it through the reactor at a sufficiently high rate that did not involve the production of steam…..just a “delta T” of entering and leaving water.

      As far as I can see, the only “sin” these folks were guilty of is in not automatically denouncing the possibility of LENR, but actually following where the data led.

      • Bob

        I refer to the test Rossi did for Krivt with Levi present. The water was converted to steam and Rossi held the outlet pipe up against Levi’s black T shirt so the steam was more visible. It was a very low flow rate and definitely not consistent with the claimed output. This is obvious from the video and it should have been equally obvious to Levi.
        The fact that he said nothing other than to agree with Rossi made me think that he was either not prepared to call Rossi out, or not familiar with what 5 kilowatts af steam should look like. Both possibilities did nothing to enhance my confidence in the validity of the device.

        It matters whether Levi was previously involved in the tests because it diminishes the perception of truly ‘independent third party’ status.
        ‘Independent third party’ usually infers having no previous involvement and therefore less possibility to lead the test down a previously established but incorrect path. This can happen either knowingly, unknowingly, or both.

        • Warthog

          Sorry, but you can’t isolate one test from all the rest of the datasets. Krivit’s bias is far worse than the worst possible for the any of the testers, it just happens to lie in a direction “blessed” by the skeptics.

          “It matters whether Levi was previously involved in the tests because it diminishes the perception of truly ‘independent third party’ status.”

          HOW does it do that?? All of the testers were independent of involvement with Rossi, except for Focardi. The fact that some of them had been involved with previous tests is simply irrelevant. They were, and remained, unattached.

          “‘Independent third party’ usually infers having no previous involvement and therefore less possibility to lead the test down a previously established but incorrect path. This can happen either knowingly, unknowingly, or both.”

          Which is precisely the case here. This was a completely different type of test and test environment than any of the previous tests. Totally different measurement, totally different device to be tested. Past involvement in the other tests is irrelevant. Their ONLY “sin” is that they said the previous tests showed anomalous heat. That is ALL that is the source of the negative sentiment.

        • Gerrit

          complete rubbish !

          You must have lost your sense of perspective.

          The CERN crew hunting for the Higgs Boson all have “previous involvement” in hunting the higgs boson, they even helped _design_ the “higgs producing” equipment.

          There have been millions of test runs were they couldn’t get any results indicating a higgs-boson.

          To paraphrase you, these CERN guys didn’t say anything about failing to produce a higgs boson for millions of test runs and have all been previously involved in the hunt and design of the equipment. They desperately needed to get positive results, just to keep face and the funding flowing.

          Go on, apply your rationale to the hunt for higgs boson and denounce the CERN results, so everybody will see that you’re a loony.

          • Roger Bird

            Gerrit, I agree with Bob. What counts is perspective and perception. I don’t have a problem with THE test because I am familiar with Levi et. al. It wouldn’t even cross my mind, and in fact didn’t cross my mind, that Levi was friends with Rossi and that Levi would cheat for his friend Rossi. Such an idea simply would not have been in my mind while I was jumping up and down cheering. But other people unfamiliar with these people and who hate LENR anyway are going to find fault with their friendship with regard to the validity of THE test.

          • Warthog

            WHERE is it shown that Levi was “friends with Rossi” before the first test?? People keep saying this, but I have seen no indication that such is the case, and I have been following this reasonably closely since just after the first test.

            Levi and FOCARDI were indeed friends and colleagues “pre-test”, and Levi and Rossi may have become friends post test, which is quite a different thing.

            Even so, this still discredits Levi not at all, and certainly not Hanno, Essen, Bianchi, and the rest.

            There is a great deal of difference between a genuine perspective and perception, and one generated by “memetic engineering” on the part of the pathological skeptics. In my opinion, this is precisely the case here.

          • Roger Bird

            I agree with you, but perception is everything in something like this when trying to convince hard scientists.

          • Sanjeev

            Well, if these same skeptics apply the same “logic” to CERN experiments, they will conclude that the Higgs particle don’t exist at all and CERN is faking it.

            Their experiment has a few results out of billions of tries, cannot be said to be reproduce-able, no one in the world has resources to replicate it. They are simply trying to find support for a theory, not really trying to see the reality as it is, in other words they are biased, not independent.

            These things are of no concern to people, because CERN is not going to affect markets, govs, or common people. Its far out there, so it doesn’t matter if the particle exits or not. LENR is another animal altogether, so we see so much resistance, distrust and nitpicking.

            This issue is better studied in sociology and psychology than physics.

          • Bob

            Well, a loony maybe. But a very well off loony who has become well off by following my loony logic to some very profitable loony conclusions.
            And in doing that I have often gone against what the less loony are telling me I should be backing.
            How are you doing? 🙂

    • Gerrit

      “He was also a friend of Focardi’s who we now know was in his last days. Levi would have had a significant motive to arrive at a positive result and that is unacceptable for a third party independent test, that a person with such motive be allowed to have such a prominent position in the test.”

      What a stupid argument, really !

      Think about the motives the researchers in CERN have to come up with a positive Higgs-Boson result. Peter Higgs is 84 years old, better find the Higgs-Boson now before it’s too late.

      Your reasoning makes you indistinguishable from regular trolls.

      • Bob

        Then I suppose you must conclude Ericsson and Pomp are also indistinguishable from regular trolls.
        They have said exactly the same as I said.
        Read their report. That’s what this thread is about.
        If you don’t like their report then you can write one yourself and get it published somewhere so we can all read it and comment on it.

  • HHiram

    This critique suffers from the same problem as all of the others I’ve seen so far: it fails to provide plausible alternative explanations for the data observed.

    This paper *claims* that “alternative explanations are possible” but they do not actually provide any explanations.

    What was the COP that Levi et al. arrived at? 3? And that number was the result of extremely conservative assumptions by Levi et al. An alternative explanation would have to address this extraordinary finding. None of the ones offered in this critique do so.

    So while Ericsson & Pomp offer a number of criticisms of the method Levi et al. describe and complain about not enough detail being given (they even complain on p.8 that Levi et al. are being *too* conservative!), they do not offer any plausible explanation for how the observed result could *possibly* have been produced without a non-chemical ultra-high-density fuel source being involved.

    Levi et al. observed a COP of at least 3, which is an ASTONISHING result. With less conservative estimates, Levi et al. note that the COP number might actually be an order of magnitude (10 times) larger or more – a COP of 30+. Ericcson & Pomp need to provide a convincing explanation for how this incredible result could have been faked by Rossi. The closest they come to doing so is by implying that all of the additional power could simply be pumped in through the existing wiring. They do not offer any explanation for how this might be done without detection.

    In sum, I find this to be a very weak critique. It is based mostly on attacking the character of those involved, and while it nit-picks some of the methodology it does nothing to offer any convincing alternative explanation for what was observed.

