Real Clear Science: Cold Fusion #2 Biggest Junk Science Story of 2013

In a year-end retrospective of the biggest ‘junk science’ stories of the year, Real Clear Science has awarded ‘the return of cold fusion’ the silver medal. Behind terrible documentaries from Animal Planet and the Discovery Channel, and ahead of the sequencing of bigfoot DNA, Real Clear Science takes aim specifically at the Levi et al. report of their testing of Andrea Rossi’s high temperature E-Cat reactors (hot cats)

Where fusion is concerned, the most commonly known hoax is the E-Cat, a device that supposedly fuses nickel and hydrogen at room temperature. (Fusion is supposed to require massive temperatures and pressures.)

That’s why a great many people were surprised this spring when an independent test seemed to show that the E-Cat works!

But the cautious excitement was short-lived. Physicists Ethan Siegel and Peter Thieberger thoroughly trounced the paper (which had not been peer-reviewed).

I’m not sure who RCS is speaking for here, but I have not experienced this ‘short-lived cautious excitement’ about this report — and I don’t think I’m alone. In my estimation, the report stands as strong evidence of the reality of Andrea Rossi’s discovery, and of the E-Cat’s potential to be a very viable source of energy. I’m optimistic that this first report will be backed up with new testing reports in 2014. I won’t be surprised if there will be attempts to dismiss those, too, but I hope that the testers will have taken the necessary steps this time to eliminate the only argument that critics have — that Andrea Rossi rigged the testing somehow with secret wires or by some other means to make it appear that the E-Cat worked. That’s an accusation I don’t take seriously at all.

  • Christian

    I am sorry, but if Mr. Rossi were a quack wouldn’t we have to give all the people working on the E-Cat an IQ of–I don’t know–10 because that he was cheating would be obvious to anyone with an IQ of 110.

    Yet, work continues; ergo, it’s authentic.

    If you are a scientist, please read the paperwork put out by Mr. Rossi and others. You might be surprised.

    Thank you and may God bless you and have a great day.

    • Experience show that intelligence is more a risk factor, than a shielding, against delusion.
      In fact it is self-confidence which is a danger.

      I trust more the industrial instruments than the physicist.
      the good news is that as says Bo Hoistad, that the 7 physicist were of various domain, and that Pomp&Ericsson are only nuclear physicist… this explain why Pomp&Ericsson can be fooled by their ego, more than few non-nuclear physicist.

  • freethinker

    Well now…

    “RealClearScience is your portal to the best, most relevant science news and opinion from around the globe. Here you’ll find everything from small talk fodder to the latest findings from the frontier of discovery.”

    Seem to me that they are both ignorant and pretentious.

    They stand before the true frontier, but completely lack the aptitude to realize it… It is either amazingly funny or really, really sad.

    Regardless. Box checked for never revisit that site again.

    • psi

      It be useful to revisit to see if this example is typical of the site’s inability to deal with cutting edge transformational science, or is just a knee jerk anomaly.

  • GreenWin

    The RealClear aggregator is the creation of options trader John McIntyre and former advertising agency account executive Tom Bevan. they employ no scientists of record.

    Said Bevan, “We have a frustration all conservatives have”, which is “the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives.”
    The organization is controlled by Forbes Media, owner of the dying magazine its namesake Steve Forbes is trying to sell off (no buyers in sight.) The source of this hit piece is ex-cosmologist Ethan Siegel, employed as a Health & Science writer at Trapit – an artificial intelligence blog in Portland OR. Trapit’s web site says:

    “Built with AI technology developed for DARPA, Trapit delivers highly relevant recommendations based on rich contextual analysis of information and user preferences.” Sounds like artificial science.

  • bachcole

    RCS sounds like one of those “oh, gee whiz, wow” magazines. And, they are like so many sketpopaths who will never discover anything outside of the box, outside of the dominant paradigm.

  • Roger Bird

    RCS sounds like one of those “oh, gee whiz, wow” magazines. And, they are like so many sketpopaths who will never discover anything outside of the box, outside of the dominant paradigm.

  • AB

    I had the distinct impression that Siegel (like many sceptics) didn’t fully read the paper he is commenting on.

  • Daniel Maris

    Yes, he’s fooled some top notch physicists and engineers on that reading – not impossible but certainly improbable.

  • Adam Lepczak

    No publicity is bad publicity. Even these assclowns are spreading the awareness of the Ecat.

  • Daniel Maris

    Nice to know Fenella is doing the work of mysoginists. She must be proud of herself.

    • Redford

      The argument “maybe rossi did that…” will always come. That’s not what’s missing from the levi et al. report. What is missing is peer review. No peer review, no weight. We were told this would be published and it has not happen and I think this website is not critic enough of that fact. We didn’t expect that report as much to convince us than to convince the world. Not saying it can’t be prevented from publication (the above article sure proove a journal would take some heat publishing it) but that should be a topic discussed here, asked directly to the authors: why wasn’t it published ?

      • bachcole

        I think that problem is that most of us that have been here for 2 years following Rossi and others closely are very familiar with Levi, Essen, et. al. So we have no problem trusting them.

        And how could Rossi know which kind of testing they would do? He would be putting his “scam” at risk. He could have no way of know that they would not be checking for a DC component to the electricity going in.

        And how come Rossi is not behaving like a crook. He refuses money all of the time.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Although I support the peer review practice in general (e.g. see my earlier comments about it), in this type of report I don’t care about peer review because two reviewers couldn’t be any wiser evaluating it than anyone of us. The reason is that the measurements in this particular paper are at quite basic level: recognising several kilowatt level anomalous heat output is not difficult. Only if the referees would make a site visit (which is not a normal practice and shouldn’t be a requirement), then it would provide some additional value, but even in that case it would just effectively increase the number of “authors” from 7 to 9, no big deal.

