Rossi on Peer Review

I posted a question to Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today regarding the upcoming third party report. Rossi has said that the report would be published in a ‘peer-reviewed magazine’, but I recall that prior to last year’s report he said the same thing, and it ended up being published on arxiv.org, which is kind of a pre-publication repository of science papers. So far the Levi report hasn’t made it into a peer reviewed magazine.

So I asked Rossi if he expected the report to be accepted in a peer review journal this time, and if not, whether it would be published on Arxiv.org again.

This is his response:

This is an issue that does not depend on me. I heard that the publication will be made on a peer reviewed magazine, but let me say also that when a paper is signed by 6 Professors coming from different scientific institutes it is already reviewed, because all the 6 must agree on the publication, and each of them reviews the work of the Others. Besides, Arxiv Physics has anyway a preliminar peer reviewing: many manuscripts are not published, because considered incomplete, even if endorsed from well known experts.

I think Rossi makes a good point here — it’s the quality of the report that counts, and the qualifications of the authors, and I don’t think the Levi report was any less important or useful because of where it is published. However, for some reason, many critics dismiss the report, and Rossi’s work in general because it has ‘not been peer reviewed.’ In terms of coverage by the mainstream scientific community and by the media, it does seem to make a difference where a report is published. For that reason, I do hope some courageous journal editor picks up the upcoming report.

  • Mr. Moho

    To be honest I doubt any peer reviewed science journal would publish a paper on a test report of a device that cannot be independently replicated or at the very least able to be freely tested by any scientist (like the upcoming NANOR LENR devices). That’s not going to happen until a more or less full, testable theory about this “Rossi effect” will get published and/or E-Cat devices will become available to the general public.

    So, I think we’re likely going to get another Arxiv paper, which would add to the metadata, but not really the science as a whole. I believe Rossi’s idea of “peer review” is not what most people (skeptics, especially) expect.

    • Donk970

      You make a good point. Published science doesn’t usually take the form of “here’s an observation, here’s my theory but I can’t experimentally prove it yet”. But even if the science gets done and replicated most if not all mainstream publications simply cannot publish anything positive about LENR because the can’t afford to contradict 20 years of saying it was a hoax. Just isn’t going to happen. I suspect that even after the first production LENR power plant goes into operation the mainstream publications and the “experts” will doggedly stick to the “it’s not possible because x,y,z mantra because admitting they’ve been wrong for the last 20 years will kill their credibility.

      • Dr. Danson

        The scientific establishment is not monolithic, and not everyone has something to lose by admitting that LENR is real. Sure, it might be difficult to get published in Nature or Science right away (the editors of those publications throw away most submissions without getting to the peer-review stage) But, if a paper is prescriptive enough to allow total replication of indisputable results, and is published on an online venue such as arxiv so that several independent institutions can perform a total replication, it will be accepted by a peer-reviewed journal before too long.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Catch 22, They demand that you publish in a peer reviewed journal.

    They will not publish your work in a peer reviewed journal.

    Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of the clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. “That’s some catch, that Catch-22,” he observed.

    “It’s the best there is,” Doc Daneeka replied.

  • Dr Danson

    The biggest problem with the Levi report is that it’s simply not science. Science requires reproducible results, and without full disclosure of Rossi’s mysterious catalyst no other scientist on Earth can properly repeat the experiments and verify their results. The reputation of the co-authors is not enough – famous scientists are wrong all the time. The demand for evidence is even more crucial given that Rossi is making extraordinary claims.

    I’m on the fence as to whether the e-cat actually works, but this constant pursuit of peer-reviewed papers makes me much more doubtful, especially considering the poor quality of the previous work (I’m a scientist myself, and I’d rather run around naked in public than reference wikipedia in a proper scientific publication.). If Rossi has a working device, a peer-reviewed paper is totally irrelevant, unless it contains every detail a scientist needs to replicate the experiment.

    I am a skeptic (which, by the way, isn’t a bad word – I simply require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims), and I’ll only believe it’s for real when I see it on store shelves, or when multiple reputable companies/countries start to use the devices in their industrial processes.

    • Bertuswonkel

      I agree. I don’t mind being naked that much but referencing Wikipedia is not done in any proper scientific paper. Although wiki has some good articles, it can be edited by anyone so better not use it to be on the safe side.

      I would be amazed if they would be able to publish it in a peer reviewed journal. A black box test is simply not enough, you would need to describe the details of the device in order to get published. However, if they would include a theory based on the tests, than just maybe, it can make it through. A theory can be tested with experiments without giving away the design of Rossi’s device.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      When considering Rossi and science, I don’t think of him as a scientist, but more as part of the universe that scientists study. Like there is (for example) the big bang hypothesis and the static hypothesis and evidence for and against for both (overwhelming for the big bang now, but wasn’t always so), in case of the E-cat there is the truth hypothesis and the scam hypothesis. It seems to me that the truth hypothesis explains and has been able to predict what we know much better than the other one.

      • Dr Danson

        Scam/truth is a false dichotomy, which I’d rather avoid. It’s possible that the e-cat doesn’t work as advertised without the end goal being a scam, though the scam and truth hypotheses are admittedly the most likely.

        Anyway, I’d disagree that the current information suggests that the e-cat is real more than that it is a scam. There are plenty of arguments to support both sides of the argument. In my mind there’s the strong possibility that Rossi has simply found a very clever scam, and I still think it’s premature to jump on the bandwagon.

        • Bertuswonkel

          I do wonder which arguments/evidence you have that the e-cat is a scam. I also think this is a possibility/was the first thought i had when i heard of it but have found little evidence of it up till now. Most people who have tested his device still seem to support him. Only Krivit is very negative on Rossi but i don’t take him very seriously.

          The best evidence for me is the support Rossi got from the late Sergio Focardi. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmgTo2Kw1U.
          Smart man and a pioneer in hydrogen LENR experiments. If Rossi is a scammer he sure has some balls to ask him to test his device and work with him for 2 years. But then again, it is a good test, if he could fool him he can fool almost anybody. Guess there is not much more we can do than to wait and see what will happen in the next few months.

    • LENR G

      I’ve seen this assertion a bunch of times and it makes me bristle every time I do because I just don’t agree with it. The results are reproducible and the fact that both the access to the device and the scope of the scientific investigations are limited do not invalidate that the Levi report was real science.

      On the first point, of course it would be better (for us) if Rossi published all his secrets and every lab could try to validate. Not going to happen. But we do have scientific observations from the Penon report and then the Levi report and now pending another set of observations from a third set of scientific eyes.

      On the second point, perfectly valid scientific experiments can be run on a opaque system. In fact science does it all the time when it is the characteristics of the opaque system that are of interest. In this case we mostly care about the energy balance (and we understand that how it works exactly is a question for another day). We are just trying to establish first that it actually does work. When science studies the effects of a cancer drug on mortality rates it doesn’t demand to cut open every survivor to see exactly what happened inside. When it studies the surface of Mars it doesn’t require drilling 10 miles down into its crust. When it studies the trajectory of a cannonball it doesn’t demand to know what brand of gunpowder is used.

      Imagine a giant white hot sphere from outer space descending and then levitating 1000 feet over the White House. Even if we couldn’t or wouldn’t dare crack it open until we’re sure it won’t blow up the planet, we could sure as heck study its surface, its temperature and any radiation, try and figure out how it’s levitating (via thrust or magnets or whatever) and after awhile our scientists would have a pretty good idea of *what* we were dealing with exactly even if they couldn’t know how. Maybe a few other teams from around the world would fly in to try and reproduce our experiments. But it’s not like every lab in the world could do it. Still science. Just because it’s access is limited doesn’t mean science can’t be performed on it.

      We all want to know ‘how,’ but right now we are still doing ‘what.’ And science answers ‘what’ often even if it can’t get to the how right away.

      • Dr Danson

        The experiments are not reproducible simply because access to the device is highly restricted. Rossi does not act impartially and has a personal relationship with many of the authors of the Levi et al. paper.

        My problem with these papers is that to some people the word “science” lends the e-cat an aura of credibility that it simply doesn’t deserve. Nothing has been proven. When a good scientific paper is published, it contains all of the information that another scientist on the other side of the world needs to replicate the results. If reproducing the results requires going through some non-neutral gatekeeper (Rossi) it hardly looks genuine.

        This is the problem with the “black box” – with your giant white hot sphere example, you would certainly have multiple teams of scientists investigating and corroborating their results.

        I think Rossi needs to prove himself other than scientifically. His putative intentions (protecting his trade secret) directly clash with the scientific method (a method of acquiring new knowledge), so why bother taking this route? He’s got the investment, he’s got the R&D – final confirmation will come if and when he releases an actual product.

        • LENR G

          We’re in basic agreement. It’s far from ideal science, I just don’t think it’s fair to say it’s not science outright. Even the first characterization experiments on a new type of system, before any reproductions or detailed analysis of how it operates, must be considered science in my book. Probably just semantics.

          And I think actually that Rossi agrees with you and wasn’t trying to prove anything with the validations except to himself and his team. He’s consistently said that only working products in the market matter and has been single-minded in that pursuit.

          As for why do the validations in the first place, I can’t know for sure but here’s what I think. The internal Penon validation seems like a safety and performance sanity check. The Elforsk-funded effort I imagine to be at the behest of the Swedish engineers who had some familiarity with the system and Rossi and who pushed for it. Had Rossi cared about proving the device to the world he would have chosen a more independent team. Instead he allowed a team he trusted to verify the device. This happened around the time Cherokee and Rossi were courting each other. Perhaps Cherokee asked for someone to validate and all that was acceptable to Rossi was this team of people he felt he could trust. The two validations underway make perfect sense, the internal one key for product development and the outside one likely demanded by Industrial Heat to triple check before they go public.

          Those are educated guesses.

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            So in short, Dr Danson has a more constrained definition of Science than LENR G.

            This technically is ok, but the real problem with the differing definitions is when people from either camp’s talk to each other or lay people they rarely explain what their definition of scientific proof is. Which leads to flame wars and more confusion.

          • LENR G

            I think we’re talking through it fine here.

            I try to be very clear about what I think the facts are and my deductions from them. Sometimes we get all caught up in terminology — as in this case where some are proposing and defending a “purer” definition of science whereas I feel comfortable using the term to describe any scientific experimentation.

            That’s cool. I understand where they are coming from. As long as they make an effort to understand where I am coming from then it’s all good.

        • David Taylor-Fuller

          While I can agree with your definition and justification. I have to wonder should Rossi be blamed for the short comings you have outlined. I have gone through a number of ICCF-18 video proceedings and it seems like a major problem at least in the US is getting a patent to cover the work these guys are doing. Now I have no clue if the reason for this because the submitted fillings are incorrect or if their is a combination of ignorance and malice at play. But how can a scientist who has discovered something novel, which this seems to be; do science in the way you have defined while still putting bread on the table.

      • Donk970

        Eddison figuring out how to make a light bulb doesn’t pass muster as science either; nor should it. That doesn’t mean that what Eddison figured out wasn’t important or valid it just means that it wasn’t science in the sense of observe (excess heat), theorize (Widdom-Larsen?), experiment. A scientific explanation isn’t necessary for it to work and sometimes the desire to explain why something works can prevent us from doing anything useful.

        • catbauer24

          At least he actually had a product for sale (that could be scientifically studied) when he said he did. As opposed to Rossi… going on 2.5 years now almost since that claim??

          • Donk970

            For perspective; Volta demonstrated a wire that glowed when current passed through it in 1800. After that any number of people demonstrated devices that could glow but were impractical. Edison started working on trying to find a way to build a practical lightbulb in the early 1800’s but wasn’t successful until 1879. It took Edison a lot longer than Rossi has spent to develop a commercially viable light bulb. Rossi is moving really fast by those standards.

        • NCkhawk

          Edison’s first light bulbs burned for only 2 – 3 seconds then failed. He acquired outside patents and eventually moved to a commercial product. It didn’t happen overnight and the Edison socket remains globally ubiquitous. I think the E-Cat is going to take a similar, deliberate path.

      • LENR G

        Somebody voted down my white hot ball of doom? You got something against balls of doom?

        • blanco69

          Yes, that happened to me once. Just after Dennis Cravens’ big brassy balls experiment!

    • catbauer24

      Sometimes in Science assumptions have to be made. However in the case of the Levi et al test, the assumptions are arbitrarily necessary because Rossi forced the assumptions on the scientists.