    By analogy, it is as if someone filmed a man holding his breath underwater for 2 hours, and then the critics complained that the camera was VHS instead of HD. OK, the quality could have been higher – but who cares? Give us a plausible alternative explanation for the *incredible* result or go home.

    • AB

      Would you agree that their COMSOL simulation actually enhances the credibility of the e-cat?

    • Andrew Macleod

      They have attacked the only thing they could, the testers. Claiming faulty readings and data doctoring.

      • artefact

        with the next test in summer this is the only thing they can do if they don’t want LENR to be real.

    • Owen

      You nailed it. They can’t give a plausible alternative explanation because they don’t have one.

    • Roger Bird

      HH, it is surprising that scientists could make these kinds of mistakes. After all, they are scientists, god-like beings.

      • HHiram

        The criticism and skepticism are two of the founding pillars of science. That’s what makes the scientific process robust and self-correcting, which enables it to avoid dogma that plagues other forms of knowledge-building like religion and mythology.

        • fortyniner

          In theory anyway. In practice the system is subject to a strong normalcy bias and also to deliberate interference in many ways. Dogma not only persists, but thrives – humans, no matter how ‘qualified’, are simply incapable of maintaining any truly objective system.

  • Andrea Di Luccio

    Tests are the best they can do since the apparatus cannot be opened until patent release. Who don’t understand this (like Ericcson & Pomp) cannot talk about Rossi work.
    Dear Ericcson & Pomp, let’s imagine a scenario where you find a black box producing that results but you cannot open it without loose the effect forever. If you are so smart, design your own tests but respect the real conditions. Can you?

  • Stew

    IIRC there were two black boxes, the E-Cat itself and the control box. One too many in my opinion. Why wasn’t the contol box examined?

    • Paolo

      See the authors of the paper, they belong to the nuclear physics field, so they could lose their work due to such a revolution or have to revise all their knowledge. Then, they are justified to use all the weapons they have for their physical and intellectual survival… Their paper will not remain in the history, sorry. I am a physicist not working in their field. Have a good Sunday.

      • Timycelyn

        What they are doing is understandable at a level of personal motivation, but it is sad. Low grade quibbling. Trying to disprove the presence of the elephant in the room by arguing about the number and nature of the hairs on its trunk.

        The old saying ‘Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas’ seems very applicable here. These particular turkeys will, no doubt, go down fighting, but their cause, and possibly their jobs, is a lost one….all in a few years, maximum, from now.

    • AB

      The contents of the control box are proprietary. That the interior of the control box wasn’t examined does not alter the conclusion of the paper. There is no battery that could fit in the control box while being able to provide the excess energy that was observed.

      The control box was on a wooden (nonconducting) table and the testers actively looked for hidden wires.

    • Warthog

      It was.

  • captain

    from ==> http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/12/english-transcript-of-svt-cold-fusion-program/



    >>> But most scientists remain sceptic.

    Göran Eriksson-professor nuclear physics Uppsala University:

    It is difficult for a scientist to say something is impossible but there is nothing indicating that this type of reaction could exist. <<<

    With such a kind of guys, time is wasted.
    Mr.Goran: Rossi succeded cause he believed in the 'impossible'.

    • Owen

      “…there is nothing indicating that this type of reaction could exist.”

      Really? What about the thousands of articles at LENR-CANR.org? These guys need to do more homework.

  • Jon Baggs

    When I have done ‘Black Box’ testing I did not open the ‘Black Box’ That is the whole idea of ‘Black Box’ testing. I think some retraining may be required by some of these guys?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    They sound like the same people who criticized Galileo’s work. It’s the same old argument: There must be something inherently wrong with Galileo’s telescope because it’s showing things that just can’t be true.

    • Roger Bird

      And we shan’t lower ourselves by looking through a crude physical device.

  • Bob Finley

    Why not allow Ericsson and Pomp to do a test in their lab with a representative of Mr. Rossi there to make sure they don’t open the box? Also, have the whole thing on a live internet video feed to make sure they do it right?

    I guess though, if the plants are being sold and are up and working, it really doesn’t matter what Ericsson and Pomp think, or anybody else for that matter.

    Roll on new world!

    • GreenWin

      Not a bad idea, but I think Rossi feels he’s wasted enough time with the academics who, are IMO, steadily defeating their positions as keepers of knowledge by ignoring the Levi-Essen paper.

      Next major step is to announce the working commercial reactor.

      • captain

        I agree: Rossi said that facts will speak for him.

    • Redford

      Because if they’re not honest it will lead to a disaster.

  • Steve M

    Original Italian Government Bureaucrats, this is typical of why the government is in such disarray.

  • Barry

    Old mary has been trolling again at The Washington Post. She has split into another venomous personality, Andrew2P. When you click on the “ignore user” button for maryyugo, her sub personality Andrew2P dissapears as well. One click, two trolls.
    Thanks to Peter Roe and Joe Shae for rising above the mud over there. I’m afraid I went into it with a little less dignity, couldn’t help myself.

    • AB

      Pathological behavior. He strongly desires that other people view his opinion as more popular than it really is.

      That suggests he realizes that his position represents a fringe opinion. Fortunately most people are sane enough avoid Maryyugo’s “guilty until proven innocent” attitude.

    • fortyniner


      Much as I’d like to take the credit for that, it was actually pretty mud(?)-free when I posted there – all the comments at the time were just suggestions about fuel sources. Hody must have discovered the blog shortly after and left his little piles all over the place for people to step in.

      I suppose we should make allowances – he seems to be pretty loosely wrapped.

      • GreenWin

        At the risk of sarc, fortyniner, don’t you think identifying the poster as wrapped with plenty of empty space – as being inopportunely accurate? Forgive the speculation. It is a brightly lit Sunday and I may be blinded by the light.

        • fortyniner

          Interesting interpretation, and yes I suppose that would be a way of looking at Hody’s vacuous but nasty waffle! The empty space clearly intrudes extensively inside the wrapppings.

          But I had more in mind the image of something coming apart quite rapidly – a structure not quite up to the strain. The new ‘branch’ ID can’t be helping – shades of ‘Sybil’ (Shirley Mason), whose multiple personalities turned out to be as fake as Hody’s.

  • Stefan

    After reading the critique, which I do find mostly well written, it would probably not be too hard to take most points of the authors and introduce the clarifications and explanations in the Levy report. This would improve the quality of the Levy report. I don’t expect the conclusion of the Levy report to change much though.

    After Levy’s statement that the testers did contemplate how to secure wires from cheesy attempts, it is clear that at least the March test
    was done with secured wires. The DC issue still remains, but is very unlikely to be the cause of a scam.