        • yes,
          if there was peer-reviewers,
          the peer-reviewer will be considered as part of the conspiracy, and there will be no peer-review.
          Problem solved.

          Some refers to Pomp&Ericsson as a rebuttal, but forget to considet the answer of Bo Hoistad, who peer-review the review and show how pathological it is.
          in a way, Pomp&Ericsson show that teh Elforsk report is solid, because you can trust them to make a good crotic if it was possible.

        • bachcole

          But the 2 new authors would be complete strangers. That would help. Otherwise, I happily agree with everything that you said. I even up clicked your comment. (:->)

      • Warthot

        “Peer Review” is meaningless, and accomplishes virtually nothing but allow the gatekeepers to control the flow of research. Once upon a time, when researchers were guided by ethics, it might have meant something. But no longer………..

        And it wasn’t published exactly because of the gatekeeper effect, as those journals are controlled by people adamantly opposed to LENR.

        • the peer review is a useful tool for honest people who are ready to accept errors, or to take risk not to accept pathological review.
          it make it hard to use in academic context…

          my personal analysis is not to take peer-review as something else than new data .
          when you see peer review, the question is whether is is based on real things, honest, pathological,…
          It may raise concern on points badly done by the author.
          then you see how the peer-review is answered, and so one for the chain…
          and also for others actors…

          if you are not expert you mostly cannot catch the technical details, but the quality of the discussion… if you see clearly pathological arguments, the author or the critic lose credibility.

          if you are expert, good critics or counter critics, can spot key point and avoid you do mistake when analysing the subject…

          the peer-review as a success or failure is worthless, but it push quality (except in some case, like pal-review, or denial). the content of the peer-review could be made public, if people were not using it to bash the author…
          it seems many peer-review are pathetic…

          • psi

            Alain,

            Thanks for the nod to the ability of the non-expert (which in this field I, for my part, definitely am) to detect “pathological arguments” and therefore assess credibility. From the start of my following this topic I have often seen pathological arguments on behalf of the orthodox view. On the other hand, I have also seen highly credible experts like Rob Duncan or SRI’s Michael McKubre explain and defend the science behind developments like Rossi. When one combines these two approaches the conclusion seems very reasonable that:

            1) Something scientifically legitimate is happening;
            2) It is a mistake to pass premature judgement on Rossi and many other researchers who are racing towards the goal of commercialization.

            The bogus arguments of the more savage critics thus become, paradoxically, significant evidence of the implausibility of their scientific premises, logic, and conclusion.

          • Demokratinifara

            Its the green mafia that doesn’t want anything that competes with solar or wind farms!

            Any new technology that competes with their ideology has to be suppressed and ridiculed.

      • Donk970

        None of this matters. Rossi accomplished the one thing that he needed to accomplish; convince a big corporation to partner with him to bring the E-Cat from the lab to the market. He only needed to convince them, the rest of the world will be convinced when there are working E-Cat’s out in the world generating heat and power.

  • Redford

    The argument “maybe rossi did that…” will always come. That’s not what’s missing from the levi et al. report. What is missing is peer review. No peer review, no weight. We were told this would be published and it has not happen and I think this website is not critic enough of that fact. We didn’t expect that report as much to convince us than to convince the world. Not saying it can’t be prevented from publication (the above article sure proove a journal would take some heat publishing it) but that should be a topic discussed here, asked directly to the authors: why wasn’t it published ?

    • Roger Bird

      I think that problem is that most of us that have been here for 2 years following Rossi and others closely are very familiar with Levi, Essen, et. al. So we have no problem trusting them.

      And how could Rossi know which kind of testing they would do? He would be putting his “scam” at risk. He could have no way of know that they would not be checking for a DC component to the electricity going in.

      And how come Rossi is not behaving like a crook. He refuses money all of the time.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Although I support the peer review practice in general (e.g. see my earlier comments about it), in this type of report I don’t care about peer review because two reviewers couldn’t be any wiser evaluating it than anyone of us. The reason is that the measurements in this particular paper are at quite basic level: recognising several kilowatt level anomalous heat output is not difficult. Only if the referees would make a site visit (which is not a normal practice and shouldn’t be a requirement), then it would provide some additional value, but even in that case it would just effectively increase the number of “authors” from 7 to 9, no big deal.

    • Warthot

      “Peer Review” is meaningless, and accomplishes virtually nothing but allow the gatekeepers to control the flow of research. Once upon a time, when researchers were guided by ethics, it might have meant something. But no longer………..

      And it wasn’t published exactly because of the gatekeeper effect, as those journals are controlled by people adamantly opposed to LENR.

      • the peer review is a useful tool for honest people who are ready to accept errors, or to take risk not to accept pathological review.
        it make it hard to use in academic context…

        my personal analysis is not to take peer-review as something else than new data .
        when you see peer review, the question is whether is is based on real things, honest, pathological,…
        It may raise concern on points badly done by the author.
        then you see how the peer-review is answered, and so one for the chain…
        and also for others actors…

        if you are not expert you mostly cannot catch the technical details, but the quality of the discussion… if you see clearly pathological arguments, the author or the critic lose credibility.

        if you are expert, good critics or counter critics, can spot key point and avoid you do mistake when analysing the subject…

        the peer-review as a success or failure is worthless, but it push quality (except in some case, like pal-review, or denial). the content of the peer-review could be made public, if people were not using it to bash the author…
        it seems many peer-review are pathetic…

        • psi

          Alain,

          Thanks for the nod to the ability of the non-expert (which in this field I, for my part, definitely am) to detect “pathological arguments” and therefore assess credibility. From the start of my following this topic I have often seen pathological arguments on behalf of the orthodox view. On the other hand, I have also seen highly credible experts like Rob Duncan or SRI’s Michael McKubre explain and defend the science behind developments like Rossi. When one combines these two approaches the conclusion seems very reasonable that:

          1) Something scientifically legitimate is happening;
          2) It is a mistake to pass premature judgement on Rossi and many other researchers who are racing towards the goal of commercialization.