      Assumptions on materials reacted without knowing in the least what are reacted or the products there-of, are ultimately as far from Science as one can get. Anything based off of these egregious assumptions should be considered ‘theoretical’, and even the authors themselves tepidly acknowledged this with the title “Indications…”. Unfortunately people are diverging from what the authors intend, with people wrongly thinking it is more of an absolute measurement, vs theoretical conclusion (as was the authors conclusion).

    • Warthog

      “I simply require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims”.

      Science has no such requirement. That phrase was originated by “debunkers” of “psychic phenomena” so they had a scientific-sounding excuse for ignoring any and all evidence they didn’t like. Which is exactly the use being made of it by the anti-LENR crowd.

      SCIENCE requires only replicated experiments…..which, in fact, includes “black box” studies. If two separate groups test the identical device and get identical results, “the science” is confirmed.

      • bachcole

        Right on.

  • Dr Danson

    The biggest problem with the Levi report is that it’s simply not science. Science requires reproducible results, and without full disclosure of Rossi’s mysterious catalyst no other scientist on Earth can properly repeat the experiments and verify their results. The reputation of the co-authors is not enough – famous scientists are wrong all the time. The demand for evidence is even more crucial given that Rossi is making extraordinary claims.

    I’m on the fence as to whether the e-cat actually works, but this constant pursuit of peer-reviewed papers makes me much more doubtful, especially considering the poor quality of the previous work (I’m a scientist myself, and I’d rather run around naked in public than reference wikipedia in a proper scientific publication.). If Rossi has a working device, a peer-reviewed paper is totally irrelevant, unless it contains every detail a scientist needs to replicate the experiment.

    I am a skeptic (which, by the way, isn’t a bad word – I simply require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims), and I’ll only believe it’s for real when I see it on store shelves, or when multiple reputable companies/countries start to use the devices in their industrial processes.

    • bachcole

      Dr Danson, the big question is whether the phenomena is real or not. The big question is NOT whether it fits into your framework of how things should be done. I accept Levi, Essen et. al. as being true and I completely understand why Rossi is not allowing other people to get their hands on his product. LENR will be in your future or your children’s future.

      • Dr Danson

        I never said that I wanted the e-cat to be proven scientifically – I don’t think it can without Rossi giving up all of his secrets, which is why I think it’s a waste of time. All efforts should be invested into getting an actual product.

        I also think it looks slightly fraudulent, because any good scientist should know better than to seek publication of a “black box” method, which is useless.

        Other than that, Levi et al. had several flaws in their paper – even if the paper was published on a more orthodox topic with all of the methodology available, these flaws would still be cause for rejection from any reputable journal. For instance, the dubious measurement methods, the gross approximations, the reference to wikipedia… Even if I were an extremely generous reviewer at a second-rate journal, I would mark it for a major revision, and ask for all of the experiments to be repeated with tighter controls.

        • Bertuswonkel

          I agree. It is difficult/impossible to prove Rossi’s claims in a scientific manner without him giving up his secrets. But remember that it was not Rossi’s idea to prove it scientifically, he always said he wants to make a product. The tests are done on the request of the professors themselves with financial backing from Vattenfall.

    • Bertuswonkel

      I agree. I don’t mind being naked that much but referencing Wikipedia is not done in any proper scientific paper. Although wiki has some good articles, it can be edited by anyone so better not use it to be on the safe side.

      I would be amazed if they would be able to publish it in a peer reviewed journal. A black box test is simply not enough, you would need to describe the details of the device in order to get published. However, if they would include a theory based on the tests, than just maybe, it can make it through. A theory can be tested with experiments without giving away the design of Rossi’s device.

      • bachcole

        I also doubt that it will be published in a “peer reviewed” magazine. Hopefully there are enough people with enough good sense to see reality when it is presented to them. It seems that there ARE enough people with enough good sense to see reality for Cherokee Investment Partners to latch onto Rossi and run with him full on to the goal of almost free energy.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      When considering Rossi and science, I don’t think of him as a scientist, but more as part of the universe that scientists study. Like there is (for example) the big bang hypothesis and the static hypothesis and evidence for and against for both (overwhelming for the big bang now, but wasn’t always so), in case of the E-cat there is the truth hypothesis and the scam hypothesis. It seems to me that the truth hypothesis explains and has been able to predict what we know much better than the other one.

      • Dr Danson

        Scam/truth is a false dichotomy, which I’d rather avoid. It’s possible that the e-cat doesn’t work as advertised without the end goal being a scam, though the scam and truth hypotheses are admittedly the most likely.

        Anyway, I’d disagree that the current information suggests that the e-cat is real more than that it is a scam. There are plenty of arguments to support both sides of the argument. In my mind there’s the strong possibility that Rossi has simply found a very clever scam, and I still think it’s premature to jump on the bandwagon.

        • Bertuswonkel

          I do wonder which arguments/evidence you have that the e-cat is a scam. I also think this is a possibility/was the first thought i had when i heard of it but have found little evidence of it up till now. Most people who have tested his device still seem to support him. Only Krivit is very negative on Rossi but i don’t take him very seriously.

          The best evidence for me is the support Rossi got from the late Sergio Focardi. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmgTo2Kw1U.
          Smart man and a pioneer in hydrogen LENR experiments. If Rossi is a scammer he sure has some balls to ask him to test his device and work with him for 2 years. But then again, it is a good test, if he could fool him he can fool almost anybody. Guess there is not much more we can do than to wait and see what will happen in the next few months.

          • Dr Danson

            I think there’s a bunch of stuff in Rossi’s favour, especially
            – that he’s managed to persuade a few reputable people to believe in his work
            – he got reputable funding from Cherokee
            – that his actions are far from optimal to scam people out of money
            – other more scientific work, particularly at MIT and on the MFMP, have shown that there might actually be a LENR effect

            But here are a few things off the top of my head that look a bit scammy:
            – The scientific work on the e-cat so far has been poor quality
            – There were significant doubts about whether the 1MW reactor was actually dispatched to a customer, when it appeared in a photo of his lab long after it was supposed to have shipped.
            – The copper isotope ratios in an early test exactly matching the ratio of naturally occurring copper
            – Rossi has not got the best track record, considering his diploma came from a diploma mill and he’s had significant legal trouble with his previous company
            – His talk of an e-cat factory several years ago, if not outright lies, were at least disingenuous.
            – The release of the e-cat is permanently 1-2 years in the future, which is a practice that other scams such as Steorn have also engaged in

            Other than that, I’ve read some theories on how Rossi is faking his results, and read lots of scientific criticism of his public demonstrations.

          • Bertuswonkel

            I think the evidence in favor of a LENR effect is far more then just MIT and MFMP.
            In fact, MFMP and MIT have actually showed little evidence in favor of LENR (M. Swartz is not officially connected to MIT). Here are some better examples i think:
            http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2007/2007HublerG-AnomalousEffects.pdf
            http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1998/1998FocardiS-LargeExcessHeatProductionNiH.pdf
            http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf
            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEelectrolyt.pdf
            http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2009/2009Boss-Triple-tracks.pdf
            https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36813/MassFlowCalorimetryPresentation.pdf?sequence=2 (their earlier paper is locked)

            I agree that the scientific work has been limited. If Rossi worked at a University we would not be having this discussion, it would either be proven or not already.

            Do you have a reference for the copper test? Didn’t know that he allowed his powder to be tested.

            Rossi had some legal issue’s but he was free-ed of most charges. He was working on transforming plastic waste to fuel. I recently read that a Dutch company has got a large investment to basically do this on a large scale. So it is possible to do but his company failed. Waste disposal is Mafia territory in Italy so his explanation that he had some enemies is plausible but he probably also made some mistakes himself.

            I think that almost everybody who invents something is far to optimistic in the beginning about the speed of developments. You think peace of cake but run into many unexpected problems. So from me he gets some slack for not predicting the time table 100% accurate.

          • Dr Danson

            Yes, those look slightly more convincing, but I’d have to take the time to read them through. The affiliation of Hubler is interesting, though I wonder why he’s the only author on the paper – sounds more like a personal side project than something that was directed by his lab.

            The copper test was something written about by Peter Ekstrom, but I don’t have it to hand just now. The idea was that if LENR really took place, you’d expect some unstable isotopes to exist in the copper, but there were none. In the same article, there were lots of other criticisms, such as that naturally occurring nickel only contains a tiny fraction of the isotope required for a Ni->Cu reaction.

            Of course all the evidence to date is far from definitive, which is why I’m still firmly on the fence about it all. I’m a skeptic, but not a cynic, so I’m reserving judgement until some piece of evidence swings the balance of probabilities sufficiently so I can make an informed decision.

          • Bertuswonkel

            Please take your time to study them in more detail. The paper from Hubler is a review paper so in the references you can find the actual experiments. This is not my field of science so i have a hard time critically assessing the materials. I have to have some trust in the people doing the experiments that they are actually making the right measurements. However, many use control cells which i think is a solid way to make sure the measurements are correct.
            Here are some more reference you can study:
            http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2007/2007SzpakS-FurtherEvidence-Naturwissenschaften.pdf
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109007877 (account needed)
            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf
            http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2002/2002ClaytorT-Tritium.pdf

            I am not 100% sure LENR is real either so i am interested in how you assess these materials. This is btw. still a small selection, more can be found on http://lenr-canr.org/

          • Dr Danson

            Very interesting, thanks. Unfortunately I’m not a physicist so I couldn’t comment with any confidence at all on the validity of the papers, but I’ll take a look for interest at some point.

          • Bertuswonkel

            In my experience physicist are not the best people to ask to review the material. They usually have i know it all attitude and are not very open to the idea of LENR. The best people to ask would be chemist and people with experience in calorimetry. Most papers are experiments with limited reference to physics.

          • right, ask the people who master the real problem: the chemist.
            they also know what is difficult experiments.

            at worst ask to material science physicist, microelectronic physicist…

          • You should really read the book of Charles Beaudettes.

            in fact we already had most evidence before 1996, from McKubre calorimetry, never rebutted Fleischmann calorimetry, peer-reviewed Oriani calorimetry, Miles calorimetry and matching double blind He4 measurement by Bush…

            The experiments to find particles are less reliable, except maybe the tritium, which is not usefull but have the advantage to clearly show that the nuclear physicist are wring when denying nuclear reaction are impossible in an electrolysis…

            http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf

            the mass of articles proving anomalous heat is huge, and honestly a handful is much enough…

            the following replications are not useful as scientific evidence, but for psychiatry.

            Spawar experiments are less reliable than the calorimetry.
            Same for mizuno.
            MFMP are years behind Oriani, Miles, McKubre, Fleischmann,Longchampt…

          • Stephen Savage

            Dr. Danson

            So you are on the fence, I always find that such an uncomfortable position. I guess Rossi was enough to fool several respected scientists and those people at Cherokee must have invested 15+ million without doing their homework.. I am sure they do it all the time right ?

            Sometimes the balance of evidence, even when presented at a distance, is easier for some to evaluate than it is for others. Perhaps you are not exactly an unbiased observer.

            That would be my guess.. Have you been reading too much Mary Yugo?

            The world is changing, wait for it, wait for it .. Oh there it is , I see it now 🙂

          • Dr Danson

            I’ve read some skeptics’ articles (e.g. Peter Ekstrom), but nothing by Mary Yugo – I needed to google the name to find out what you were referring to.

            I’m fairly unbiased, as I’ve not emotionally invested myself either way. I’ve been lurking on e-catworld since 2011, but have yet to come to a decision because there is no incontrovertible evidence. Your tone is a little condescending, though I’m not sure why. Surely it’s more foolish to jump to conclusions before all the pertinent facts are available?

            Now, getting Cherokee on board has interested me significantly. A few scientists can be fooled, but, yes, 15+ million is a large sum to invest without “doing their homework”. However, it’s still not beyond reason that these investors have been fooled into making a bad investment, so I’m still reserving judgement until I see some 3rd party confirmation that Industrial Heat is producing real, working products.

            Anyway, I’d love for LENR, and the e-cat in particular, to be real. I have a lot of relatives in some of the smoggiest parts of China whose qualities of lives would be immeasurably improved, and in the long term, LENR would make space travel much more feasible. But as a general rule I don’t make judgements quickly.