    Now, as it now stands, it really looks like either it’s a scam including some of the testers or it’s the real thing. The badmouthing in the critique paper, have a point in that the authors did not contemplate to discuss some of the questions, that’s it’s because incompetence is a little exaggerated, I more would assume that it’s the common syndrome of people being inside the technology and are taking things for granted, this is actually a common problem for many scientist and I would expect most papers written have in the first versions deficiencies in this direction. So just ignoring the badmouthing and humbly address the points and voila you will have neutralized most of the name callings. It’s because of this property I really liked the critique. It do give good suggestion on how to make the Levy paper become better.

    Have fun!

  • Bill Hill

    Now a critique on Hot Fusion please? Over 30 years of research, billions of dollars spent, £13 Billion earmarked for ITER, commercial reactors at least 20 years off, if at all. It appears if you really want to make a scam, make it a huge one.

  • clovis

    What a load of crevit crap,and his gang of goons.-lol
    This is the lowest slap in the face of some of the worlds best sicentice
    from the world’s oldest univerisitys. dishonorable, and just plain stupid.
    I an still laughting. what’s wrong with this bunch of miss fitts.
    Calling, Dr. levi a pseudo scientice. is slanderious,and redicilious. these clown needs to feel the rath, that they deserve.

    • Stefan

      Yes, they use unnecessary words, but I prefer the talk of silence
      when it comes to replying to such behavior. I can only note that
      there is almost nothing in the line of a sane critique e.g. leaving
      the tough words out. So we got what we got. Note that they do not think things through, but suggest areas where Levy et all could explain. For example the example of 100x power density in the power compared to a fission reactor, which although sounds high, is what one would expect if one think it through. The paper can only gain by giving hints on why this is ok. So almost nothing in the critique is a serious critique with respect to the conclusions, it’s just to sieve out what people have problem with and address them in a revised paper.
      Such a addendum would actually help people who is arguing.


  • George N

    Once hot fusion physicists are pushed out of their jobs by the ecat, I believe science will be much better and be driven by experimental results rather than cheifly by theory

    • Roger Bird

      George N, I think that you are mistaken. Scientists have always been like this, jealous and vindictive. Not all, of course, but Newton was pretty bad, and the Royal Society was foolish enough to put him at the head of their operation just because he was the most intellectually brilliant guy around. Such placement of Newton as the head of the Royal Society in and of itself tells us something about scientists. The problem is the massive amount of money that government has been pouring into science research for the past 70 years. This aggravates the problem. When LENR takes over, there will still be this problem, but probably not so much in the energy sector. Being able to change paradigms and being able to relate well to others requires more than the ability to do calculus in one’s head. It requires heart and inner resources that are NOT intellectual in nature. And in fact, those who can do calculus in their heads tend to not be those who can paradigm shift and to not be those who can relate well with others.

      • George N

        Long story short, hot fusionists seem particularly adept to ignoring factual evidence — aka they are liars. I think the story of Eugene Mallove proves this.

  • Yury Kissin

    Just looking at the brief description of the criticism at the beginning of this post:
    Let us strictly look at the three tests as black-box tests. Do not even mention words “nickel”, “hydrogen”, etc. You are given a sealed metal tube. The single claim is: If the tube is heated by a simple resistive electric heater to a particular temperature, 300C or 400C, it starts producing significantly more energy that the electric heater provides.
    Two details:
    1.In extreme cases, the amount of the produced energy is so high that the content of the tube melts.
    2. For the reasons unrelated to the black-box test, the inventor decided in one case to provide the external heating not in a continuous manner but as a series of pulses.
    This approach immediately negates all the exalted words like “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”, “well established physics vs. new physics”, etc. The subject is reduced to two alternative answers:
    1 The claims of the inventor about the production of excess energy by this particular black box are correct.
    2. Or, the inventor is a crook. He found an ingenious way (which the critics could not determine yet) to dupe gullible Swedish scientists
    (and Professor Levi is a part of the conspiracy, etc.)
    All other forms of the criticism are merely mudding clear waters.
    If you choose the answer number 2, please, state loudly and clearly “Andrea Rossi is a crook and all other involved are dupes, and I have a proof of it”. And then present your proof.
    If you choose answer number 1 but hate to admit it, shut up for a while and let the events take their course.
    Last warning: there is no intermediate position. No talk about the exiting energy being merely equal to the supplied energy. Because otherwise there would not be all this talk about the electrical outlet being rigged and supplying both the alternative and the direct current.
    And, specifically to critics outside Italy who want an independent test in their own lab. Please, call your Custom Agency and ask them how can you bring into your country for testing a nuclear device.

    • kasom

      You got the point!

      “All other forms of the criticism are merely mudding clear waters.”

      I agree!

      But Krivit et al. will continue to produce F.U.D.

    • lcd


  • freethinker


  • freethinker

    Having scrutinized the commentary of Ericsson and Pomp, I conclude that their report does little to harm, but rather improve the current state of matters. Actually, there are a few bits there that is really amusing in a way.

    Took the pains in creating a doc on my comments,

    • artefact

      good work! (still reading..)

    • Pedro

      Very nice analisys!!! Thank you!

    • Dr. Mike

      Dear freethinker,
      Thanks for taking the time for making such a detailed commentary on Ericsson’s and Pomp’s commentary. As I have commented earlier on the third party independent report, I believe that it was an excellent report. You are right on in that the key to evaluating the quality of the third party report is to start with the stated scope of the experimental work. The authors demonstrated that they measured excess energy far exceeding that obtained by any chemical means and that was the scope of their work!
      Dr. Mike

    • H. Hansson


    • Jim

      suggestion: google “Sephan Pomp LENR”, note the many (and increasing number of) secondary references, and where possible add a comment pointing to freethinker’s article.

    • Ecat


    • Dickyaesta

      Very well writen. Thank you very much,freethinker. Although I have to read it still more. I think it should be regarded as strong basis or yet even the final word on the third party tests to reply to sceptics or sceptopaths.

      This should be enough to silent all further ‘ado about nothing’. We all have other things to do in life, but to constantly go back to base one, only because somebody is soooo biased it is beyond believe.
      Thanks again freethinker.

      • Roger Bird

        Stop replying to skeptopaths, please.

  • freethinker

    Ended up in mod.

    Took the pains in creating a doc on my comments,

    • Roger Bird

      Perhaps you should clean up the spelling and such. I dang near broke my arm trying to carry it.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    “We note that the proposed claims would require new physics in several areas”

    Of course, they mean, it doesn’t fit into the Standard Model. Like Gravity.

    • clovis


    • Roger Bird

      An outstanding thought. I hope that they get that thought.

  • GreenWin

    Checking into the background of one of these skeptical authors, Göran Ericsson, finds interesting connections that MAY (Roger – note – MAY) introduce bias in his critique. Though Göran Ericsson has a single listing and email address in the Uppsala University directory – he does not appear to teach or publish in his purported field of applied nuclear physics.