          The bogus arguments of the more savage critics thus become, paradoxically, significant evidence of the implausibility of their scientific premises, logic, and conclusion.

    • Donk970

      None of this matters. Rossi accomplished the one thing that he needed to accomplish; convince a big corporation to partner with him to bring the E-Cat from the lab to the market. He only needed to convince them, the rest of the world will be convinced when there are working E-Cat’s out in the world generating heat and power.

    • kdk

      The same reason why almost every single paper that smells of cold fusion is categorically denied from publication. It’s just ridiculously absurd to use that argument. It would be hunky dory if they actually allowed the papers to be published in the mainstream journals… The conclusion is that it’s bunk so there’s no reason at all we should even think about cold fusion, let alone let anybody publish papers about it. It doesn’t even matter if it comes from a nobel laureate or not (Schwinger is the one that comes to mind, I’m not sure if Brian Josephson has tried to publish papers but just didn’t want to bother). Since we like authority figures so much, there was also another nobel laureate who just recently said he won’t be publishing anymore in mainstream journals because they practice suppression. Science has become broken with it’s steadfast refusal to consider anything that’s not already known. The D-Wave went through this same sort of thing talking about impossibilities.

      If I turn into an old curmudgeon, I would ask people to slap the silly out of me if I start blustering about how this and that are impossible.

      “Heavier than air flying machines are impossible.” “X-rays will prove to be a hoax.”

  • Alan DeAngelis

    They’re just parroting the same old clichés. Nothing new

  • Alan DeAngelis

    They’re just parroting the same old clichés. Nothing new

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Is there now any doubt in anyone’s mind that Mark Gibbs was censored by the Forbes empire?

    • bachcole

      I see no reason why reporting on an on-going event should cause someone to get fired. Yes, I think that he was censored. I doubt that it was because of evil meanie heads who want to suppress LENR. If that were the case, the evil meanie heads are doing a pretty piss-poor job of it. I think that it was for writing about “unproven”, edgy things. But oilprice.com et. al. are coming through for us.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Is there now any doubt in anyone’s mind that Mark Gibbs was censored by the Forbes empire?

    • Roger Bird

      I see no reason why reporting on an on-going event should cause someone to get fired. Yes, I think that he was censored. I doubt that it was because of evil meanie heads who want to suppress LENR. If that were the case, the evil meanie heads are doing a pretty piss-poor job of it. I think that it was for writing about “unproven”, edgy things. But oilprice.com et. al. are coming through for us.

  • fritz194

    Well, Mr. Siegels expertise is Astrophysics. He has no clue about Dark Matter but is a specialist in LENR research.
    Mr. Thieberger is in the accelerator business.
    Thats like a buddhist and muslim approach on the new testament.

  • fritz194

    Well, Mr. Siegels expertise is Astrophysics. He has no clue about Dark Matter but is a specialist in LENR research.
    Mr. Thieberger is in the accelerator business.
    Thats like a buddhist and muslim approach on the new testament.

  • bachcole

    I don’t know what to make out of it. I think that someone has to line up all of these divestments and compare them to divestments 5 years ago and divestments 10 years ago and see if there is a pattern.

  • malkom700

    It is quite clear that the situation will resolve only the first albeit tiny device sold in the shop.

    • bachcole

      What does that mean?

      • malkom700

        I think that this will only mean a breakthrough.

  • malkom700

    It is quite clear that the situation will resolve only the first albeit tiny device sold in the shop.

    • Roger Bird

      Certainly.

      • malkom700

        I think that this will only mean a breakthrough.

  • psi

    One notes the concluding slap: Physicists Ethan Siegel and Peter Thieberger thoroughly trounced the paper (which had not been peer-reviewed).” Assuming this is in fact the conclusion of this stinging example of intellectual prejudice (lit. “pre-judgement”) one must note the rhetorical failure at work. There is no summary of either the study it self or the so called “trouncing.” The argument as presented is thus a double argument from authority. The original paper had “not yet been peer reviewed” and has subsequently been “trounced” in a critique written by two researchers who are so important that that the mere invocation of their names is sufficient to demonstrate, to the properly schooled reader, that the original argument was grotesquely erroneous.

    Sorry. Not impressed. Try again.

  • psi

    One notes the concluding slap: Physicists Ethan Siegel and Peter Thieberger thoroughly trounced the paper (which had not been peer-reviewed).” Assuming this is in fact the conclusion of this stinging example of intellectual prejudice (lit. “pre-judgement”) one must note the rhetorical failure at work. There is no summary of either the study it self or the so called “trouncing.” The argument as presented is thus a double argument from authority. The original paper had “not yet been peer reviewed” and has subsequently been “trounced” in a critique written by two researchers who are so important that that the mere invocation of their names is sufficient to demonstrate, to the properly schooled reader, that the original argument was grotesquely erroneous.

    Sorry. Not impressed. Try again.

  • Donk970

    One can imagine the scene in big oil, gas and coal boardrooms around the world. “Holy s&%t, this LENR thing seems to be real. OK boys, how do we capitalize on this? What do you mean we can’t? OK, plan B. Get the presses rolling, let’s try to squash this before it gets to be a big problem.”

  • Donk970

    One can imagine the scene in big oil, gas and coal boardrooms around the world. “Holy s&%t, this LENR thing seems to be real. OK boys, how do we capitalize on this? What do you mean we can’t? OK, plan B. Get the presses rolling, let’s try to squash this before it gets to be a big problem.”