          • georgehants

            Danson, having read your comments I think a fair interpretation is, that you are trying to keep one leg each side of the line and sound reasonable and scientific.
            Let me put to you that if Cold Fusion is shown to be a reality, which seems very likely in my opinion, many would say it already is, then science has clearly shown itself provably to be incompetent and corrupt to the extreme.
            You seem to be trying to put forward some-kind of justification for the crimes committed with Cold Fusion, that over 24 wasted years could have seen millions suffer.
            We can expect much spin to try and get science off the hook and it’s usual inept, condescending, smiling spokesperson on Television trying to make out that science has all the answers, all given by their “opinion experts” and how silly anybody would be not to believe them.
            Cold Fusion is showing science in its TRUE light of arrogant self-importance with no regard for Evidence or Research whatsoever.

          • bachcole

            Again, I am with you on that, George.

            This may become a habit.

          • Dr Danson

            First off, can you distinguish between the scientific method and the scientific community please? It seems to me that your problem is with the latter, not the former. Science is an abstract concept, and therefore not capable of being incompetent or corrupt. It is a tool used to discover new knowledge of the world, and has been proving itself thus for hundreds of years. The academic community that engages in scientific activities, however, are fallible, and it is these people whom you address – not science.

            Now, let’s try to stay logical. There are lots of problems with the current method of scientific review, including peer review. Often new ideas aren’t given much credence until they are indisputably proven (or the old academics retire), simply because older, well-learned people can often find it hard to accept revolutionary new ideas. However, there is a reason that people dismiss revolutionary ideas easily – cause usually they’re wrong.

            If it turns out that the scientific community made a mistake on LENR, that’s all it will be – a tragic mistake. Not a crime, or a conspiracy. Science makes mistakes all the time. It can only improve the odds of us being right, not ensure that we’re right 100% of the time.

          • georgehants

            Danson, please do not use semantics, I am sure you are clever enough to grasp my meaning.
            You said —-
            “If it turns out that the scientific community made a mistake on LENR,
            that’s all it will be – a tragic mistake. Not a crime, or a conspiracy.”
            —–
            Sir, the crimes showing the cover up of Cold Fusion are well documented and will not go away by a few scientists denying them. Millions may have suffered through these provable crimes.
            Could I suggest that your explanation of why science is so incompetent may be solved by your overhauling your administration and removing all people who do not come up to a reasonable standard of competence.
            Also by beginning to teach students not to follow the religious like Dogma imposed on them, but to be encouraged to stand up and argue against their tutors and so called superiors.
            As I have clearly show in my post above sciences knowledge in many areas is pathetic and yet they still try to make out they know.
            Science needs to learn the words WE DON’T KNOW

          • Dr Danson

            As I said before, science is an abstract concept. If you’d stop referring to science as if it’s a physical object with the ability to think, I’d take you seriously. I’m not arguing semantics – I’m genuinely worried that you’re unable to separate science as a concept from the scientific community.

            Also, the scientific process often results in an answer of “we don’t know” – if you’d ever studied science seriously, you’d know that scientific concepts as the null hypothesis and p-values capture this idea quite nicely.

            As for cold fusion, the decision not to invest in it back in the 90s was made based on the idea that it was *unlikely* to be true, because the results were not repeatable. Imagine if every time a scam artist came up with a bogus idea, the scientific community dropped everything else to pursue that idea – they’d never get any real science done. It’s very easy to make up ridiculous lies, so extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Back in the 90s this extraordinary evidence was lacking.

            Your “us vs them” type of language rings of tribal thinking – do you view the entire scientific community as a group of nepotistic liars, who actively suppress knowledge for personal gain? I’m curious why you have become so critical of a large section of the population based off hearsay.

          • georgehants

            Danson, I have made the point that the documented Evidence exists proving the complete incompetence and corruption of science.
            You do not answer, but move off into more errors seemingly claiming the effect was not investigated, when in Fact some so called scientists tried to repeat the experiment, but were obviously unqualified or incompetent for the job and failed.
            You use clearly irrational quotes such as Sagan’s “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” when of course all claims obviously require the same degree of proof.
            You then and I cannot believe you are serious when you say —-
            “As for cold fusion, the decision not to invest in it back in the 90s was made based on the idea that it was *unlikely* to be true,”
            It is unlikely that the bloody World is here but I take it you will go as far as to admit that it is?
            Is that a scientific doctrine, if we don’t know that it exists now then it can’t exist. Ha. Ha. Ha.
            You then try to make a point by moving into fairyland suggesting that —
            1, the idea was bogus
            2,Or suggesting “the scientific community dropped everything else to pursue that idea -”
            When obviously a small competent team would have sufficed.
            You then, because I Have done nothing put point out Facts to you, that you do not wish to or are unable to answer, start to quote such rubbish as —-
            “Your “us vs them” type of language rings of tribal thinking”
            ——
            You are simply trying to distract away from the Facts again.
            If you reply could I ask you to stick to the subject and answer the points made and try to act like a scientist and not a guilty party simply rambling to avoid the subject.

          • bachcole

            Some other nice words would be “perhaps”, “may be”, “we think”, “according to theory”, etc.

          • bachcole

            “If it turns out that the scientific community made a mistake on LENR,
            that’s all it will be – a tragic mistake. Not a crime, or a conspiracy.
            Science makes mistakes all the time. It can only improve the odds of us
            being right, not ensure that we’re right 100% of the time.”

            Dear Dr Danson, I get the impression that you are new here and you think that we all must be a bunch of idiots and that you are going to inform us and straighten us out. You are mistaken if you think that there was no conspiracy to shut cold fusion down. I am the one here constantly railing again conspiracy theories here about economics and politics, so my anti-conspiracy credentials are well know here. There was and probably is a conspiracy to shut cold fusion down. And it was not just about old men being unable to think along new channels. It was and is about money and ego and prestige.

          • I don’t think the 1-2 years in the future point is fair. Rossi, unlike the typical scammer has actually demonstrated measurable progress.
            – a product acceptance test in Oct 2011
            – an “independent” validation published May 2013
            – purchase of IP by Cherokee/Industrial Heat which claims its own independent verification
            – assertions of 2 long-term validations underway (assuming these come to fruition)

            Looks more like a normal progression from technology to prototype to industrialization to me than stall stall stall in the R&D phase.

            Of course much depends on what happens next.

    • I’ve seen this assertion a bunch of times and it makes me bristle every time I do because I just don’t agree with it. The results are reproducible and the fact that both the access to the device and the scope of the scientific investigations are limited do not invalidate that the Levi report was real science.

      On the first point, of course it would be better (for us) if Rossi published all his secrets and every lab could try to validate. Not going to happen. But we do have scientific observations from the Penon report and then the Levi report and now pending another set of observations from a third set of scientific eyes.

      On the second point, perfectly valid scientific experiments can be run on an opaque system. In fact science does it all the time when it is the characteristics of the opaque system that are of interest. In this case we mostly care about the energy balance (and we understand that how it works exactly is a question for another day). We are just trying to establish first that it actually does work. When science studies the effects of a cancer drug on mortality rates it doesn’t demand to cut open every survivor to see exactly what happened inside. When it studies the surface of Mars it doesn’t require drilling 10 miles down into its crust. When it studies the trajectory of a cannonball it doesn’t demand to know what brand of gunpowder is used.

      Imagine a giant white hot sphere from outer space descending and then levitating 1000 feet over the White House. Even if we couldn’t or wouldn’t dare crack it open until we’re sure it won’t blow up the planet, we could sure as heck study its surface, its temperature and any radiation, try and figure out how it’s levitating (via thrust or magnets or whatever) and after awhile our scientists would have a pretty good idea of *what* we were dealing with exactly even if they couldn’t know how. Maybe a few other teams from around the world would fly in to try and reproduce our experiments. But it’s not like every lab in the world could do it. Still science. Just because it’s access is limited doesn’t mean science can’t be performed on it.

      We all want to know ‘how,’ but right now we are still doing ‘what.’ And science answers ‘what’ often even if it can’t get to the how right away.

      • Dr Danson

        The experiments are not reproducible simply because access to the device is highly restricted. Rossi does not act impartially and has a personal relationship with many of the authors of the Levi et al. paper.

        My problem with these papers is that to some people the word “science” lends the e-cat an aura of credibility that it simply doesn’t deserve. Nothing has been proven. When a good scientific paper is published, it contains all of the information that another scientist on the other side of the world needs to replicate the results. If reproducing the results requires going through some non-neutral gatekeeper (Rossi) it hardly looks genuine.

        This is the problem with the “black box” – with your giant white hot sphere example, you would certainly have multiple teams of scientists investigating and corroborating their results.

        I think Rossi needs to prove himself other than scientifically. His putative intentions (protecting his trade secret) directly clash with the scientific method (a method of acquiring new knowledge), so why bother taking this route? He’s got the investment, he’s got the R&D – final confirmation will come if and when he releases an actual product.

        • We’re in basic agreement. It’s far from ideal science, I just don’t think it’s fair to say it’s not science outright. Even the first characterization experiments on a new type of system, before any reproductions or detailed analysis of how it operates, must be considered science in my book. Probably just semantics.

          And I think actually that Rossi agrees with you and wasn’t trying to prove anything with the validations except to himself and his team. He’s consistently said that only working products in the market matter and has been single-minded in that pursuit.

          As for why do the validations in the first place, I can’t know for sure but here’s what I think. The internal Penon validation seems like a safety and performance sanity check. The Elforsk-funded effort I imagine to be at the behest of the Swedish engineers who had some familiarity with the system and Rossi and who pushed for it. Had Rossi cared about proving the device to the world he would have chosen a more independent team. Instead he allowed a team he trusted to verify the device. This happened around the time Cherokee and Rossi were courting each other. Perhaps Cherokee asked for someone to validate and all that was acceptable to Rossi was this team of people he felt he could trust. The two validations underway make perfect sense, the internal one key for product development and the outside one likely demanded by Industrial Heat to triple check before they go public.

          Those are educated guesses.

          • Dr Danson

            Semantics indeed. I was being a bit harsh not to call it science at all, but I would certainly call it poor science.

            Your reasoning makes a lot of sense for the validations, assuming that all those involved are acting honestly, and I’m inclined to believe it. However, it’s not beyond reason that Rossi pushed for (poor) scientific validation behind closed doors, while distancing himself from the papers in public. This would make him look legitimate to those who are dazzled by the mere existence of a scientific paper, but wouldn’t damage his reputation to others because he’s distanced himself from the authorship of the paper.

            It sounds unlikely, of course, but it’s not beyond reason.

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            So in short, Dr Danson has a more constrained definition of Science than LENR G.

            This technically is ok, but the real problem with the differing definitions is when people from either camp’s talk to each other or lay people they rarely explain what their definition of scientific proof is. Which leads to flame wars and more confusion.

          • I think we’re talking through it fine here.

            I try to be very clear about what I think the facts are and my deductions from them. Sometimes we get all caught up in terminology — as in this case where some are proposing and defending a “purer” definition of science whereas I feel comfortable using the term to describe any scientific experimentation.

            That’s cool. I understand where they are coming from. As long as they make an effort to understand where I am coming from then it’s all good.

        • bachcole

          Dr Danson, you are manifesting paranoia with regard to Levi et. al.. If you knew them like us long-time Rossi followers do, you wouldn’t distrust them. A Martian could say that some replication of a scientific experiment was invalid because Earth people did it. There is simply no way that Levi, Essen, et. al. are lying or incompetent. But perhaps you can’t know that because you didn’t know them for 2 years a la the Internet. Now, you might say that Levi, et. al. is not science, and I will say that perhaps science is way too paranoid and distrusting. I see how the science community behaves, sort of like middle school children during recess when the teachers have been called away. Many scientists are vicious and dishonest. This only gets worse with a lot of government money.

        • David Taylor-Fuller

          While I can agree with your definition and justification. I have to wonder should Rossi be blamed for the short comings you have outlined. I have gone through a number of ICCF-18 video proceedings and it seems like a major problem at least in the US is getting a patent to cover the work these guys are doing. Now I have no clue if the reason for this because the submitted fillings are incorrect or if their is a combination of ignorance and malice at play. But how can a scientist who has discovered something novel, which this seems to be; do science in the way you have defined while still putting bread on the table.

          • Eyedoc

            Yep….at this point I vote ‘malice’

      • Donk970

        Eddison figuring out how to make a light bulb doesn’t pass muster as science either; nor should it. That doesn’t mean that what Eddison figured out wasn’t important or valid it just means that it wasn’t science in the sense of observe (excess heat), theorize (Widdom-Larsen?), experiment. A scientific explanation isn’t necessary for it to work and sometimes the desire to explain why something works can prevent us from doing anything useful.