    With the exception of one paper: “Neutron spectroscopy as a fuel ion ratio diagnostic: Lessons from JET and prospects for ITER”, Rev. Sci. Instr. 81 (2010) 10D324 this Mr. Ericsson has not published anything that appears in academic research data bases. And in light of his one paper on prospects for ITER – we can reasonably assume he is a rather energetic ITER and hot fusion fan.

    There IS another Göran Ericsson at Uppsala; Goran N. Ericsson of the Electrical Engineering department has 23 publications including “Neutronic calculations in support of the design of the ITER High Resolution Neutron Spectrometer” (essentially the same paper) – obviously another hot fusion fan.

    This is to suggest that Mr. Ericsson may harbor prejudicial belief opposed to the whole idea of cold fusion. And from his list of smart grid security publications and affiliations with the Swedish Power Industry, is an enthusiastic proponent of the smart grid – something that may not survive an LENR revolution.


    • Jim


      It’s not so much that the emperor has no clothes; it’s that he’s covered in corporate logos.

      • Roger Bird


    • Redford

      Tsss… I thought “some hot fusion guys maybe?” then thought “don’t be suspicous, not all nuclear physicist are in hot fusion” but apparently I gave them too much credit. Pretty amazing how the first effort comes from somewhere rather than nowhere.

  • pg

    sorry to be trying to simplify, but what they are saying is pretty much like: we drove a Ferrari formula 1 (another italian creation), but due to the fact that our experts could not look inside the engine, we believe that the performances measured on the track must have been faked, because no car can reach 350 km an hour. (or whatever speed might challenge credibility)

  • H. Hansson

    Goran Ericsson and Stephan Pomp criticism is lame. Just referring to COSMOL physics simulation tool when the core of the design is un-known.. tells me something about the mind set..

    The eCat may work or may not work. As long as it is un-explained there is no needs to AWOL in either directions.

    Goran Ericsson and Stephan Pomp is a note that will shape up future tests.

  • Roger Bird

    Let us keep in mind that scientific papers are supposed to be convincing to people who have no knowledge of the people doing the testing and experimenting. Us folks here in this forum have an entirely different perspective than those who don’t know anything about cold fusion or the people involved in it’s development. It is all about perspective. This critique should be an opportunity to hone tests and reports in the future. The report convinced me, but we can’t expect some scientist who never heard of LENR before to have the same perspective and convince-ability index as I do.

    I have been studying LENR, LENR+, and the E-Cat for 20 months, and some scientist sits down and starts reading a paper about it for the first time. The paper should be flawless if it is going to convince him/her.

    • kasom


    • jeppen

      Ok, so you’ve been studying it for 20 months, and the device has “been around” since 2007. I just made this quote up: “If it is too good to be true, then either it isn’t true, or it will be rapidly commercialized!”

      But you’re waiting, just like doomsday cultist are waiting for a specific date of the doomsday. And then when the date arrives and nothing happens, you cling to the next announced date and start waiting for that.

      Waiting… Even though there is this revolutionary device that can do away with all humanity’s energy problems. It easily has a yearly trillion dollar market and would totally disrupt the geopolical landscape. Yet it is not commercialized, nor stolen by some intelligence agency. It is merely shown briefly in a circus tent a few times per year or something. When will you call this out?

      • Roger Bird

        OK, jeppen, you are being abusive and denigrating, so I didn’t finish your post and I have this little list in my memory upon which your name has been placed. I won’t read your posts, and I won’t comment on them again. And nothing that you have to say will penetrate my mind.

        • jeppen

          I’m not surprised.

          • Barry


      • Andrew Macleod

        There is nothin wrong in faith. The American dollar bill says “in god we trust”, the US government is a cult? You assume there is nothing but blind faith here. Many have done their own research and come to their own conclusions/opinions based on avaiable information. I have seen many people regurgitate Krivit/maryyugo and all the others opinions. DATA > opinion. Think for yourself and you will feel better.

        • jeppen

          No, it is not just blind faith, and religion isn’t blind either. People actually think they have basis for E-cat belief and for doomsdays, and for religiosity. But it is always a kind of wishful thinking, and always a kind of “I’m part of a special group that understands this” behind it. Even so, a lot of effort goes into studying the scriptures, thinking about Gods essence and so on. It leads to a deep understanding of something that just doesn’t exist.

          Again, if it were true, it would be in the open by now. Information wants to be free.

      • fortyniner

        Hello, George.

      • AlainCo

        You remind good points. But we don’t predic doomsday, just two things that usually get late :
        – when groupthink, delusion, incompetence, will disapear under attack of reality…. it is very commonly late.
        – when a product is industrialized. as an engineer I confirm being late is normal. It takes normally 5 years. It seems faster, but experienced innovators says that startups always believes that it will reach the market in the next 6 month… during 5 years…

        in fact the calendar is late but not out.

        Defkalion was late to publish test, did it differently (focussing on individual clients, not on the world), but the test happen and were positive.
        For rossi the test happen also, were positive.

        Of course those test are not accepted, but that is an external psychiatric problem, like the one that make LENR rejected for 24 years despite evidences, and scientific method.

        The theory that better match what is happening is not the doomsday believers, but Thomas Kuhn structure of scientific revolution…
        Nay-believers cannot see the truth because they are really blind to the data that prove the reality of LENR. Really blind… like you a blind about gorilla when looking at a basketball match.
        they don’t read, and when they read they only see part of the story and refuse to see the rest…

        • jeppen

          To my mind, science happens faster today than ever. Results get scrutinized faster, gets updated faster and gets debunked faster. Sure, industrialization might take a while, but again, this is a multi-trillion dollar product, easily worth two or three Manhattan Project-like efforts. Yet it seems to be developed in a garage, more or less.

          Is there any point in time at which you will say “ok, if the e-cat had worked, it would have been confirmed by now, if not by commercial product, then at least by scientific paradigm shift”? It has been six years. Is ten too much? Twenty? Or when?

          Focardi died a week ago, some 80 years old. Rossi is 63. Does he have time to spend the money or enjoy the glory, if he doesn’t get the ball rolling soon? If he doesn’t care about money or glory, and just want the world to benefit, then why is he so secretive? He keeps the world in grinding energy poverty and with large pollution problems. What could possibly be the motive for going slow like this?

          • Barry

            This isn’t a squeaky toy invention that you get to market by Christmas. It’s highly complex. Don’t be naive to think the going to market process isn’t full of obstruction. One could write a book. It’s also in movement and unfolding.

            Just had a third party review, one most of us have been waiting for a long time, and it happened.

            Partnership in American company we are waiting to hear more details about any day.

            Another 6 month test starting in August/ September.

            HydroFusion offering a free LENR device and will set up in the fall.

            Sounds like progress to me.