  • bitplayer

    I was thinking about the relative dearth of LENR breakout news, and considering going back to the “real” science research papers for scraps. Then I thought, why, if there is all this research, have only a few companies claimed to achieve substantial energy production? Then I thought about the light bulb analogy, and asked myself, were other people trying to invent the light bulb, at the time of Edison’s breakthrough? Well, of course there were:

    http://www.unmuseum.org/lightbulb.htm

    And then there are the familiar X thousand experiments that Edison had to perform. So, by comparison, it’s not such a strange thing that there is lots of research around LENR, and yet only one e-Cat.

  • C. Kirk

    It’s real clear that realclear science blog is the real junk science here….. Lest we forget Rossi’s comment on May 26th

    I am reading really laughable comments in blogs of imbeciles…not
    only this one, that says he discovered the Professors were
    veterinarians, but another, for example, who says he is an
    astrophysic who discovered that the charge cannot make the job,
    without having any idea about what the charge is, ( but a Prof of
    Astrophysics I know never heard about him) Rossi later on May 26th changed the post to ….

    he,he,he…right!
    I am reading really laughable comments in blogs of naives…not
    only this one, that says he discovered the Professors were
    veterinarians, but another, for example, who says he is an
    astrophysic ( but a Prof of Astrophysics I know never heard about him
    and from what he writes suspects he is more an astrologue than
    an astrophysic…) who discovered that the charge cannot make
    the job, without having any idea about what the charge is, unless-as
    an astrologue- he read the formulas in the cristal ball,

    Rossi was much more colorful with his language earlier talking about clowns and puppets and puppet masters and when really mad calling some scientists imbeciles (before changing the post in less than 24 hours.. but not before I caught it)

  • C. Kirk

    It’s real clear that realclear science blog is the real junk science here….. Lest we forget Rossi’s comment on May 26th

    I am reading really laughable comments in blogs of imbeciles…not
    only this one, that says he discovered the Professors were
    veterinarians, but another, for example, who says he is an
    astrophysic who discovered that the charge cannot make the job,
    without having any idea about what the charge is, ( but a Prof of
    Astrophysics I know never heard about him) Rossi later on May 26th changed the post to ….

    he,he,he…right!
    I am reading really laughable comments in blogs of naives…not
    only this one, that says he discovered the Professors were
    veterinarians, but another, for example, who says he is an
    astrophysic ( but a Prof of Astrophysics I know never heard about him
    and from what he writes suspects he is more an astrologue than
    an astrophysic…) who discovered that the charge cannot make
    the job, without having any idea about what the charge is, unless-as
    an astrologue- he read the formulas in the cristal ball,

    Rossi was much more colorful with his language earlier talking about clowns and puppets and puppet masters and when really mad calling some scientists imbeciles (before changing the post in less than 24 hours.. but not before I caught it)

  • kdk

    IIRC, the only credible criticism of the paper was that a third wire might have been somewhere. The testers already looked for it, but also there was about 1 place that it could have been hidden that they didn’t check for, and a rather obscure place.

    It’s really, really hard for me to see how this test can just be thrown out the window w/o at least another test. Elforsk’s 60 page report seems to show that they hardly consider it a hoax, and rather consider Siegel et al to be the fools. Maybe they already have results from another test which hasn’t been published yet. Or does anyone know if their next test, even more thorough, has actually started yet?

  • kdk

    IIRC, the only credible criticism of the paper was that a third wire might have been somewhere. The testers already looked for it, but also there was about 1 place that it could have been hidden that they didn’t check for, and a rather obscure place. It’s very telling to me that they don’t bother to even list arguments. Everybody just knows cold fusion is bunk. So, no arguments needed.

    It’s really, really hard for me to see how this test can just be thrown out the window w/o at least another test. Elforsk’s 60 page report seems to show that they hardly consider it a hoax, and rather consider Siegel et al to be the fools. Maybe they already have results from another test which hasn’t been published yet. Or does anyone know if their next test, even more thorough, has actually started yet?

    • Charles Hansen

      actually, that DC could have been fed at very high voltage, so as the wire would not heat and as Matts Lewan confirmed, the instrumentation could only measure AC. The longer Rossi sits on secrets, the more questions are asked about his claim.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/12/13/the-search-for-energys-holy-grail-starts-with-this.aspx

    Just saw this listing.

    Very interesting: Considering Italy’s Andrea Rossi was able to produce excess heat from an Energy Catalyzer (ECAT), the potential for fusion is very much real thanks to advances in technology like what National is delivering.

  • Gerrit_II

    Alain already found and commented this one:

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/12/13/the-search-for-energys-holy-grail-starts-with-this.aspx

    The motley fool covers cold fusion

  • Robyn Wyrick

    Motley Fool just posted an article on LENR and National Instruments. It’s short, but positive. I can’t seem to post the link without getting into moderation.

    • Roger Bird

      Long time now see. We have missed you. (:->) I am glad that you are back.

  • Kola

    I expected LENR devices to be produced for sale by now.

    • kdk
      • Kola

        How many of these units have currently been placed into operation?

        • kdk

          I don’t know. However, they are for sale. So, that expectation has been met. Four month delivery, and they announced maybe a month ago that they were beginning to sell them. I’m not sure about the date when they came up publicly for sale. I’m guessing that Vattenfall would be among the first purchasers, considering their interest in the ecats.

          • Kola

            Selling the units is a positive step. Delivery and being placed into operation would be even more impressive. I would think mass production of a superior product would be a strong and urgent imperative. But, years have passed and news of delivery and installation of E-Cat units has been scarce.

          • Roger Bird

            What happens if Rossi starts selling units now and they crap out in 4 months. This is an entirely new energy source using the Weak Force for the first time in the history of the world. So Rossi can’t just slap it together like a natural gas furnace and KNOW that it is going to work for 10 years (mine is on 13.5 years).