        • Charles Hansen

          At least he actually had a product for sale (that could be scientifically studied) when he said he did. As opposed to Rossi… going on 2.5 years now almost since that claim??

          • Donk970

            For perspective; Volta demonstrated a wire that glowed when current passed through it in 1800. After that any number of people demonstrated devices that could glow but were impractical. Edison started working on trying to find a way to build a practical lightbulb in the early 1800’s but wasn’t successful until 1879. It took Edison a lot longer than Rossi has spent to develop a commercially viable light bulb. Rossi is moving really fast by those standards.

          • Charles Hansen

            For a perspective from our times, It is not unfair to say we have new standards today, and everything goes a lot faster than it once did. Except the speed of light and government: they have not changed, and will always be a standard to measure against for fastest and slowest, respectively 🙂

        • NCkhawk

          Edison’s first light bulbs burned for only 2 – 3 seconds then failed. He acquired outside patents and eventually moved to a commercial product. It didn’t happen overnight and the Edison socket remains globally ubiquitous. I think the E-Cat is going to take a similar, deliberate path.

      • Somebody voted down my white hot ball of doom? You got something against balls of doom?

        • blanco69

          Yes, that happened to me once. Just after Dennis Cravens’ big brassy balls experiment!😀

    • Charles Hansen

      Sometimes in Science assumptions have to be made. However in the case of the Levi et al test, the assumptions are arbitrarily necessary because Rossi forced the assumptions on the scientists.

      Assumptions on materials reacted without knowing in the least what are reacted or the products there-of, are ultimately as far from Science as one can get. Anything based off of these egregious assumptions should be considered ‘theoretical’, and even the authors themselves tepidly acknowledged this with the title “Indications…”. Unfortunately people are diverging from what the authors intend, with people wrongly thinking it is more of an absolute measurement, vs theoretical conclusion (as was the authors conclusion). And again, in a true Scientific setting, the conclusion should have been based on measurements (measure reactants / products), not theoretical assumptions (assume reactants / products).

    • Warthog

      “I simply require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims”.

      Science has no such requirement. That phrase was originated by “debunkers” of “psychic phenomena” so they had a scientific-sounding excuse for ignoring any and all evidence they didn’t like. Which is exactly the use being made of it by the anti-LENR crowd.

      SCIENCE requires only replicated experiments…..which, in fact, includes “black box” studies. If two separate groups test the identical device and get identical results, “the science” is confirmed.

      • bachcole

        Right on.

  • georgehants

    Peer review Ha, just a way of censoring papers to the excepted religious Dogma and only from people who support the establishment and it’s current dictates of what is allowed to be believed.
    Speaking generally all papers ever published on cosmology are now shown to be wrong.
    Science does not have a clue what 96% of the Universe consists of, so they expertly make up a couple of names, dark matter and dark energy, could just as easily have been called red Unicorn and green Unicorn.
    They have no idea if the Universe is expanding or stable etc.
    No idea what a black hole is.
    No idea about galaxy formation so early in history
    No idea about a big bang or how the Universe began.
    And of course as always not a glimmer of understanding as to where everything came from in the first place.
    Etc. Etc. Etc.
    But they would not want to publish Mr. Rossi’s paper on Cold Fusion, signed off by six highly respected authors (supposedly) because — O’ well I am sure there are plenty of scientists on page who will give me very good reasons.

    • Job001

      Science has a long list of being wrong about new discoveries – for many human reasons, perhaps including overdeveloped left brains with untrained right brains.

It is wildly fun that we can have a hoot about it in this age without being burnt at the stake.(i.e. Giordano Bruno Feb 17, 1600 ).
Here is a long list of famous science mavericks who were vindicated;


      http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
Crackpots who were right;
      http://blog.vixra.org/category/crackpots-who-were-right/
Vindicated crazy scientists
      http://ask.metafilter.com/161663/Examples-of-vindicated-crazy-scientists

      • georgehants

        Job001, Ha, if I have a subject it is the history of science.
        If one reads the history and realises the horrors that have been inflicted on great scientists to the point of many suicides and I don’t mean by the inquisition but by the establishment and so called colleagues, then one would understand my feelings regarding those crimes being repeated today.
        If it is Mr. Rossi or anyone they deserve to be given every possible chance to prove their case without abuse and even if they turn out to be wrong, they have still given service to science helping those who follow.

  • georgehants

    Peer review Ha, just a way of censoring papers to the excepted religious Dogma and only from people who support the establishment and it’s current dictates of what is allowed to be believed.
    Speaking generally all papers ever published on cosmology are now shown to be wrong.
    Science does not have a clue what 96% of the Universe consists of, so they expertly make up a couple of names, dark matter and dark energy, could just as easily have been called red Unicorn and green Unicorn.
    They have no idea if the Universe is expanding or stable etc.
    No idea what a black hole is.
    No idea about galaxy formation so early in history
    No idea about a big bang, steady state, or how the Universe began.
    And of course as always not a glimmer of understanding as to where everything came from in the first place.
    Etc. Etc. Etc.
    The most useful thing they have done in 10 years is waste millions arguing about if Pluto is a planet or a bowl of soup.
    But science would not want to publish Mr. Rossi’s paper on Cold Fusion, signed off by six highly respected authors (supposedly) because — O’ well I am sure there are plenty of scientists on page who will give me very good reasons.

    • Job001

      Science has a long list of being wrong about new discoveries – for many human reasons, perhaps including overdeveloped left brains with untrained right brains.

It is wildly fun that we can have a hoot about it in this age without being burnt at the stake.(i.e. Giordano Bruno Feb 17, 1600 ).
Here is a long list of famous science mavericks who were vindicated;


      http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
Crackpots who were right;
      http://blog.vixra.org/category/crackpots-who-were-right/
Vindicated crazy scientists
      http://ask.metafilter.com/161663/Examples-of-vindicated-crazy-scientists

      • georgehants

        Job001, Ha, if I have a subject it is the history of science.
        If one reads the history and realises the horrors that have been inflicted on great scientists to the point of many suicides and I don’t mean by the inquisition but by the establishment and so called colleagues, then one would understand my feelings regarding those crimes being repeated today.
        If it is Mr. Rossi or anyone, they deserve to be given every possible chance to prove their case without abuse and even if they turn out to be wrong, they have still given service to science helping those who follow.

  • Brokeeper

    Peer review this time will come in a different form. Hundreds of billions of dollars and countless saved and improved lives. Then the useless endorsements will come.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Sir you are sadly mistaken, they will never endorse Rossi or his work, they will back engineer his process and race to steal credit for for the theory of it. You can almost feel the heat coming off the Nobel Prize.

      Now that’s science!

      • Brokeeper

        If Rossi and partner markets first, this world’s peers will be the grateful and intelligent consumers the science PTBs will not be able to blind. In Rossi’s faith the higher peer review he seeks is “Well done, good and faithful servant;…”

  • Chris I

    Most papers in physics are co-authoured and many, especially those on the Big Experiments, by much more than 6 people. But they aren’t called peer reviewed until the referees of a journal have passed them. Also, I just don’t think arxive can be regarded as peer reviewed.

    Like some others, and myself in the past, it doesn’t even make much sense to call the report about a blackbox a paper on physics. It’s a technical doc.

    • georgehants

      Chris I, as science understands absolutely nothing about how the Quantum World originates, is it not fair to say that all experiments at the CERN etc. welfare centres are “blackbox” and should therefore never be published.

      • bachcole

        georgehants, today, you are my hero. That was absolutely RIGHT ON!!!

      • Chris I

        Well, if you consider leptons, quarks and the interaction bosons as being black boxes then, of course, obviously.

        The only hitch is that you don’t need to beg Dirac or Fermi or any of the others all the way to Higgs to please, please let you have one of their closely guarded little toys in order to conduct any test you can on them. Now, of course, not quite every Tom, Dick or Harry has an LHC in his backyard. Still, none of the essential information is unavailable for particle physicists to conduct the experiments if only they can get their hands on the necessary resources. So it’s tytpically a matter of persuading their administratives and politicians, or whoever it is that signs the cheques.

        Up till the times of Rutherford, even the atom was a black box. Thomson sure hadn’t guessed it quite perfectly.

    • bachcole

      It’s a good thing that business people aren’t as anal retentive as some scientists.

      But I have to agree that if it isn’t reproducible, it isn’t science. BUT, Vaughn and Darden KNOW that it is reproducible. Does this make them scientists? With something like this, it does not take rocket surgery to know that it is so. What it does take is being in complete control of what is going on. Rossi said that his partners had received the directions of how to do it and then they did it. Vaughn and Darden KNOW that it is reproducible. I said that twice, purposely.

      • Chris I

        You could be saying most anything, just as much as most anything else. If it’s perchance a clue to your question, see my reply to George.

        Unless you’re suggeting that Vaughn, Darden and Rossi are the only scientists in the world………. o.O

  • Chris, Italy

    Most papers in physics are co-authoured and many, especially those on the Big Experiments, by much more than 6 people. But they aren’t called peer reviewed until the referees of a journal have passed them. Also, I just don’t think arxive can be regarded as peer reviewed.

    Like some others, and myself in the past, it doesn’t even make much sense to call the report about a blackbox a paper on physics. It’s a technical doc.

    • georgehants

      Chris, as science understands absolutely nothing about how the Quantum World originates, is it not fair to say that all experiments at the CERN etc. welfare centres are “blackbox” and should therefore never be published.

      • Charles Hansen

        not true. Correct me if I’m wrong, but CERN has operating parameters and materials fully disclosed. Although it would be prohibitively expensive to replicate, it doesn’t preclude the ability for exact replication with enough money. This is in contrast to the Levi et al test, where no amount of time nor money could guarantee a similar device to test, without full disclosure of the device materials and parameters.

        • georgehants

          catbauer, correct if splitting hairs, if it where round the other way then science would say we cannot easily reproduce it so it is probably a fraud.
          Do you not think that after 24 years science should have a few little Cold Fusion experiments running able to reproduce the results, if genuine.
          That would save all the “scientists” on these pages having to try and defend a science that is provenly undefendable.

          • Chris, Italy

            Just in case you are referring to P&F, they did not omit any information that they were aware of. They only omitted details that they themselves were unaware of.

      • bachcole

        georgehants, today, you are my hero. That was absolutely RIGHT ON!!!

      • Chris, Italy

        Well, if you consider leptons, quarks and the interaction bosons as being black boxes then, of course, obviously.

        The only hitch is that you don’t need to beg Millikan, Dirac, Fermi or any of the others all the way to Higgs and the LHC squad to please, please let you have one of their closely guarded little toys in order to conduct any test you can on them. Neither is it up to them whether to allow you to look inside it (which they themselves hadn’t done better than their readers). Now, of course, not quite every Tom, Dick or Harry has an LHC in his backyard. Still, none of the essential information is unavailable for particle physicists to conduct the experiments if only they can get their hands on the necessary resources. So it’s tytpically a matter of persuading their administratives and politicians, or whoever it is that signs the cheques.

        Up till the times of Rutherford, even the atom was a black box. Thomson sure hadn’t guessed it quite perfectly.

    • bachcole

      It’s a good thing that business people aren’t as anal retentive as some scientists.

      But I have to agree that if it isn’t reproducible, it isn’t science. BUT, Vaughn and Darden KNOW that it is reproducible. Does this make them scientists? With something like this, it does not take rocket surgery to know that it is so. What it does take is being in complete control of what is going on. Rossi said that his partners had received the directions of how to do it and then they did it. Vaughn and Darden KNOW that it is reproducible. I said that twice, purposely.

      • Chris, Italy

        You could be saying most anything, just as much as most anything else. If it’s perchance a clue to your question, see my reply to George.

        Unless you’re suggeting that Vaughn, Darden and Rossi are the only scientists in the world………. o.O

  • BroKeeper

    If Rossi and partner markets this first this world’s peers will be the grateful and intelligent consumers the science PTBs will not be able to blind. In Rossi’s faith the higher peer review he seeks is “Well done, good and faithful servant;…”

  • Dr Danson

    I never said that I wanted the e-cat to be proven scientifically – I don’t think it can without Rossi giving up all of his secrets, which is why I think it’s a waste of time. All efforts should be invested into getting an actual product.