          • Roger Bird

            Barry, I doubt that the invention is complicated. I think that the process is inherently positive feedback, which forces the invention to be clever and tricky to avoid a runaway process and a puddle of molten metal on the floor. I just hate that when my energy source ends up on the floor as a pool of hot metal.

  • Sanjeev

    “By using the COSMOL physics simulation tool Ericsson and Pomp have been able to replicate a waveform that is similar to what is presented in the March test of Levi et al’s report without any anomalous heat being involved.”

    All such simulation software programs use known physics equations to predict the results, and if the phenomenon under study is yet unknown they produce garbage.

    So are they trying to falsify a real physical experiment using a simulated garbage ?

    It can be only a very high order of incompetence or they have intentions to make it appear false. May be they are simply trying to protect their jobs and investments (emotional and material).

    Its a huge relief to me that there is no serious critic whatsoever from established science except – Rossi and his friends are trying to fool us, and we don’t know how they are fooling us.

    • Curbina

      I’d like to state that the software is COMSOL, not COSMOL. Otherwise, the critique of Ericsson et al would be far more usefull if they had limited to point out the possible sources of error rather than acidly attack the report. They accuse of pseudoscientific behaviour and then act with pseudoskeptic behaviour.

    • kasom


    • If I was a product developer at Comsol I would probably:

      A: Feel offended about these wave forms
      B: Open a bottle of champagne
      C: ROFL in my Amsterdam hotel suite
      D: Feel worried about bugs in my system

    • Mikey

      I agree. I use COMSOL professionally to do simulation, and its not difficult at all to replicate a waveform through some intelligent parameter setting and choice of boundary conditions. COMSOL is designed to give you pretty visualization, how correct it is is up to your due diligence setting up the simulation.

      COMSOL would never show excess heat by default though because, as you said, there are no equations built in to simulate LENR.

      COMSOL does allow you to add your own equations however, so maybe their ‘test’ MAY have had even the SLIGHTEST bit of merit had they chosen to model some of the postulated LENR mechanisms (eg., WL theory) into it, and see the results. Even that would have been sketchy though since rossi doesn’t think WL theory is correct (afaik)

      • Sanjeev

        Thanks for the confirmation.

        The heating and cooling curves in the Levi’s report look like as if the reactor accelerates the heating and delays the cooling, and the report states that this means that there is no simple passive element inside the black box, which can explain this, only a heat generator can explain it.

        But you can possibly come up with an arrangement of materials and feedback loops, which can generate the same curve in a simulator. However, you must totally ignore the magnitude of heat and temperatures. A simulator will produce no excess at all.

        It seems Ericsson and Pomp are using the argument that since the curves can be generated using a classical system, there is nothing special in Ecat. They miss the fact that the shape of curves has nothing to do with excess energy it produces.

        The heating/cooling curves are given in the report just as a side note, they are not the main finding of the report. Ericsson and Pomp are using the argument that the curves look natural, to confuse an average person in believing that this somehow makes whole test a failure. They are making a connection, where there is none. This amounts to misdirection and reflects very badly on their intentions.

        • GreenWin

          +1 From the publishing record of Ericsson, he is a security specialist for smart grid applications. He is also a supporter of ITER and JET, two hot fusion projects in EU.

    • anders

      Acctually this is a proof that the power needed for the execess heat isnt coming from the wave form. Thearby strengthening the suspicion of a LENR effect.

  • Kim

    One side says yes
    One side says No

    Show down at OK Corral.

    Its headed in that direction.


    • bang


  • malkom

    Primitive man used fire while he could not see how it works. Otherwise there would be frozen.

    • John Loraditch

      Build a hot air balloon heated by ecat.
      Who will argue with gravity?

  • Redford

    The language is as extreme as the limit of a scientific reply allows. It tells a lot about their state of mind. Attacking the skill of their peers involved is probably far behind the line considering the resume of the people involved, indeed expert on the matter.

  • a swede

    Göran Ericsson and Stephan Pomp are known writers for the The Swedish Skeptics Association. This swedish organization particularly sets its task to discredit false ideas about matters that can be resolved scientifically. The organization tries to investigate what science-based arguments there are for – or against – controversial phenomena such as astrology, healing, homeopathy, dowsing, telepathy, UFO and so forth. The organization is open to anyone who supports its purpose. All work is conducted on a voluntary basis.

    Both Göran and Stephan has published outright slanderous articles about Andrea Rossi and Sven Kullander in the organizations periodicals (in march and november 2011).

  • Jim

    An oldie, but the pattern seemed to match…

    The President of the United States, the smartest man in the world, a priest and a hippie were flying on a airplane. Suddenly the pilot burst out of the cockpit, yelled, “The engines have quit! We’re going down!”, grabbed a parachute and leaped out the plane. The remaining four looked around and found only three more parachutes. All eyes met for an instant. Then the President said, “I’m the President of the United States, the world needs me!”, grabbed a parachute and leaped out the plane. The smartest man in the world said, “I’m the smartest man in the world, the world needs me!”, grabbed a parachute, and leaped out the plane. The priest looked at the hippie and said nervously, “Er, well, son, I’m a priest, sworn to serve, so I guess my time has come.” The hippie smiled and said, “Don’t worry Padre, the smartest man in the world just jumped out of the plane with my back pack.”

    • Roger Bird

      And I was hoping that it would end with the policies and leftism of the current President of the United States grabbing the backpack.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      But Jim, that means that one of the 3 apparent chutes was a backpack, leaving only 2 chutes, of which the president took one, still leaving only 1 chute for the hippie and the priest.

      Question: Which US President actually did parachute from a damaged plane?


      • Roger Bird

        George Bush 1st. And I did not cheat.

      • Jim

        So, I flunked real analysis and number theory (literally), but did fine in algebraic topology.

        I have to rest my rendition, which may have as many holes as a faulty parachute, on the interpretation of the word “found”…

        …sort of like “depends on how you define ‘is'”

  • marcel

    Destroing is so much easier than creating. If they know so much about how to make an independent test, why do they not actually help the world and ask for a chance to make it right? The world needs an answer, which helps initialize the new era. They shall stop being progress terrorists and start to help. You will never ever find a way to proof that LENR is a fraud.

    • Kim

      Every thing in our known world has
      to go through the constriction of the money valve.


      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Except politicians with access to a printing press are not very constricted.

  • George N

    I am anxious to see how long hot fusionists will continue to deny LENR — will they beat out the scientists who said that manned flight was impossible?

    • Redford

      Until no one remember what a hot fusionist was.

      • GreenWin

        Denial will continue until hot fusion paychecks stop. As the fortunately have at MIT. Karma?