          • Kola

            There is always some risk in producing a new product. And, Rossi has been working on this for some years. If you are suggesting that it is not yet possible the create an E-Cat that will operate reliably and profitably for 4 months, that really would be a disappointment. If you are suggesting we be willing to wait 10 years for the new products to be fully tested; then I would suggest this is not practical … and it might be appropriate to reconsider the selection of engineering design staff. No, I suspect the issues are not related to the new design or production. And, whatever those issues are; we can expect continued delay until they are addressed.

  • Private Citizen

    Just when I’m drifting further toward the doubt column, now I find myself wanting to defend Rossi after seeing this hit piece in Real Smear Science.

    The hit list also includes an item flatly asserting that drugging water supplies with fluoride rat poison is a practice of scientifically unchallenged efficacy and benefit. Fortunately, more and more cities, counties and countries are ditching fluoride for good reason, despite the wail of old-guard corporatist shills like Real Smear.

  • Private Citizen

    Just when I’m drifting further toward the doubt column, now I find myself wanting to defend Rossi after seeing this hit piece in Real Smear Science.

    The hit list also includes an item flatly asserting that drugging water supplies with fluoride rat poison is a practice of scientifically unchallenged efficacy and benefit. Fortunately, more and more cities, counties and countries are ditching fluoride for good reason, despite the wail of old-guard corporatist shills like Real Smear.

  • Alan DeAngelis
    • Alain Samoun

      Good technical info – Thanks Alan

  • Alan DeAngelis
    • Alain Samoun

      Good technical info – Thanks Alan

  • Alain Samoun

    Your answer is in the article:

    Fortum said Thursday that the decision came after it launched an assessment in January of “future alternatives.”

    So the question is: What are the “future alternatives”?

    Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/12/12/3369367/finlands-fortum-in-35-billion.html#storylink=cpy

  • Bob

    I haven’t posted for quite a while. So long in fact, that my old login doesn’t work.

    I can only agree with the statement above which says “The cautious excitement was short lived.”
    After the release of the report last April 2013 showing the glowing e-cat, I was pleasantly surprised that something which looked like proof of operation had been given. However, the more I looked, the more holes I saw. I was hoping htese holes were to be patched by follow up tests in August, but so far I’ve seen nothing.
    From all the talk at the time, there were supposed to be exhaustive tests in August which were to be covered by video etc. but,.. here we are in mid December and so far, not a word, apart from statement from AR which say that more tests are being done in his factory with his secret partner and the results will be published no matter whether the results are positive or negative.
    After all the years of previous announcements that there is a guaranteed COP of 6, and there are products ready for market, and at least eleven ‘one megawatt’ units were being delivered to secret customers, the outward appearance is that nothing has been sold and any progress is in the reverse direction.

    How much further forward are we at this point than we were at this time last year?
    And this time last year, how had we progressed from the year before that?
    It appears the device which was ‘ready for market’ with imminent deliveries has been totally ignored.

    It looks like the only progress is in the announcements, such as LENR powered cars, which has to be very much premature since so far we still don’t have a truly independent and proven verification that the process even works to the extent of producing sufficient power to drive anything.
    Even more so since AR himself now says the results could be positive or negative.
    On what basis can someone be designing vehicles to use a power source which so far is still a dream?
    And if that’s an acceptable procedure, while they are at it, why not go all the way and design it to be powered by dilithium crystals?

    Anyway, just to confirm the original statement, I can only agree, “The cautious excitement was short lived.”

    • Roger Bird

      I have exactly zero doubts about the reality of the May 2013 Levi, Essen, et. al. report, so I am not pestered by all of the doubts that you have, Bob. Given my certainty about those tests, I tend to believe much (not all) of what Rossi says about his progress. And how and why he keeps going without asking us for money is also most curious. If he was scamming, then how come he never asks us for money. And for him to keep going with his activities, he would need money. Who is giving him money? And why would anyone give him money.

      If he is a scam artist, he is the worst one in history. He should visit with Madoff and learn something about scamming.

      • Bob

        Re; “if he was scamming, then how come he never asks us for money”
        Well, as the saying almost goes,..” there is more than one way to scam a cat ” 🙂
        Maybe he is looking for someone with more money than the average Joe has to give.
        Or maybe he has found that ‘someone’ in his ‘secret partner’.
        In any case, I really don’t know because we are told very little.
        I can only do what everyone else is doing, and that is to comment on what I see, and so far as I said, I am not seeing anything consistent with all the previous talk of a guaranteed COP of 6.
        One thing is certain, whatever is happening is not being financed by the sale of e-cats of any capacity. Certainly not the 5kw units long promised, and almost certainly not the 1 MW units.
        So someone is paying, or maybe has paid.
        Or, maybe it’s all being done on credit?
        Highly doubtful.

        • timycelyn

          care to share some wisdom on why we can disregard the May 2013 Levi et al tests?

          • psi

            tim,

            Excellent question.

          • Roger Bird

            Of course, timycelyn: (1) because we are faint hearted, (2) because we don’t have faith in ourselves, (3) because we don’t have faith in life, (4) because we have mommy issues. Do you want any more good reasons? (:->)

        • Roger Bird

          You say that you are only commenting on what you see, but you and I and everyone else are also speculating on what we see. It is just that our speculations are different.

          I don’t expect business people and explorers to be able to give accurate descriptions of what they can do in the future, so I don’t see Rossi as being dishonest, and trust me I am fanatical about honesty. A person who lies to me is $H!T in my book of “Trusted Ones”. But business people get excited about what they are doing and say things that don’t turn out to happen, for whatever reason. You see that he broke promises; I see that he was not able to do what he said he was going to do.