    I also think it looks slightly fraudulent, because any good scientist should know better than to seek publication of a “black box” method, which is useless.

    Other than that, Levi et al. had several flaws in their paper – even if the paper was published on a more orthodox topic with all of the methodology available, these flaws would still be cause for rejection from any reputable journal. For instance, the dubious measurement methods, the gross approximations, the reference to wikipedia… Even if I were an extremely generous reviewer at a second-rate journal, I would mark it for a major revision, and ask for all of the experiments to be repeated with tighter controls.

    • Bertuswonkel

      I agree. It is difficult/impossible to prove Rossi’s claims in a scientific manner without him giving up his secrets. But remember that it was not Rossi’s idea to prove it scientifically, he always said he wants to make a product. The tests are done on the request of the professors themselves with financial backing from Vattenfall.

  • catbauer24

    I don’t think a black-box test could ever be accepted into a mainstream scientific article, for good reason. Not that the test doesn’t have a valid conclusion based on assumptions, but by nature of the undisclosed black-box internals it means true third-party replication is not possible, so third parties cannot attempt the same setup and measurements to confirm or deny, without making assumptions. It isn’t ‘repeatable’ by third parties to any degree, whereas even the early P&F experiments were, given correct protocol. Of course, something with no instructions for completely independent reproduction is ultimately not Science. Though, I do feel there were valid scientific measurements and calculations performed in the Levi et al test (regarding the only measurements that were allowed), noting the valid criticism that DC was not accounted for.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      There are many black box studies in science, for example studies of precious archeological objects or works of art that may only be studied by noninvasive methods.

      • catbauer24

        The case you pointed out is a valid one I think, HOWEVER, cutting a very very small piece off the artifact to be destroyed (e.g. reacted in a known chemical, to find its chemical properties) is accepted to not be ‘invasive’. I think this is the case with all artifacts. Any type of measurement has the potential to slightly alter all, or whatever measured portion of, the artifact. Hence, sacrificing a small piece (even microscopic) for study. Learning about the artifact is much much more important than leaving that microscopic piece attached forever, sacrificing our ability to know.

    • US_Citizen71

      The hidden DC strawman rears it’s head again. According to that theory Rossi is hiding several kilowatts of electricity via high voltage DC at low current so the wires are not warmed. There are two huge problems with that theory. One the DC voltage necessary to move that kinda of power would require voltage so high that it would cause dielectric breakdown of the insulation on the wires (i.e. sparks right out of a Frankenstein movie set). And, two the transformer to turn that high voltage low current into low voltage high current which would be conducive to creating heat would have to live inside the ECat and survive and operate at temperatures beyond what transformers are capable of operating at. The creation of a compact transformer that could handle the temperature would be a scientific and engineering miracle in itself.

    • Job001

      Say ones catalyst has a market value to $10,000,000,000. One would keep it under guard in every way practical, NDA, physical guard presence, black box, etc. This does not impact third party replication. Similar black box science is done routinely.

  • Charles Hansen

    I don’t think a black-box test could ever be accepted into a mainstream scientific article, for good reason. Not that the test doesn’t have a valid conclusion based on assumptions, but by nature of the undisclosed black-box internals it means true third-party replication is not possible, so third parties cannot attempt the same setup and measurements to confirm or deny, without making assumptions. It isn’t ‘repeatable’ by third parties to any degree, whereas even the early P&F experiments were, given correct protocol. Of course, something with no instructions for completely independent reproduction is ultimately not Science. Though, I do feel there were valid scientific measurements and calculations performed in the Levi et al test (regarding the only measurements that were allowed), noting the valid criticism that DC was not accounted for.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      There are many black box studies in science, for example studies of precious archeological objects or works of art that may only be studied by noninvasive methods.

      • Charles Hansen

        The case you pointed out is a valid one I think, HOWEVER, cutting a very very small piece off the artifact to be destroyed (e.g. reacted in a known chemical, to find its chemical properties) is accepted to not be ‘invasive’. I think this is the case with all artifacts. Any type of measurement has the potential to slightly alter all, or whatever measured portion of, the artifact. Hence, sacrificing a small piece (even microscopic) for study. Learning about the artifact is much much more important than leaving that microscopic piece attached forever, sacrificing our ability to know.

    • US_Citizen71

      The hidden DC strawman rears it’s head again. According to that theory Rossi is hiding several kilowatts of electricity via high voltage DC at low current so the wires are not warmed. There are two huge problems with that theory. One the DC voltage necessary to move that kind of power would require voltage so high that it would cause dielectric breakdown of the insulation on the wires (i.e. sparks right out of a Frankenstein movie set). And, two the transformer to turn that high voltage low current into low voltage high current which would be conducive to creating heat would have to live inside the ECat and survive and operate at temperatures beyond what transformers are capable of operating at. The creation of a compact transformer that could handle the temperature would be a scientific and engineering miracle in itself.

      • Charles Hansen

        hmmm… several kilowatts at a manageable voltage is cake! go here: http://www.solar-wind.co.uk/cable-sizing-DC-cables.html
        2kV, 1A can run with 1% loss over 30 meters!! That would be 20W of heat throughout the 30 meters of cable. (Divided equally? I’m not an EE, and it doesn’t sound like you are either though. Maybe we have an EE here with good experience to comment?) Oh, if that calculator is correct, on 26 AWG (if I’m not mistaken, that’s much smaller than the wires they used). All you need to produce heat is a resistor, what are talking about needed a transformer in reactor to do this!?

        • US_Citizen71

          I’m not an EE but you don’t need to be to understand what is involved. Your numbers and my previous comment about needing a transformer all depend on the resistance of the heater coils.

          P = I squared x R, so for your numbers the resistance of the heating coil would need to be 2000 ohms. A typical electric stove heating element is less than 50 ohms ( http://www.appliance411.com/faq/test-element.shtml ) I’ll use 50 ohms since it is a nice round number.

          I = V/R So if only one standard heating coil was used and 2kV was run through it I = 2000 V / 50 ohms or 40 amps. But there wasn’t a single coil there were 16 coils believed to be in the Hot Cat tested. So the resistance depends on how they were wired. If in series there would be an 800 ohm total if in parallel it would be 3.125 ohms total. ( http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Series-and-Parallel-Resistance ) I would think the boys from Elforsk at least put an ohm meter on the leads so they should have known what the resistance was, unfortunatly they didn’t include that value in their report.

          My above comment was aimed at the December test:
          Page 2 – “Since the test in November shows some interesting features, we shall describe some of the results from this test in some detail before discussing, in the subsequent sections, the results from the December and March runs. Figures 1 and 2 refer to the November test, and show, respectively, the device while in operation, and a laptop computer capturing data from a thermographic camera focused on it. An Optris IR camera monitored surface temperature trends,and yielded results of approximately 860 °C in the hottest areas.

          Figs. 1-2. Two images from the test performed on Nov. 20th 2012. Here, the activation of the charge (distributed laterally in the reactor) is especially obvious. The darker lines in the photograph are actually the shadows of the resistor coils, which yield only a minimal part of the total thermal power. The performance of this device was such that the reactor was destroyed, melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers. The long term trials analyzed in the present report were purposely performed at a lower temperatures for safety reasons.” – http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Aktuellt/Artikel%20Arxiv%201305%203913.pdf

          There is no way lamp cord was able to flow enough power to heat the Hot Cat to a red glow and in the end melt steel.

    • Job001

      Say ones catalyst has a market value to $10,000,000,000. One would keep it under guard in every way practical, NDA, physical guard presence, black box, etc. This does not impact third party replication. Similar black box science is done routinely.

      • Charles Hansen

        “One’s catalyst” may well be worth that much, however “one’s secret catalyst” should always be considered worth $0 until it becomes “one’s catalyst”.

        • Job001

          “One’s lawyer’s advice” differs and rules the roost.

  • Bertuswonkel

    I think the evidence in favor of a LENR effect is far more then just MIT and MFMP.
    In fact, MFMP and MIT have actually showed little evidence in favor of LENR (M. Swartz is not officially connected to MIT). Here are some better examples i think:
    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2007/2007HublerG-AnomalousEffects.pdf
    http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1998/1998FocardiS-LargeExcessHeatProductionNiH.pdf
    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEelectrolyt.pdf
    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2009/2009Boss-Triple-tracks.pdf
    https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36813/MassFlowCalorimetryPresentation.pdf?sequence=2 (their earlier paper is locked)

    I agree that the scientific work has been limited. If Rossi worked at a University we would not be having this discussion, it would either be proven or not already.

    Do you have a reference for the copper test? Didn’t know that he allowed his powder to be tested.

    Rossi had some legal issue’s but he was free-ed of most charges. He was working on transforming plastic waste to fuel. I recently read that a Dutch company has got a large investment to basically do this on a large scale. So it is possible to do but his company failed. Waste disposal is Mafia territory in Italy so his explanation that he had some enemies is plausible but he probably also made some mistakes himself.

    I think that almost everybody who invents something is far to optimistic in the beginning about the speed of developments. You think peace of cake but run into many unexpected problems. So from me he gets some slack for not predicting the time table 100% accurate.

    • Dr Danson

      Yes, those look slightly more convincing, but I’d have to take the time to read them through. The affiliation of Hubler is interesting, though I wonder why he’s the only author on the paper – sounds more like a personal side project than something that was directed by his lab.

      The copper test was something written about by Peter Ekstrom, but I don’t have it to hand just now. The idea was that if LENR really took place, you’d expect some unstable isotopes to exist in the copper, but there were none. In the same article, there were lots of other criticisms, such as that naturally occurring nickel only contains a tiny fraction of the isotope required for a Ni->Cu reaction.

      Of course all the evidence to date is far from definitive, which is why I’m still firmly on the fence about it all. I’m a skeptic, but not a cynic, so I’m reserving judgement until some piece of evidence swings the balance of probabilities sufficiently so I can make an informed decision.

  • LENR G

    I don’t think the 1-2 years in the future point is fair. Rossi, unlike the typical scammer has actually demonstrated measurable progress.
    – a product acceptance test in Oct 2011
    – an “independent” validation published May 2013
    – purchase of IP by Cherokee/Industrial Heat which claims its own independent verification
    – assertions of 2 long-term validations underway (assuming these come to fruition)

    Looks more like a normal progression from technology to prototype to industrialization to me than stall stall stall in the R&D phase.

    Of course much depends on what happens next.

  • Donk970

    Everyone wants what Rossi or Mills is doing to be “science”. This isn’t science it’s engineering and as such doesn’t require that a third party be able to replicate it or explain it. The only requirement is that it works, it doesn’t have to be explained it doesn’t have to be revealed or anything else. In engineering the proof is in the pudding and everything else is just a waste of time.

    • You are right but the debate is about if the published validations qualify as science.

      Scientific observations were made on the device and reported. That’s definitely a scientific first step in my mind… though we all want unfettered access and widespread replication.

      But it’s not only engineering and science… it’s business where secrets must be protected. So we get a strange brew and we deduce from it what we can.

      • Charles Hansen

        There have been numerous Scientific theories (such as was the conclusion of Levi et. al) based on measurements of black boxes. How often are those assumptions incorrect? Otherwise, according to assumptions, it was valid ‘scientific explanation’ for the ‘observations’. Again, only unfettered observation leads to solid Scientific conclusions.

        • It’s simpler than that. If the question they are trying to answer is if there is any excess heat and if so how much, then all they have to do is measure energy. Scientifically. IR cameras,calibration, error analysis, etc. Mission accomplished.

          They weren’t trying to develop a theory of the cause of the excess energy.

          So using the scientific observations to analyze this particular black box to me is an aspect of “science.” But I’m not religious about it.

          I don’t think that LENR+ has been proven scientifically.

          But I do find the validations compelling evidence. Evidence, not proof.

          • Charles Hansen

            You are sure there wasn’t a novel uranium-fission reaction inside the blackbox? No scientist was given permission to look inside to be sure or not. In fact this could still be considered in-line with the conclusion: not a chemical process. No radiation from a uranium-fission reaction would be novel in itself, however it just may have been extremely contained… from the outside, it was true there wasn’t radiation observed by permitted observations. A new containment method could be novel as well. However, inside the box there could be significant nuclear waste, hidden from observation. Independent replications could refute this theory, and prove the theory that it was ‘nickel-hydrogen LENR’ to be true.