        • George N

          Eugene Mallove will be fully vindicated! This does save some face for MIT, but I hope a movie is made about the full story of the cold fusion history (from P&F to Rossi, and all the major actors and scandles in between)

  • Fibber McGourlick

    Why worry about this? A 1 MW Rossi E-Cat plant will soon be churning our cheap, pollution-free energy for a reputable Swedish establishment, and all the world is invited to watch the transformative miracle. I look forward to supplying the towel Göran Ericsson and Stephan Pomp will need to wipe the egg slime off their faces.

  • Sanjeev

    Lols, Rossi knows how to insult in best way:

    Giovanni Guerrini:
    Our enemies have to be preserved and defended, like the Chinese Pandas. They are a race in extinction and it is so sad. The more they write stupidities and biased considerations, the more they disappear and the more we get credibility, but, paradoxically, the more they disappear, the more this precious source of credibility for us fades: what a shame. Please, preserve snakes, monkeys etc, don’t let the competiton for survival make them dead men walking, like the Zombies of World War Z , the movie of Brad Pitt now in the theaters, very funny and genial for its epilogue. We need them ( even if Zombies). Snakes, for example, are delicious with mayonnaise and champagne, but the more we eat them, the more they disappear and the less we can hope to taste their deliciousness: and this is another paradox; in few words, the more you get a source of deliciousness, the less you can hope to get this solace eventually. This is diabolic, isn’t this?
    Warm Regards,

  • Roger Bird

    When I go to a forum that is crawling with skeptopaths, I really don’t want to be there and I just leave. There is no point. I appreciate that Frank has kept this forum disinfected.

  • Ramey


  • hempenearth

    IIRC the six month long Elforsk funded testing of the Hot Cat should have started by now.

    • Omega Z

      It was suggested those tests would be delayed until fall.

      Likely due to the age of the testers & not wanting to work in the heat of summer in a metal building in close proximity of a 34K BTU Hot Cat.

      • DustyBins

        Rossi is in the US now, a feared for his life. He won’t be going back to Italy unless he wants to take that risk. He’ll have to schedule a new test at his fresh US factory. Wonder if employees of the US partner could be persuaded to take a few photos of the inside of the plant…

  • Joe Shea

    This was to be expected. Rossi does need to let go at some point so that truly independent testing at an independent lab can be carried out. I suspect that will be after at least several more “hot” E Cats are sold. It’s unfortunate that we need to use the term “hot” E Cats, because in the US, that means they were stolen! Of course, they were not.

    • Roger Bird

      “Rossi does need to let go at some point so that truly independent testing at an independent lab can be carried out.” No he doesn’t, unless you are referring to certification people and venture capitalists and big box stores like Costco. He never has to go the academic route. And I think that it would be a very therapeutic slap in the face to academic scientists if he did go that market route completely right to the very bitter end when they start selling units out of Walmart.

      • Omega Z

        Anywhere but Wal-Mart.

        Reason being they do a poor job keeping shelves stocked.

        Imagine M.Y. going there 3 times & can’t find 1. They must Not Exist.

  • Ramey

    Ok… so does Vegas have odds? And lets not loose this like how to build monoloths

  • Ramey

    So what are the odds that Rossi and Rose would be the spearheads of the two most skeptizobicydal (if thats a word, I got lucky)…infringements in the mental gymnastics of physics ?

  • Roger Bird

    The problem with skeptopaths is not that they are schizophrenic. The problem is that they are not schizophrenic enough. They are so one pointed and focused that they cannot see any other viewpoint. I see and appreciate the viewpoints of Hanno Essen, Rossi, Levi, Evelyn, McKubre, Robert Gode, etc. etc. and then I integrate them all into something that makes sense and come up with New Fire being real as the only explanation that makes sense.

    The skeptopath doesn’t do this. They see that LENR violates the so-called known laws of physics, and that is the end of the discussion in their heads. Nothing else matters. Perhaps it is this paucity of appreciating other people’s viewpoints that impels them to be so persistent about trashing everything that does not support this viewpoint. I doubt if skeptopaths have a really rewarding and full social life.

  • Daniel Monteiro Basso

    Some weeks ago I tried to post here a replication of the signal shown in the report, with commented source code. But my post didn’t get through moderation (I wonder why). I’m not going to repost it, but if anybody is interested, let me know.

  • Chris the 2nd

    “By using the COSMOL physics simulation tool Ericsson and Pomp have been able to replicate a waveform that is similar to what is presented in the March test of Levi et al’s report without any anomalous heat being involved.”

    Of course it didn’t, A “similar” not exact and this is a computer model of the scenario not an exact replication of the real world. If the explanation for this phenomena is not well explained it won’t be replicated by a computer model that knows nothing of the effect.

  • Roger Bird

    “By using the COSMOL physics simulation tool Ericsson and Pomp have been able to replicate a waveform that is similar to what is presented in the March test of Levi et al’s report without any anomalous heat being involved.”

    But I betcha they couldn’t replicate the anomalous heat that the E-Cat produced. Who wants to bet?

    That above quote has got to be the most foolish thing that I have ever read this entire week. Using a computer program I can replicate the Battle of Hastings. That doesn’t make me William the Conqueror. Taking these computer models seriously is how we got into trouble in climate science and how some people still are. I know that this will come as a shock to some people, but “computer model” is a hifalutin way of saying “pretend” or “make believe”.

  • Claes

    You shouldn’t be upset with these authors at all. Seems to be legitimate points, at least some of them, and if they’re writing it, others are thinking it, so there is no way around dealing with them.

    By not ignoring the report they did it a lot of service! Being ignored is the fate that befalls most science, being criticized is much more preferable since that means that there is something to work with.

    • Fisher8965

      I agree. These guys bring up good points that should be addressed. It doesn’t mean that good information did not come from the testing being critiqued here but rather that following up with tests that meet the standards listed here would shut down and therefor shut up the nay sayers.

      Currently, due to these openings in the argument, there is still room for others to cry foul. If it were me, I would have another test that gave these answers knowing that I would have them by the short hairs once the tests were completed.

      • freethinker

        They did bring up a lot of points, almost none of them relevant to the scope of the paper. That is how this debunking is perpetrated.

        Lift out anything you can from the text and put it into question. Argue it so ardently that the real purpose of the paper is forgotten, and people only see all problem.

        There is only one real issue remaining, and that is the lack of DC data on the input power.

        Any other line of argument in Ericsson and Pomp’s commentary is either outside the scope or simply bs.

      • Roger Bird

        In a sense, they are shooting themselves in the foot, given that they are probably not real interested in LENR being real. Their critique tells Rossi and testers and anyone else just exactly how to do a test and a report such that they are forced to believe said report.

    • AlainCo

      First I agree that critics are good, and much better than being ignored.

      The problem is the most of the paper is not critics, but muddying water with problems out of the story, misunderstanding, off-topic.
      Anyway even off-topic it is informing people of what might be opposed.