          The explorer who says that he is going to climb this mountain is not lying when it turns out that he was unable to climb the mount. It would be dishonest if he got a helicopter ride to the top of the mountain and said that he had climbed it. Rossi has never lied about the E-Cat being real, and the Levi 2013 test proves it. That is good enough for me.

        • Omega Z

          I can tell when someones Rossi knowledge is dated or poorly informed when they bring up the 5Kw when in fact, it is the 10Kw.
          I note that Rossi presented data that strongly indicated COP Much higher then 10, yet Rossi stuck with the Guarantee of COP>6. Not the M.O of a scammer.

          Contrary to what Detractors say, Rossi has Given Unprecedented access to the Testers of the E-cat, even access to that specific Core after cutting it open & the nickle had been removed. A Few Grams. So Yeah, They saw the inside of the Core itself.

          DC Voltage was ruled out, The Ground wire was totally disconnected & laying on the bench. RF transmitting was Ruled Out. The Control panel was isolated by a non conductive wooden panel. The Stand was checked for secret feed thru wires coming up thru the floor. They had total access to the mains where the wire feed was tied in directly so anything fed thru would have fed thru to any & all electronics hooked up to the Entire system right out to the Utility power grid. No Scammer has ever allowed such access.

          Considering the power density, The only real Option for a scam would be if Rossi is using conventional Nuclear Energy. A nano-scale, Nuclear power plant that needs no shielding to speak of. The size of a 3/4 inch by 9 inch pipe. Wait. Wouldn’t that be worth Billions???

          Rossi has a Partner. If it’s a fake, it’s no skin off of our teeth. It’s their problem. However, if Rossi has got his money, he could just disappear off the Grid. Why post anything at all. It would just make it easy to track him down.

          If, as Rumor has it, Rossi sold his technology Lock, Stock & Barrel, & is only the Chief of Research, Then Any further details to be released would be at the Partners discretion. A Business partner would be cautious about revealing such details until they have it nailed down.

          LENR is real. It’s been repeated by many Reputable Entities/Universities/ Government Agencies. Dozens. At High temps or High COP or Long Periods. Rossi merely found a way to enhance/accelerate the process obtaining ALL simultaneously. Many others will also given time.

          So, all that remains is can it be effectively/Efficiently harnessed in a usable manor. Only time will tell…

          • Roger Bird

            Nice summary.

    • from the protocols of Levi&al test, having doubt is not so rational.

      clearly the test did not ruleout any industrialization, or reliability problem.
      however from the protocol and from the results, and from the pathetic critics, it is clear E-cat is real, producing kW of heat above chemical capacities.

      The protocol, allowing the testers to rewire the input, to touche the reactor, to install their own instruments, to use Ir cam, thermociuple, know emissivity dots, powermeter, voltmeters, ammeters, is without the results an evidence that there is no fraud in the input nor in the output.
      Rossi could not take the risk to make a fraud, that could be detected.

      The results of the test using IR cam, and thermocouple, ruleout errors linked to hotspots.
      They missed the DC checking, but since it was allowed, it is not aproblem. as I said, the protocol rule out fraud. only errors can be source of problem.and DC is not a error, but a fraud, easy to detect.

      I can safely say that 500% error, and 300C temperature error is not realistic, given the calibration, and the experience of the 7 testers.

      More interesting the champion of skeptics, Ericsson&pomp have written a paper that is so bad that it is a good news. they forces Levi&al to answer some question, and to remind some key point in their report. Bo Hoistad remind us that this paper is a shameful paper in it’s structure, in it’s arguments, and showing lack of serious reading and competence.
      Since you can imagine that many skeptics would have wrote better paper if they could find serious points, you can be sure there is nothing better to be said as critic.

      I take is as “no serious critic, despite active research”

      finally the only concern is about reliability and stability.
      the “destructive test” at the beginning maye be an error, and symptom of stability problem.
      The fact that the last test was at COP3, may show that Rossi is not so confident in the stability.

      • Marc Ellenbroek

        Alain, although I am quite convinced that the test was OK, you can never rule-out fraud, unless you demand a test to take place at your own (controlled) test site. Example: You can heat up a peace of metal with focussed electro-magnetic (EM) radiation from a distance, especially when the shape is made such that it resonates on the applied EM radiation. I am not sure the testers have on checked that.

        • Roger Bird

          I disagree. With Rossi NOT standing around controlling the testing, he could NEVER know what the testers would do. He would be risking his scam and his hide doing anything dishonest.

          • that is my position too.

            Rossi could easily add some constraint to keep more control, if really he was frauding, some constraint that will forbid surprises, while looking quite normal…

            he asked some control, but except if you invent new physics or NSA hacking though the electric grid, not enought to prevent people to detect his trick.

            It is a kind of game theory.
            As I said often, even if the testers brought wood dummy instruments, we could know there was no fraud.

            however I suspect stability problems.

      • Roger Bird

        What Alain said, only with better grammar and spelling. (:->)

        • sorry, but thanks.

          • GreenWin

            No need to apologize Alain. Your good will and honesty vastly dispel your problems with English (a very difficult language.) Thanks for your insight and vision.

          • Roger Bird

            Yes, Alain. No need to apologize. I should have added my little (:->) to let you know that I was teasing. Also thank you for your hard work. You contribute a lot.

    • US_Citizen71

      So I take it you either didn’t read the Levi report or just plain don’t understand mathematics. Multiple times on multiple different equations a more conservative value than what was measured or derived was used and inputted into the next equation, in order to cover any possible undetermined error. The numbers were reported lower than what was observed, so claiming the COP isn’t 6 anymore and the sky is falling is drivel. If you take 80% of 80% of 80% of 6 you definitely won’t have 6 will you?

      • Umm.. that’s not how science is done. Data is gathered, error bars on measurements inserted, errors propagated, results analyzed and reported. All this is done openly, with possible sources of misinterpretation investigated and reported.