          • So now he’s got sub-critical table top nuclear fission device that he somehow figured out how to control and shield so it emits no harmful radiation?

            And as remarkable as that is, worried about it being banned due to its nuclear nature or contained radioactive waste he concocted a story about cold fusion and nickel and set about on a multi-year fraud trajectory to try and get it to market? Seems a large scam effort just to conceal some radioactive waste.

            And then he sells his working but deceptive reactor to someone else to make and sell?

            OK, I’ll consider that theory alongside all the others. I would rank it in the highly unlikely range right now.

            (You may want to read the Penon report — internal Leonardo validation did involve deconstructing the interior of the core and measuring — no sign of radiation and he was specifically looking for it.)

          • Charles Hansen

            You are right in your assessment, that would be quite remarkable, and quite the large scam effort. Independent scientific replication could prove that true or false.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            The minimum diameter of a shielded fission reactor comes from neutron mean free path and is much thicker (roughly order of magnitude thicker) than the HotCat’s 9 cm diameter. Even nuclear bombs are thicker than 9 cm although they have no shielding, only the requirement of criticality after compression. Any nuclear engineer can confirm this (warning: and probably laugh you out of the room if one asks whether he can make a 9 cm diameter shielded reactor).
            The measurements of Levi et al. show that there is a novel, unknown process at work inside the HotCat, because it cannot be chemical, fission or radioactive heat source. As you say, their measurement however do not rule out the possibility that the ash could be to some extent alpha and/or beta active (not gamma, because that would have come through the wall partly).

      • malkom700

        It is a very interesting idea, as Rossi says that the results can be both positive and negative. If it were negative, then comes the engineering.

        • bachcole

          And if it were positive, then comes the money and a technological New Age.

          • malkom700

            Yes, you are absolutely right, but let’s face it, that from a scientific point of view we do not yet clear, but the device we need to start using anyway. I just wanted to point out the possible alternatives.

      • Donk970

        Just to be annoying ;o) I’m going to say that observations of a device don’t really qualify as science. Using scientific technique to measure something doesn’t mean that what you are doing is science. When Rossi presents a theory to explain his observations and convincing and reproducible experimental data to support the theory; that will be science.

        Your observation about business and secrets is an important one in this context because the need to keep secrets is anathema to science. Science depends on being able to tell the world what you are doing and how you did it where business needs to keep secrets to be successful.

        • Job001

          Observational science and basic research are both science. Different standards are required to achieve certain goals;

          Basic Science “theory acceptance” gold standard is 6 sigma.

          Investors who wants to “steal the bacon or IP” may be fine with -1 sigma.

          A buyer may be +0.5 to 3 sigma depending how risk averse they are.

          Publishing standard for a new observation correlation may range from +1 to 6 sigma.

          Soft sciences(human behavior) may be delighted to get 0 to 1 sigma.

          Process Engineering designed for reality, whatever sigma the data shows.

          Without observational science basic research rarely, if ever happens. Basic research may not happen after observation shows a new potential if funders cannot find a profitable plan.

        • That’s not annoying. I’m happy any time people can have open and honest discussion on a topic this confusing and emotional without killing each other.

          But I do think we’re getting overly concerned about whether we can call it “science.” I mean what happened is not all that complicated.

          A bunch of scientists measured a device that supposedly generated vast amounts of excess heat. They indeed found that extra heat and they did in fact have unfettered access to the device and could make any measurements they wanted — save opening it up to steal the secret sauce.

          So you can claim NOT SCIENCE or POOR SCIENCE but my rebuttal is a combination of *easy science* and call it whatever you want. These folks were not trying to do something all that hard. Measuring that amount of energy was actually pretty easy. They were reasonably careful — to the point where I would laugh in the face of anyone that claimed they were mistaken and made huge blunders and the heat was imaginary. Any doubt is reduced to problems on the energy input side of the equation or the independence of the team.

          So what’s left? Conspiracy by the testers or fraud that fooled the testers. I’m not inclined to give the conspiracy theory much credence. I cannot dismiss it completely but I think it highly unlikely, even if Rossi did know Levi previously. The team was not fully independent but it was at least partially independent and even included an experienced fraud detection specialist.

          And fraud is not much easier to stomach given the amount of energy involved. To smuggle that amount of energy past professional electrical engineers and other scientists is really really hard to imagine — although I am often impressed by the imagination of the die-hard skeptics. Especially since Rossi would have no way to know what they would attempt to measure. But again I can’t dismiss fraud completely.

          So it was probably a good validation. Small chance of fraud or conspiracy.

          But then Cherokee/Industrial Heat happened, claiming additional independent validation (not shared with us, but money has verifiably changed hands).

          Did the conspiracy expand? Did the fraud fool a moneyed player into paying for worthless IP?

          Given who Cherokee is, I think the conspiracy theory bites the dust. They just wouldn’t. That means all that’s left is fraud so good that it fooled a team of independent scientists and a company’s independent expert prior to the investment of at least $20M.

          And they issued a press release announcing their IP ownership after all this. And Rossi is still there working.

          And two additional long-term validations are underway (one internal that they would know the results of). No attempt to distance themselves from their purchase.

          The real deal scenario makes a huge amount of sense… all the data points fit. The fraud and conspiracy scenarios are, you must admit, very very tenuous at this point.

          • NT

            AND, they (Cherokee) replicated the h-cat without the presence of or Rossi overseeing the build and testing of same. This done apparently prior to the final contractual agreements and Rossi’s IP buyout. Cherokee proved, to their satisfaction at least, that the h-cat and its effects are real…

          • bachcole

            Nice comment.

        • Navdrew

          I guess NASA’s observation of new planets and galaxies using scientific techniques don’t qualify as science by your definition!!

    • Charles Hansen

      they both strongly assert their device operates on a scientific basis that is not clearly known. This is a scientific assertion. Is it known, or isn’t it known? Nuclear or non-nuclear… radiation or no radiation? Science can answer ALL of those questions.

      If Rossi / Mills aren’t doing science, they won’t be able to scientifically assert any of those answers. And those Scientific questions absolutely must be answered before a smart investment can be made (let alone, before sales can proceed).

    • georgehants

      Donk970, so every scientist that is using science, intuition and theory to design, build and test a device is not a scientist, I am sure many will be pleased to hear that.
      How would you define a scientist exactly please?

      • Donk970

        The test of wether it’s science or not boils down to “do you have a theory and experimental results that support that theory?”. When Rossi writes his paper (which I’m sure he will at some point) with a theory to explain his observation of anomalous heat and experimental results that support that theory that will be science. What Rossi is doing right now is engineering. He’s discovered an effect and has figured out how to exploit it – that’s engineering. This in no way means that what he’s doing isn’t valid any more than Edison exploiting resistance to make a light bulb wasn’t valid. This doesn’t mean that Rossi isn’t a scientist either. Lots of scientists engage in engineering projects. All this means is that the hat that Rossi is wearing at the moment is the engineer hat and at some point in the future he’ll put the scientist hat back on and produce a paper that provides a theory and experiments to support it.

        • georgehants

          Donk970, basically I agree, I think a fair definition of a scientist is a person who tries to gain new knowledge of the natural world, regardless of qualifications.
          All other working scientists are of course applied scientists and should as with mathematics be clearly defined as such.
          I think Mr. Rossi unless he enjoys the mechanical work probably has engineers to do all the construction necessary.

    • Charles Hansen

      “The only requirement is that it works”

      Science is the BEST method to ensure this. With completely independent replication, especially considering:

      1. Rossi strongly asserts the Science behind the reaction is unknown
      2. Rossi strongly asserts there is Scientific evidence there is no radiation of the undisclosed reaction
      3. Rossi asserts to have been offering for sale a device since October 2011.

      Scam artists hate Scientific validation, plain and simple. They prefer everything else. Case in point.

      • Donk970

        That’s a lot of BS.
        1) Edison had no idea what the science was behind an incandescent filament but he made a lightbulb anyway.

        2) Sounds like a good thing to me.

        2) Uh huh, so what.

        We live in a Capitalist world where corporations decide what gets funded and what doesn’t based on expected profitability. Corporations do not reveal secrets because that would hurt profitability. Rossi is doing exactly what any business does when they have something they intend to market.

        • The current validation tests may be used as a marketing tool when the time comes, or their publication may just a concession to AR, who would naturally want to see any validations of his work published. The fact is that Rossi/IH have little interest in attempting to shake up the science community through a peer reviewed paper, although it’s possible that he still feels a sense of obligation to the ‘blogosphere’ that by and large stayed with him through some difficult times, and even provided some useful ideas through JONP in addition to moral support.

          Rossi is clearly distancing himself from the peer review promise (“I heard that…”). Reading between the lines of his words indicates that he doesn’t actually expect any formal peer review to take place (“when a paper is signed by 6 Professors coming from different scientific institutes it is already reviewed”) and that it will be published on Arxiv only (“Arxiv Physics has anyway a preliminar peer reviewing”).

          • GreenWin

            Agree. The “science community” has sandbagged this and many other areas of legitimate research. With advent of commercial Cold Fusion we will successfully return to the “Edisonian” approach; i.e. to invention first, theory second. Still early on my side of planet. Will expand after further shuteye. 🙂

          • Charles Hansen

            I’m not arguing for theory, just for observation. Independent, unfettered observation based on an independent, unbiased replication.

          • GreenWin

            It’s unlikely you’re going to get any such thing. Simply because this is no longer within reach of academia or orthodox science. This technology is going commercial – driven by the extraordinary value and income it will generate. Bespectacled “scientists” are left blinking on the station platform, wondering “What happened?”

          • bachcole

            What 6 professors would risk their careers to sign a paper about a subject that was not very important but which was a B in methodology? None. What 6 professors would risk their careers to sign a paper about a
            subject that was VERY important but which was a B in methodology? Many, perhaps most.

      • georgehants

        catbauer, This is not a scientific blog where you can write any rubbish and all your comrades will applaud.
        By writing the tripe you have above you just make yourself look very silly.
        I would try again if I where you.
        Let me help you.
        Do you think there is enough Evidence for Cold Fusion for it to be taken seriously?

        • Charles Hansen

          Are you saying Science has no place here?

          • georgehants

            catbauer, try answering my question or we can assume you are just a trouble maker.

          • MasterBlaster7

            Georgehants is right catbauer24. This is a troll free zone. Yes, there is enough evidence for cold fusion to be taken seriously.

          • US_Citizen71

            Science most definitely has a place here, but so do direct answers instead of deflection.

          • GreenWin

            Science orthodoxy has lost it place here. Through its own exquisite fear, ignorance and greed (FIG.)

          • bachcole

            I notice listening to the high mucky-mucks in the physics establishment that they all seem so very rational but I don’t see an curiosity. What I see is defensiveness. Why isn’t there any “Gee, 9 people couldn’t get any excess heat, but one experimenter did. Why is that?”? Instead, what we get is “9 people couldn’t get any excess heat, but one experimenter did. I guess that one that got excess heat is stupid, corrupt, or incompetent. End of discussion.”

        • Charles Hansen

          And YES, scientific replications have shown that Cold Fusion (aka LENR) is real. However there is no scientific replication of Rossi’s claims, as such, his claims as they stand do not support LENR. He could have had a nice standard fission reaction with some clever shielding, no? The theoretical conclusion of ‘Indications…’ was simply that it was not explained by known chemical calculations (would be good to know what those are as well)

          • georgehants

            So rather than wait and see, you attack, how do you think that sort of mentality should be described in scientific circles?

          • Pekka Janhunen

            According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_cross_section, Fe56 has the largest neutron scattering cross section for ~2 MeV fission neutrons, 20 barn, which corresponds to mean free path of 6 mm. That is, every 6 mm layer reduces the primary neutron flux by factor of e=2.7. To reduce by factor million, for example, requires 14 factors of e, i.e. 11 cm. This is a lower limit for the required thickness because the scattered neutron can still escape. In any case, since the HotCat diameter was only 9 cm, it is not possible that it could have been a fission reactor.
            Also, it could not have been a radioactive heat source because such source cannot be turned on and off.