      Similar critics have already led essen to add data to the report, and in interviews.

      Too bad they did not check DC voltage continuously which would have closed the critics on the materialist side.

      Abd Lomax recently raised an interesting possibility, it is that tha DC is remote controlled, and activated only when the scientists don’t look at the DC voltmeter…
      This is why the future test should use a DC aware voltmeter (no real need of DC ammeter since without voltage, no power can be transmitted- maybe just useful to close the mouth of hypercritics), beside the high bandwidth AC powermeter.

      I hope this will make the next testing report bullet proof.
      that is the good point of making the testing public and facing nay-believers critics.

  • elasticbucket

    The necessity ? this argy-bargy could possibly be negated if, as Rossi claims, an active e-cat is operational in the Continental USA, and no NDA’s were observable, and the general “public”, universities, industry, government bodies and etc. were permitted to inspect and measure the equipment at leisure without the baggage alluded to in points one and three by Eriksson and Pomp.

    That is, there is no proprietary protection for Rossi and his device/s. Why should he act otherwise than coy?

    Again, Eriksson and Pomp’s critique appears to be a undisguised attempt by so called skeptics to disenfranchise Rossi from his discovery. As in point three inquirers were not able to determine that nickel and hydrogen are used. It may have been “unobtanium” for all that matters, as it was net energy gain that was the basis of the scientific inquiry not necessarily the fuel.

    To me, Eriksson and Pomp present a critique that is less scientific for several reasons one, on what methodology were data for their model/s gathered? By using the COSMOL physics simulation tool in point four, what rule of physics did they use?

    Point five, “…rather than to try to find more mundane explanations based on already known, standard physics.” when the LENR reaction is yet little understood by anyone? To what null hypothesis do they posit the basis of their claim that standard physics provides the solution?

    Nevertheless, Mr. Rossi has a lot answer, but nothing a working E-cat or two for public display could not achieve.

  • Ron

    These critiques are easily answered. First use clamp on ammeters that read both AC and DC for checking current on all wires. Second, let Göran Ericsson or Stephan Pomp participate in the next test.

    • freethinker

      By all means, use instruments that carefully measure both AC and DC in the input power. I doubt Rossi would ever allow those two to come within a block of the lab, never mind participating in any testing.

      • Chris I

        Errrrr, it would be bad policy if he were to forbid their participation.

        • Roger Bird

          But remember, Rossi doesn’t care about good or bad scientific and/or academic policy. He only cares about getting it to market. Then maybe people will be more willing to think for themselves and less willing to fall at the feet of some boffin who lives in an ivory tower.

          • Barry

            True Roger, many researchers are trying to understand the nuclear/quantum science of LENR and smaller groups are trying to bring a product to market. Not sure which is the bumpier road.

    • Bob

      The people who should be included in any future tests should be the same Swedish people who did the earlier test on the e-cat HT and quickly concluded there was no excess power.
      This was the same device that is photographed orange hot in the most convincing photo we have.
      If these people can be convinced that there is now an excess power, and lots of it, this would go a very long way towards dispelling any doubts that we have something which works.
      There is nothing more convincing than the testimony of a convert.

  • AlexRitoris

    An easiest way to cheat is wireless energy transfer.

  • Boondogled

    These guys should offer there advise on how to test and what further information they would like to see given during the 6 month test the Swedish team will start this August.

  • malkom

    Rossi has manufactured the device. This is one way. If a lot of scientists can do better, then show it.

  • Klas2k

    I used ot be hopeful that the E-cat would indeed work.
    But so far the past 3 -years has been a lot of claims, promises and non-conclusive “public” tests.
    I am since more than a year convinced that this is either a fraud or a “honest” misstake.
    However, If Rossi has build one or more E-cats – give one to a third party tester to test wit htheir setup. Sure Rossi can be there, to make sure they dont cut it in half or something to revel the “mystery powder” – but not do anything other than that.

    And he did promise to start sell commercial units two years ago, and hast done so (other than a “mystery” sell to a “mystery” customer – so no one can confirm this or if it works at all).

    So I personally have no problems with new physics (in history many “unexplainable” things has been discovered in a garage somewhere). But the person behind this (with a history of fraud) and the way this has played out means that this is not real.

    And if it turns out to be real – lets say an independant group reproduces the results and revaeals how – then I will confess to have been wrong and cheer with everyone else 🙂

    • Barry

      Yeah Klas2k, I’m afraid we have to wait for the Ecat to emerge on Rossi’s terms. He said there would be a 3rd party test in the Spring and there was. That was huge, though the critics jumped to the next level. We will see soon enough what 2013 will bring. Peace Barry

      • Klas2k

        @Barry: well I was highly involved in the debate on a swedish forum about 2yr ago. Rossi promised the same thing then, carried out a number of demo, all alike and none adressing the critics. Then he promisem larger versions and sales – and said that he managed that, although no one has been able to confirm it. The story just goes on, but a common denominator is that Rossi always “says” or “does” things. no one else is testing or verifying claims etc.
        The most you get from sciencetists are vague statements that you cannot rule ut effects herre and there…

        • Roger Bird

          I don’t understand your attitude. The report in May reported 3 tests. One a puddle of molten metal on the floor, my favorite. The other two tests close to but not right on bullet proof, and you are still complaining. I’d have to say that the second two tests were bullet resistant; only a skeptopath wouldn’t be impressed.

          • Deleo77

            I wish you were right. But the third wire was a dead wire. It had no reason for being there. They measured it, but they should have cut it. That wire was the difference in the test. There are videos showing how the power meter that was used in the test can show no power coming through, when there is power. It leaves the door open for a trick, whether anyone likes it or not. The testers need to bring a generator and a power chord with them the next time (if Rossi will let them). The skeptics may be nasty at times, but they have a point with this one. Again, I wish they didn’t.

          • Roger Bird

            But they don’t. How could Rossi know that the testers wouldn’t have cut the wire or do any number of other things?

          • Klas2k

            And why didn’t they ?
            That is the problems of all tests that have been performed. They have been setup and controlled by Rossi with observers present !
            An illusionist can make a car fly in front of an audience – surely one can make heat with no apparent source !

            I certainly hope that I am wrong, but after all unfullfilled promises and more and more signs of dellusion and even fraud I have become a sceptic…

            The latest test has tried to adress complaints about measurements methods of output heat – but the conditions of the tests are still fully controlled by Rossi and not any independent people.

          • Roger Bird

            Your weak social awareness is the problem here. You understand that very few people have actually seen LENR in action, whether it is true or not. We have to take someone’s word for it, or not. You choose the “or not”. I choose the “someone’s word”. I trust the credentials of the people testifying. You don’t; you trust the Big Bad Coulomb Barrier. People like you did not trust the Wright Bros.

          • Klas2k

            @Roger: Well if it is up to “social awarenss” then this is definately a fraud !