        • US_Citizen71

          No that is how engineering testing is done. You don’t need to know the numbers to 99th decimal place you just need to know that it works and well enough to fit the spec. Increasing known errors multiple times or lowering numbers by 10-20% covers all possible errors.

          • No it isn’t and, anyway, this wasn’t engineering testing. Supposedly, it was a demonstration with data to prove the technology.

  • Tom59

    Victory will taste even sweeter after this

    • bachcole

      Absolutely. Believing what the consensus of scientists say can be akin to believing what priests of whatever stripe say. It is not necessarily being a clear thinker or a scientist. And when hundreds if not thousands of people are jumping up and down and saying, “LENR is real and we have the evidence”, it behooves real thinking people to look into the matter and not be dismissive of it.

  • Tom59

    Victory will taste even sweeter after this

    • Roger Bird

      Absolutely. Believing what the consensus of scientists say can be akin to believing what priests of whatever stripe say. It is not necessarily being a clear thinker or a scientist. And when hundreds if not thousands of people are jumping up and down and saying, “LENR is real and we have the evidence”, it behooves real thinking people to look into the matter and not be dismissive of it.

      • looking at the backlog of scientific consensus in history, being careful seems a minimum.

        Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated: http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

        • Like the fact that you read about airplane crashes but rarely about car crashes, this list exists because the phenomenon is unusual. Listing the ridiculed science mavericks who have not been vindicated is impractical because the list would be so long and, anyway, no one has heard of them (except, perhaps, here at e-catworld.com).

  • from the protocols of Levi&al test, having doubt is not so rational.

    clearly the test did not ruleout any industrialization, or reliability problem.
    however from the protocol and from the results, and from the pathetic critics, it is clear E-cat is real, producing kW of heat above chemical capacities.

    The protocol, allowing the testers to rewire the input, to touche the reactor, to install their own instruments, to use Ir cam, thermociuple, know emissivity dots, powermeter, voltmeters, ammeters, is without the results an evidence that there is no fraud in the input nor in the output.
    Rossi could not take the risk to make a fraud, that could be detected.

    The results of the test using IR cam, and thermocouple, ruleout errors linked to hotspots.
    They missed the DC checking, but since it was allowed, it is not aproblem. as I said, the protocol rule out fraud. only errors can be source of problem.and DC is not a error, but a fraud, easy to detect.

    I can safely say that 500% error, and 300C temperature error is not realistic, given the calibration, and the experience of the 7 testers.

    More interesting the champion of skeptics, Ericsson&pomp have written a paper that is so bad that it is a good news. they forces Levi&al to answer some question, and to remind some key point in their report. Bo Hoistad remind us that this paper is a shameful paper in it’s structure, in it’s arguments, and showing lack of serious reading and competence.
    Since you can imagine that many skeptics would have wrote better paper if they could find serious points, you can be sure there is nothing better to be said as critic.

    I take is as “no serious critic, despite active research”

    finally the only concern is about reliability and stability.
    the “destructive test” at the beginning maye be an error, and symptom of stability problem.
    The fact that the last test was at COP3, may show that Rossi is not so confident in the stability.

    • Marc Ellenbroek

      Alain, although I am quite convinced that the test was OK, you can never rule-out fraud, unless you demand a test to take place at your own (controlled) test site. Example: You can heat up a peace of metal with focussed electro-magnetic (EM) radiation from a distance, especially when the shape is made such that it resonates on the applied EM radiation. I am not sure the testers have on checked that.

      • bachcole

        I disagree. With Rossi NOT standing around controlling the testing, he could NEVER know what the testers would do. He would be risking his scam and his hide doing anything dishonest.

        • that is my position too.

          Rossi could easily add some constraint to keep more control, if really he was frauding, some constraint that will forbid surprises, while looking quite normal…

          he asked some control, but except if you invent new physics or NSA hacking though the electric grid, not enought to prevent people to detect his trick.

          It is a kind of game theory.
          As I said often, even if the testers brought wood dummy instruments, we could know there was no fraud.

          however I suspect stability problems.

    • bachcole

      What Alain said, only with better grammar and spelling. (:->)

      • sorry, but thanks.

        • GreenWin

          No need to apologize Alain. Your good will and honesty vastly dispel your problems with English (a very difficult language.) Thanks for your insight and vision.

          • bachcole

            Yes, Alain. No need to apologize. I should have added my little (:->) to let you know that I was teasing. Also thank you for your hard work. You contribute a lot.

      • bitplayer

        Check the version number on your Alain compiler…maybe time for an update.

  • US_Citizen71

    So I take it you either didn’t read the Levi report or just plain don’t understand mathematics. Multiple times on multiple different equations a lower value than what was measured or derived was used and inputted into the next equation, in order to cover any possible undetermined error. The numbers were reported lower than was observed, so claiming the COP isn’t 6 anymore and the sky is falling is drivel. If you take 80% of 80% of 80% of 6 you diffidently won’t have 6 will you?

  • kdk
  • bachcole

    Let us not forget that the evidence for the E-Cat before the Levi 2013 report was so compelling that it forced me beyond the 50% certainty mark. And I am sure that many others here were similarly affected. It is not like Levi 2013 was standing out there all naked and alone.

  • Roger Bird

    Let us not forget that the evidence for the E-Cat before the Levi 2013 report was so compelling that it forced me beyond the 50% certainty mark. And I am sure that many others here were similarly affected. It is not like Levi 2013 was standing out there all naked and alone.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Again…….Because LENR is so disruptive, big money skeptics will find reasons to discredit until a third party announces they have installed a unit and it is saving him a lot of money.

    • bachcole

      And then you will see the cockroaches scatter.