          • Charles Hansen

            Thanks Pekka, that sounds like an educated statement. Maybe it would require and ‘unknown fission reaction’ to produce the heat witnessed, no? Simply put, an independent replication of the reactants would confirm exactly what ‘unknown reaction’ took place. So we can have theory A, theory B, down to theory XYZ about ‘unknown reactants’ causing ‘unknown reactions’ producing anomalous heat. A new type of LENR? A new type of fission? A new type of fusion? Truly safe? Who knows? At least, not until independent replication with full disclosure.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Yes, unknown is unknow, but anyway “it’s not the nuclear reactor your mother told you about” (Ruby Carat)

          • in a way you are right, the mechanism is not described.
            It could be fairy dust or alien inter-dimensional power source. We only assume it is LENR, because it cannot be something else we know already. Occam razor.

            Some people also imagine that if it is not academic science, it does not exist…
            Tunguska meteor was until recently unknown (stone or ice?), but you would be crazy to say it was nonexistent or unscientific. It was an observed phenomenon.
            Note also that Hiroshima was not peer-reviewed in Asia, yet admitted after replication (I agree that Japanese asked for a replication to take consequence – they were a little challenged and still negociating).

            Cold fusion is a post-1950 science challenge. It is an observation, not only without a theory, but without a theory despite searching hard, and with evidence not in the same domain (chemistry,calorimetry) than the clear only possible theory (nuclear).
            It was an epistemological challenge, a test of Thomas Kuhn theory… and US academics missed the exam.
            US Nuclear physicist were too egotistic to be modest. and chemist were too coward to say F***K U in group. The scientific fiasco of the century, with… guess what (mirror).

            to be serious, E-cat Elforsk test don’t need peer-review, or white box, it need a protocol to rule out all possible fraud… My opinion is that, unlike others test, this test was immune to fraud because done with a big team, freedom to change instruments and test many unexpected details without the presence of the inventor or it’s employees.

            A magician don’t let you alone on the stage to play with the boxes, look for mirors , smokes, measure and touch all…

            It is no more science, it is evidence.

          • Charles Hansen

            Correct, any magician won’t. However, a great magician will.

          • GreenWin

            “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke

          • bachcole

            Amen.

          • Charles Hansen

            “Magic is indistinguishable from any sufficiently advanced technology.” Logic

            People tend to state first the truth of the matter, and draw corollaries thereafter. The truth of the matter is, we don’t know the truth of the matter about the reactants.

      • bachcole

        Fleishmann and Pons were reluctantly pushed into Scientific validation, and look what happened to them. The Wright Bros. also had a very nasty go at it with the scientific community. You really can’t be as stupid as you seem, are you? The scientific community, which decides what is scientific validation, has NEVER accepted anything new, from drifting continents to oxygen to manned flight to rocks falling from the sky. Anytime there is a paradigm shift, the scientific community are among the LAST people to accept it.

        • Charles Hansen

          They were pushed into a news conference where they talked about room-temperature fusion (their assumption) ahead of publishing an article for peer review… they were pushed OUT of validation.

          @bachcole Are you saying scientists researching CMNS are not part of the scientific community? They use the same instruments and methods, in fact that is why we can be certain as to the validity to many LENR replications and measurements… any unbiased scientist can corroborate this. However, bias and assumptions are unfavorable, bent either way. Your bias is unequivocally towards Rossi, obviously.

          Calling me “stupid” should get your post modded at the least.

          • bachcole

            You go over the line quite often. I am openly and blatantly and joyfully and obviously biased unequivocally towards Rossi because he delivered the goods in May 2013 with Levi et. al. The evidence biased me. Sorry if you don’t approve.

  • georgehants

    catbauer, correct if splitting hairs, if it where round the other way then science would say we cannot easily reproduce it so it is probably a fraud.
    Do you not think that after 24 years science should have a few little Cold Fusion experiments running able to reproduce the results, if genuine.
    That would save all the “scientists” on these pages having to try and defend a science that is provenly undefendable.

    • Chris I

      Just in case you are referring to P&F, they did not omit any information that they were aware of. They only omitted details that they themselves were unaware of.

  • AB

    I’m looking forward to see Levi and the rest of the group (or whoever is involved this time) publish in a peer reviewed journal. Best of luck to them.

    • LENR G

      Didn’t get much attention but Rossi characterized the independent testers as 6 professors from different universities from America, Europe and Asia.

      Let’s hope they are high profile Universities and not Rowan or the like.

      • ecatworld

        I think Rossi said there would be more academics involved than last time — so I think there’ll be more than six.

        • LENR G

          Thanks for the correction. More than 6 even better.

    • catbauer24

      I as well. If that becomes the case, I also look forward to others posting the same exact experiment with a replicated device as Levi et al replicated, corroborating results and measurement methods.

      Otherwise, it does not belong in a peer reviewed journal.

  • AB

    I’m looking forward to see Levi and the rest of the group (or whoever is involved this time) publish in a peer reviewed journal. Best of luck to them.

    • Didn’t get much attention but Rossi characterized the independent testers as 6 professors from different universities from America, Europe and Asia.

      Let’s hope they are high profile Universities and not Rowan or the like.

      • Frank Acland

        I think Rossi said there would be more academics involved than last time — so I think there’ll be more than six.

        • Thanks for the correction. More than 6 even better.

    • Charles Hansen

      I as well. If that becomes the case, I also look forward to others posting the same exact experiment with a replicated device as Levi et al replicated, corroborating results and measurement methods.

      Otherwise, it does not belong in a peer reviewed journal.

  • Gerard McEk

    Peer reviewing, publication, I agree with Rossi: When six independent professors all agree that the tested object is performing as claimed without any reasonable doubt, then that should be enough for the whole scientific world! When a hot cat has produced heat during half a year and delivered energy far in excess of what any other chemical source could deliver then EVERY scientist should be willing to investigate this and be curious where that heat comes from, otherwise he or she is NOT a scientist. And what not should happen is that is said “this cannot be, so the professors and Rossi at al are wrong”. That is not scientific, but foolish and those who ay this must be dismissed, banned. The same counts for the main stream publication channels. They should publish, if needed with reservations. Its their obligation to the people of the world!

  • Gerard McEk

    Peer reviewing, publication, I agree with Rossi: When six independent professors all agree that the tested object is performing as claimed without any reasonable doubt, then that should be enough for the whole scientific world! When a hot cat has produced heat during half a year and delivered energy far in excess of what any other chemical source could deliver then EVERY scientist should be willing to investigate this and be curious where that heat comes from, otherwise he or she is NOT a scientist. And what not should happen is that is said “this cannot be, so the professors and Rossi at al are wrong”. That is not scientific, but foolish and those who ay this must be dismissed, banned. The same counts for the main stream publication channels. They should publish, if needed with reservations. Its their obligation to the people of the world!

    • Charles Hansen

      Even with their assumptions they admitted reasonable doubt, not only implicitly with the title wording starting with “Indications”, but explicitly by acknowledging DC input power was not measured, and could possibly have accounted for the output. They admitted further testing was necessary, so they obviously had reasonable doubt.

  • jousterusa

    I think it matters a great deal where a validation study is published. In Science and Nature, publication has the weight of Bibles, and so it does in the APA journal and several others. Thousands of places publish papers, but only a few are regarded as authoritative by the media. For insight into this, look at the many papers (86, I think) that Dr. Randell Mills has published around the world; not one has brought him the recognition one publication in Science or Nature would bring.

    • georgehants

      jousterusa you said —–
      “In Science and Nature, publication has the weight of Bibles”
      ——-
      Only to the same scientists who have debunked and denied Cold Fusion for 24 years, out in the real World they are seen as the comics they are.
      Censored, selective, and completely unrepresentative of science beyond a religious Dogma that is beginning to be laughed at in many places.
      It clearly should not matter where something is published only it’s content is important.
      The scientific world is going to change and hopefully join the 21st century instead of decaying in the 17th in many areas.

  • jousterusa

    I think it matters a great deal where a validation study is published. In Science and Nature, publication has the weight of Bibles, and so it does in the APA journal and several others. Thousands of places publish papers, but only a few are regarded as authoritative by the media. For insight into this, look at the many papers (86, I think) that Dr. Randell Mills has published around the world; not one has brought him the recognition one publication in Science or Nature would bring. In his case, seven distinguished professors, scientists and corporations that validated his work were all dismissed with a yawn.

    • georgehants

      jousterusa you said —–
      “In Science and Nature, publication has the weight of Bibles”
      ——-
      Only to the same scientists who have debunked and denied Cold Fusion for 24 years, out in the real World they are seen as the comics they are.
      Censored, selective, and completely unrepresentative of science beyond a religious Dogma that is beginning to be laughed at in many places.
      It clearly should not matter where something is published only it’s content is important.
      The scientific world is going to change and hopefully join the 21st century instead of decaying in the 17th in many areas.

  • Charles Hansen

    Corporations gamble at chances for profit. IH based their gamble primarily from “Indications…” Their gamble has many more factors other than just “does it work”. “Can it be patented?” “Who owns the patent?” That is actually much much more important for profit, continuing the assumption [“Indication…”] that it does work.

    I would strongly encourage careful investors to stay away from inventors and “unknown Science” that they claim to have observed, if they do not disclose scientific observation(s), to be scientifically replicated and confirmed. Why?

    1. You don’t fully know if it works. Independent replication can fully confirm this.

    2. You don’t know if all scientific claims are valid. If it produces radioactive transuranics, that were otherwise hidden in the blackbox, it may even end up worse than existing nuclear waste… who knows!? Answer: other scientists, if they are allowed to replicate and validate the assertions.

    3. You don’t know if it is as good as it is claimed. How much energy needed to process fuel (the unknown fuel)? How long will it really run on the secret fuel? Independent replications will show if there are better fuels much more quickly, that could quickly obsolete current fuel (and you’ll know what the starting fuel is to begin with, and that the original fuel could be easily circumvented for an even better patent, if patentable).

    4. You don’t know what, if anything, is patentable (assuming it does work, and all other assertions were true). Maybe Energetics based in Israel released a clandestined paper that details exactly what you just ‘purchased’, so they actually have the rights instead? With as many players in the field right now, it is a very real possibility.

    5. The Scientific community (the branch that is amiable to LENR), will determine what is patent-able, and who owns what patent. You had better be friends with these guys! They will give PRIMARY credit to those who they think deserve it most. With secondary and tertiary credit following.

    6. Hopes to just ‘keep everything secret’ and just sell once it works well enough, are very naive, even Rossi admits this!! Regulations, Regulations, and more Regulations. Openness helps tremendously in this regard (i.e. full scientific disclosure). Sure, just bypass all of it, no one will find out! Right? No need to list drawbacks of that option.

    Obviously the best solution is to sell after scientists have replicated and say “it’s good!”. Otherwise, you are selling a literal pandora’s box. Once opened, it will only have a negative effect on your investment. Since this affects society on a level much deeper than “a cooler phone”, it is a tenant of a good citizen to work with society on its development. Being a ‘good citizen’ to society and science (the branch that can aid and further the discovery) is the right path.

    • This post has a lot of valid points.

      One point you left out though is that fortune favors the bold. Cherokee saw enough to think the E-Cats might be real, took the initiative, validated it for themselves and bought the IP. We all hope they were thorough and considered the risks you mention. But every business looks at ROI. In this case the risks amounted to a few tens of millions of dollars and the rewards are easily in the billions.

      If they know it works they would be stupid not to have bought the IP. Even if patents and such become a problem down the road the potential revenue stream is enough to buy off any threats. Having the device in hand and a wall of revenue about to wash over them they are in a great position to be the only company to file a patent that might actually stand up over time. They can pay the best to figure out exactly how it works and then protect that IP before the others.

      Having science lead the way is often a good strategy. But there is a lot that’s special about LENR reactors, its economics for sure. Plus in this case science just wasn’t all that interested. Let’s face it, even with the mounting evidence LENR is still the land of crackpots according to Nature, Scientific American, the MSM, traditional nuclear science and every other poster on the Internet. It’s an impervious wall of disbelief. Those 1000+ LENR papers haven’t made much of a dent.

      • Charles Hansen

        Science was and is indeed interested, those that specialize in CMNS (which are significant now). Not all of Science of course. For example, those researching the latest and greatest lithography might not find it directly useful for their specialty, which would be a fair position given their focus. People making scientific claims and refusing to release the information to replicate, are what make the extraordinary claims alienated from science, in turn hurting credibility they affix to.

        Those 1000+ papers made a dent… a huge dent. Ultimately the trail of papers led to Focardi’s work. And THAT convinced Rossi he had discovered the same thing, though enhanced it was.