            Just look at Rossi’s history !
            And Levi has been very close from the start.

            I am just trying to look at it from a realistic perspecitve, and sa I mention above I do not think that you need to explain everything. If it works it works, and as said a lot of stuff has been invented in backyards – and later this has revealed “new” physics. So arguments about “not fitting the models” is not the strongest ones for me…

            I would have trusted the Wright borthers because the evidence that the did indeed fly was very obvious – photos and observers could clearly see that they did indeed fly, and very soon afterwards other could replicate the same achievments. The Wright brothers also made sure to describe the requirements for a succesful test very accurately and in hindsisght we now also know that they actually had carried out a number of test flights before the offical “first controlled flight”.

            If they had, on the other hand, talked a lot about their invention, but hed very little to show for it during 3 years, and the tests never showed an actual flight but just the plane being launched, disappearing behind a screen, and then on the ground on the other side again, paired with earlier attempts of dubious projects which was clearly not working, then I would probably have doubted Wright as well 🙂

          • Rockyspoon

            Nobody trusted the Wright Brothers.

            If you’d check with history, you’d find they were invited to Europe and were giving flying demonstrations there before people in the US woke up to what was happening.

            So your saying “very soon afterwards” was actually YEARS, Klas.

            Your whole argument has just gone up in smoke. In other words, you are telling historical fiction to bolster your claim when what it really does is destroy it.

            Sorry about the facts–I just didn’t want people believing your lies.

          • Klas2k

            @rockyspoon. Eh, what are you talking about ?
            i didnt know the Wrights id controlled flights in Europe way before the official attempt in the Us.

            However that is not the point- if they did it before, tthat is ok, and as I said even more people were right there with them- in the case of the E-cat there is one man, actually two started this, and a bunch that has tagged along from the start.

            If the claims is true – why cant we see the promised results. Rossi said when they went official with this that he would deliver commercial products within 6 months, and that they had already had them running for years…and that is three years+ since now.

            Sure tech dev can hit snags – but no claims of any snags has been published, only now and then reports and demos and more promises…

        • Barry

          I don’t know Klas2k, HydroFusion is right in your back yard. They’re offering an Ecat system, free set up, just pay for the energy. That’s bigger than Rossi. Now it’s become HydroFusion says. And at this point people have to stretch their criticism of the 3rd party testers pretty far to invalidate them, besides a more thorough test is coming in August/ September.

          By the way I admire Sweden. They don’t seemed to be as mired in resistance to CF. Wouldnt be surprised if CF debuts to the masses from Sweden. Right now I’m quite embarrassed of MIT in Massachusetts (USA) my home state with CF resistance that could fill a book.

          • Klas2k

            Well, that looks exacly like the setup presented about one year ago. The difference is that they claim to look for buyers (more of leasing actually) in Sweden.
            If they suceed and the buyer is deeemed impartial and can back up performance with measurements then I will cheer as well. Until then it still seems to be the same story which has been going on for years now, only the time limits are ever pucshed forward…

          • GreenWin

            Barry, recall that Rossi said something about certain reptiles being very tasty with Mayonnaise. And champagne.

  • ivanc

    I belive ideas should pour from this forum, for a test that is bullet prove, the ecat and power supply should be isolated from the normal electrical net, use a bank of fully charged lead acid batteries, we know the max power that could be stored in this batteries per kgr. put the ecat and batteries in a glass chamber and test.
    I have been reading this blog for two and half years, I wonder How long before we could see a working device or a conclusive test.
    The last report is positive, and as future test are expected, lets hope they think a science paradigm changing test setup. It should no be difficult as they reporting 10x gain in energy.

    • Roger Bird

      ivanc, stop being shy about commenting. I like this one and agree with it.

    • Klas2k

      I have seen a number of suggestion of such tests, but Rossi seem to have avioded them all 🙂
      Wonder why…

      Also I wonder one thing, in this latest test the COP was concluded to be around 2.9 -+0.3
      A normal NIBE heat pump is around 2-3.5 (depending on ambient
      temperatures). Of course such devices are usually larger, but what if you put a heat pump in a cylinder and used that to demo the effects – you could then get up to 3.5 in COP (relation between in and out power) – and it still wouldnt mean any new tech :/

      The E-cat is supposed to have COP 6+ -but that has yet to be even demonstrated in a “controlled” test environment…
      Until then we only have the word of the inventor that it is some kind of new reaction going on inside the “tube”.

  • psi

    ““unfortunately typical of a kind of thinking that otherwise is ubiquitous in pseudo science”

    When I got to that phrase I could only conclude that this critique is not really science, but ideology. Sorry, before that the critique seemed reasonable and believable. But that kind of off-color language right there tells you that there is nothing impartial about the critique. Frank rightly identifies that it assumes that the testers are either incompetent or part of a conspiracy to defraud.

    No. That is not a reasonable assumption. It never was and is even less so now than two years ago.

  • Barry

    There’s a lot of opinion science in this critique. In my opinion a computer can in no way simulate a test involving Cold Fusion when the science behind it is unknown. As far as staying with the “known, standard physics.” Good thing A Einstein didn’t think that way. You would have to deny, not just the Ecat but the entire field of LENR. Are Ericsson and Pomp willing to discard the whole CF phenomenon?

    The smarter we become the more we realize how much we do not know.

  • Roger Bird

    Klas2k, let us restart this from the top.

    You have demos in 2011 that were carefully watched by a number of scientists, even members of and the freaking president of the Swedish Skeptical Society, and you have a number of Italians PhDs in science and nuclear physics. Con artists would not go transnational with their co-conspirators. You have at least one Greek PhD who may or may not have stolen Rossi’s secret but definitely acts like Rossi is for real. And in fact there generally are NO co-conspirators to a con. So, a conspiracy forces me to believe socially impossible contrivances. And you have the 3 tests reported in May 2013. There is also National Instruments, etc. etc. etc. If it is a con, then you have to believe that either all or some of these people that I mentioned and some I did not mention are all stupid and/or part of the con. That makes no sense whatsoever in terms of social Occamizing.

    It is true that Rossi’s emails do not inspire confidence. But emails are easy; they can be all over the map. If it wasn’t for the social evidence, the emails would be meaningless and in fact NO ONE would believe them.

  • Roger Bird

    Dear Rockyspoon, Klas2k did say something true. And that is that he (and everyone else on Planet Earth) will believe it when he sees it. But aren’t we the same? The difference between Klas2k and us is that we also believe the word of other people who have seen and believed, especially when it is in their interests to be honest. The Magnificent 7 would know that they would have to deal with a tremendous crash in their reputations and self-esteem if they lied or were incompetent. It is inconceivable that Rossi could hand pick such an international collection of fools and nincompoops to be his deliberate or accidental shills.