    • GreenWin

      Bernie, watch the skeps shout this is a paid charlatan in service of the “junk science devil.”

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Again…….Because LENR is so disruptive, big money skeptics will find reasons to discredit until a third party announces they have installed a unit and it is saving him a lot of money.

    • Roger Bird

      And then you will see the cockroaches scatter.

    • GreenWin

      Bernie, watch the skeps shout this is a paid charlatan in service of the “junk science devil.”

  • bachcole

    On this page by my count just now, there are 85 up-clicks (and no down clicks that I noticed). There were 67 up-clicks by guests. Guests are 78.8% of the total up-clicks. I believe that this number is significant. I acknowledge that not everyone up or down clicks, whether they are guests or not, whether they are familiar to us or not. There are only 64 comments, so this site is read more times than there are commenters. Most of the readers are people who we don’t even recognize. This is ALL good. Perhaps our Glorious Leader Frank could shed some light and statistics on this. There are a whole bunch more people interested in this subject than meets the eye.

    • ecatworld

      Quick stats: Over the last 30 days there have been approx 34,000 unique visitors, 239,000 pageviews. 76 % of visitors were returning, 24 % were first-time visitors.

      Top 10 countries in order.

      USA
      Sweden
      Germany
      UK
      Italy
      Canada
      France
      Netherlands
      Australia
      Finland

      Overall, traffic is down over the last few months. Traffic tends to be driven by the amount of news about the E-Cat, and we are in a quiet period in that regard.

      • bachcole

        Wow!

        What is a pageview vs. a unique visitor?

        • Buck

          Roger if you visit E-Cat World 30x in one month, then you count as one unique visit with at least 30 page views. If during each visit you jumped repeatedly to many different pages, I am guessing that counts as additional page views.

          • bachcole

            Almost a quarter of million pageviews. Very nice. I think that the secret is out. People are waiting to act upon it, waiting for absolute, undeniable proof.

        • Doktor Bob

          Visit is a visit to Franks web log. For every post or page they read Frank receives a page view. Unique visitor means that he is unique or at least not visited the page for the last thirty minutes- I guess it differs from who is measuring. The reason frank get a lot of unique visitors is because people thinks he blogs about cats and because many pages writing about energy linking back to here because that makes Google believe his content is very relevant and puts him high on the search engine results.

          • artefact

            This page is not about cats? I wasted all thouse years!
            I should have never left icanhascheezburger (.com) 🙂

          • bachcole

            I have figured out how Frank can get a LOT more hits. He could write an article entitled “The Pornography of Skeptopathology” or “How We are getting Screwed by TPTB”. (:->)

      • Doktor Bob

        You can possible also see what was the most popular posts to enter from, try to seo those pages further. Doing so can add 100 000 additional unique visitors over the course of next year.

    • Omega Z

      Note Roger that
      One needs to be signed in thru disqus in order to down vote.

  • Roger Bird

    On this page by my count just now, there are 85 up-clicks (and no down clicks that I noticed). There were 67 up-clicks by guests. Guests are 78.8% of the total up-clicks. I believe that this number is significant. I acknowledge that not everyone up or down clicks, whether they are guests or not, whether they are familiar to us or not. There are only 64 comments, so this site is read more times than there are commenters. Most of the readers are people who we don’t even recognize. This is ALL good. Perhaps our Glorious Leader Frank could shed some light and statistics on this. There are a whole bunch more people interested in this subject than meets the eye.

    • Frank Acland

      Quick stats: Over the last 30 days there have been approx 34,000 unique visitors, 239,000 pageviews. 76 % of visitors were returning, 24 % were first-time visitors.

      Top 10 countries in order.

      USA
      Sweden
      Germany
      UK
      Italy
      Canada
      France
      Netherlands
      Australia
      Finland

      Overall, traffic is down over the last few months. Traffic tends to be driven by the amount of news about the E-Cat, and we are in a quiet period in that regard.

      • Roger Bird

        Wow!

        What is a pageview vs. a unique visitor?

        • Buck

          Roger if you visit E-Cat World 30x in one month, then you count as one unique visit with at least 30 page views. If during each visit you jumped repeatedly to many different pages, I am guessing that counts as additional page views.

          • Roger Bird

            Almost a quarter of million pageviews. Very nice. I think that the secret is out. People are waiting to act upon it, waiting for absolute, undeniable proof.

        • Visit is a visit to Franks web log. For every post or page they read Frank receives a page view. Unique visitor means that he is unique or at least not visited the page for the last thirty minutes- I guess it differs from who is measuring. The reason frank get a lot of unique visitors is because people thinks he blogs about cats and because many pages writing about energy linking back to here because that makes Google believe his content is very relevant and puts him high on the search engine results.

          • artefact

            This page is not about cats? I wasted all thouse years!
            I should have never left icanhascheezburger (.com) 🙂

          • Roger Bird

            I have figured out how Frank can get a LOT more hits. He could write an article entitled “The Pornography of Skeptopathology” or “How We are getting Screwed by TPTB”. (:->)

      • You can possible also see what was the most popular posts to enter from, try to seo those pages further. Doing so can add 100 000 additional unique visitors over the course of next year.

    • Omega Z

      Note Roger that
      One needs to be signed in thru disqus in order to down vote.

  • bachcole

    Long time now see. We have missed you. (:->) I am glad that you are back.

  • Doktor Bob

    Joseph,

    I do not understand. Please explain further.

  • Demokratinifara

    Its the green mafia that doesn’t want anything that competes with solar or wind farms!

    Any new technology that competes with their ideology has to be suppressed and ridiculed.

  • US_Citizen71

    No that is how engineering testing is done. You don’t need to know the numbers to 99th decimal place you just need to know that it works and well enough to fit the spec. Increasing known errors multiple times or lowering numbers by 10-20% covers all possible errors.