      • Charles Hansen

        Ultimately your argument asserts all of the LENR research is and was useless, and we only have Rossi and rich people likewise dreaming of monopolies to thank for the device that is claimed.

        • I didn’t mean to imply that. Clearly Rossi had the benefit of all previous LENR work to build from and was quite familiar with Piantelli’s and Focardi’s work.

          My point was that the science-first road would not be an easy road for an Edisonian like Rossi. The resistance to ideas that contradict existing theory is ultra high. And he is not an eminent scientist in his field like both P&F.

    • georgehants

      catbauer, are you seriously suggesting that you are more competent than dedicated investors as what to invest their money in.
      Perhaps you could list your qualifications in that area.
      Are you suggesting that these investors should trust a science that has debunked and denied Cold Fusion for 24 years while the usual few scientific Rebels have proven their case.
      You seem to have a very strange sense of logic, experience in many areas shows that the further one keeps away from the incompetence of establishment science the better.

      • Charles Hansen

        You are implying there is no Science to LENR by your argument. Your logic is very strange.

      • Charles Hansen

        All I claim to be is a ‘good citizen’, I hope you read that far.

      • bachcole

        And knowing someone else’s situation, what they know, what they are dealing with, what they are presented with, what their abilities are, is always very questionable, particularly when one has never even met that someone else.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Steel sublimed in one of the E-cat tests. Gee, do you think something might really be happening? I guess Asia will just have to take the lead while the West pontificates in their swivel chairs for another quarter of a century.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Steel sublimed in one of the E-cat tests. Gee, do you think something might really be happening? I guess Asia will just have to take the lead while the West pontificates in their swivel chairs for another quarter of a century.

    • Eyedoc

      It’s called maintaining the ‘status quo’ (as long as THEY can)

  • Wayne M.

    Rossi says?

    Dr. Rossi sold 100% of his E-Cat intellectual property for cash to Cherokee / Industrial Heat. Why are we still looking to Dr. Rossi for information? You can glean from his answers that he is gagged by an NDA or some restrictive agreement. He simply reiterates what is already ‘out there’ before the sale. The JONP is now irrelevant. Dr. Rossi sounds like an honorary employee of Industrial Heat. He seemingly no longer makes decisions or
    statements without his employer’s blessing and he is not receiving any.

    The new E-Cat owners are the ones who can provide information.
    Does anyone know who the principals of Industrial Heat are? Is anyone working
    to speak with them? We need new information from the E-Cat owners instead of
    these arguments of air about science.

    My $0.02

    • Charles Hansen

      Is he not ‘chief scientist’ according to his assertion? If so, I’m sure he can be given liberties to speak if he so desired, and obviously has some degree of liberty to do this.

      • bachcole

        It is completely natural and normal for techno-geeks to need informal communication “counseling”. It is sort of a part of life. I can’t tell you how many times I have been “counseled” when I was working. I am on eternal moderation here in this forum now; I even told Frank that I needed to be moderated and he put me back on moderation. So whether it is a formal, written, and signed agreement or it informal, Rossi needs to keep his mouth shut sometimes because of legal, business, and marketing reasons. After all, Rossi probably felt that he needed legal, business, and marketing help since he knew that he was over his head in those matters, so it makes perfect sense that they would tell him that he could say this but not say that. He could have gone it alone in his garage, but he went to them for help, and I don’t think that the help was just money.

        Every business needs three types of people: the geeks who invent things (that was me); those who make things happen, the executive types; and the people who count the money. Rossi was the geek. He is wise enough to have what I see as being really good help.

        My wife and son both moderate me all of the time. (:->)

      • georgehants

        catbauer, what do you mean by your opinions that —
        “I’m sure he can be given liberties to speak if he so desired,”
        “and obviously has some degree of liberty to do this.”
        If he has for his own or the company’s reasons agreed not to speak until the test results are published, is that not a very reasonable position for him or them to take.

        • Charles Hansen

          Rossi talks a lot about not discussing, but then goes on to elaborate. Any confusion you may have might originate from that.

          I simply responded to the question:
          “Why are we still looking to Dr. Rossi for information?”

          Answer: because he asserts to be “Chief Scientist”. Obviously, he has answers to the secrets, whatever they may be… including hints as to details of ‘ongoing tests’.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Where did you get your information, “Rossi sold 100% of his IP” ?

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Maybe because he owns 39.5% of Industrial Heat + .2¢/kwh royalty. Just guessing…

      • bachcole

        Do you mean that jumping to conclusions isn’t such a great idea? Or do you mean trying to push an agenda around here won’t pass without a challenge? (:->)

  • US_Citizen71

    Please expand on how hidden DC could explain the output. They touched the input wires leading to the ECat and commented that they were cool to the touch. The wires appeared to be in the 12 to 16 gauge range, so essentially lamp cord. You can’t flow more than a few amps without heating that gauge of wire. High current or amps are required for heating something the size of the Hot Cat tested to the temperature they observed. So how was this done with low current? You seem to suggest that you know how it was done so please inform us.

  • georgehants

    So rather than wait and see, you attack, how do you think that sort of mentality should be described in scientific circles?

  • georgehants

    Donk970, basically I agree, I think a fair definition of a scientist is a person who tries to gain new knowledge of the natural world.
    All other working scientists are of course applied scientists and should as with mathematics be clearly defined as such.
    I think Mr. Rossi unless he enjoys the mechanical work probably has engineers to do all the construction necessary.

  • georgehants

    Danson, I have made the point that the documented Evidence exists proving the complete incompetence and corruption of science.
    You do not answer, but move off into unscientific rambling regarding not investigating a subject, when in Fact some so called scientists tried to repeat the experiment, but were obviously unqualified or incompetent for the job and failed.
    You use clearly irrational quotes such as Sagan’s “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” when of course all claims obliviously require the same degree of proof.
    You then try to make a point by moving into fairyland suggesting that —
    1, the idea was bogus
    2,That “the scientific community dropped everything else to pursue that idea -”
    You then because I Have done nothing put point out Facts to you, start to quote such rubbish as —-
    “Your “us vs them” type of language rings of tribal thinking”
    You are simply trying to distract away from the Facts again.

    If you reply could I ask you to stick to the subject and answer the points made and try to act like a scientist and not a guilty party simply rambling to avoid the subject.

  • LENR G

    This post has a lot of valid points.

    One point you left out though is that fortune favors the bold. Cherokee saw enough to think the E-Cats might be real, took the initiative, validated it for themselves and bought the IP. We all hope they were thorough and considered the risks you mention. But every business looks at ROI. In this case the risks amounted to a few tens of millions of dollars and the rewards are easily in the billions.

    If they know it works they would be stupid not to have bought the IP. Even if patents and such become a problem down the road the potential revenue stream is enough to buy off any threats. Having the device in hand and a wall of revenue about to wash over them they are in a great position to be the only company to file a patent that might actually stand up over time. They can pay the best to figure out exactly how it works and then protect that IP before the others.

    Having science lead the way is often a good strategy. But there is a lot that’s special about LENR reactors, its economics for sure. Plus in this case science just wasn’t all that interested. Let’s face it, even with the mounting evidence LENR is still the land of crackpots according to Nature, Scientific American, the MSM, traditional nuclear science and every other poster on the Internet. It’s an impervious wall of disbelief. Those 1000+ LENR papers haven’t made much of a dent.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Where did you get your information, “Rossi sold 100% of his IP” ?

  • bachcole

    If you need any more proof that we need to hurry with distributed energy, here it is: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/05/2013-sniper-attack-on-power-grid-still-concern-in-washington-and-for-utilities/

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Political propaganda will always trump scientific fact.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Political propaganda will always trump scientific fact. 😕😕

    • Charles Hansen

      Depending on the particular politics. Luckily scientific facts are convenient to some folks in certain parts of the world 🙂 Not even negating the US… we only have ourselves to blame for the monopolies we enable with the antics people blindly support (“Secrets to make money are the best and smartest way for LENR!” to state one counterproductive antic to society)

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    Maybe because he owns 39.5% of Industrial Heat + .2¢/kwh royalty. Just guessing…

  • georgehants

    catbauer, are you seriously suggesting that you are more competent than dedicated investors as what to invest their money in.
    Perhaps you could list your qualifications in that area.
    Are you suggesting that these investors should trust a science that has debunked and denied Cold Fusion for 24 years while the usual few scientific Rebels have proven their case.
    You seem to have a very strange sense of logic, experience in many areas shows that the further one keeps away from the incompetence of establishment science the better.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_cross_section, Fe56 has the largest neutron scattering cross section for ~2 MeV fission neutrons, 20 barn, which corresponds to mean free path of 6 mm. That is, every 6 mm layer reduces the primary neutron flux by factor of e=2.7. To reduce by factor million, for example, requires 14 factors of e, i.e. 11 cm. This is a lower limit for the required thickness because the scattered neutron can still escape. In any case, since the HotCat diameter was only 9 cm, it is not possible that it could have been a fission reactor.
    Also, it could not have been a radioactive heat source because such source cannot be turned on and off.

  • georgehants

    catbauer, what do you mean by your unfounded opinions that —
    “I’m sure he can be given liberties to speak if he so desired,”
    “and obviously has some degree of liberty to do this.”
    If he has for his own or the company’s own reasons agreed not to speak until the test results are published, is that not a very reasonable position for him to take.

  • malkom700

    Yes, you are absolutely right, but let’s face it, that from a scientific point of view we do not yet clear, but the device we need to start using anyway. I just wanted to point out the possible alternatives.

  • in a way you are right, the mechanism is not described.
    It could be fairy dust or alien inter-dimensional power source. We only assume it is LENR, because it cannot be something else we know already. Occam razor.

    Some people also imagine that if it is not academic science, it does not exist…
    Tunguska meteor was until recently unknown (stone or ice?), but you would be crazy to say it was nonexistent or unscientific. It was an observed phenomenon.
    Note also that Hiroshima was not peer-reviewed in Asia, yet admitted after replication (I agree that Japanese asked for a replication to take consequence – they were a little challenged and still negociating).

    Cold fusion is a post-1950 science challenge. It is an observation, not only without a theory, but without a theory despite searching hard, and with evidence not in the same domain (chemistry,calorimetry) than the clear only possible theory (nuclear).
    It was an epistemological challenge, a test of Thomas Kuhn theory… and US academics missed the exam.
    US Nuclear physicist were too egotistic to be modest. and chemist were too coward to say F***K U in group. The scientific fiasco of the century, with… guess what (mirror).

    to be serious, E-cat Elforsk test don’t need peer-review, or white box, it need a protocol to rule out all possible fraud… My opinion is that, unlike others test, this test was immune to fraud because done with a big team, freedom to change instruments and test many unexpected details without the presence of the inventor or it’s employees.

    A magician don’t let you alone on the stage to play with the boxes, look for mirors , smokes, measure and touch all…

    It is no more science, it is evidence.

    • catbauer24

      Correct, any magician won’t. However, a great magician will.

      • GreenWin

        “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke

  • LENR G

    I didn’t mean to imply that. Clearly Rossi had the benefit of all previous LENR work to build from and was quite familiar with Piantelli’s and Focardi’s work.

    My point was that the science-first road would not be an easy road for an Edisonian like Rossi. The resistance to ideas that contradict existing theory is ultra high. And he is not an eminent scientist in his field like both P&F.

  • Job001

    Interesting illogical assumption mix herein noted of blogism, legalism, basic science, applied science, new product development, warped skepticism, propaganda, and investor finance.

  • Job001

    Interesting illogical assumption mix herein noted of blogism, legalism, basic science, applied science, new product development, warped skepticism, propaganda, and investor finance.

  • Job001

    “One’s lawyer’s advice” differs and rules the roost.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Yes, unknown is unknow, but anyway “it’s not the nuclear reactor your mother told you about” (Ruby Carat)

  • US_Citizen71

    I’m not an EE but you don’t need to be to understand what is involved. Your numbers and my previous comment about needing a transformer all depend on the resistance of the heater coils.

    P = I squared x R, so for your numbers the resistance of the heating coil would need to be 2000 ohms. A typical electric stove heating element is less than 50 ohms ( http://www.appliance411.com/faq/test-element.shtml ). I = V/R So if only one standard heating coil was used and 2kV was run through it I = 2000 V / 50 ohms or 40 amps. But there wasn’t a single coil there were 16 coils believed to be in the Hot Cat tested. So the resistance depends on how they were wired. If in series there would be an 800 ohm total if in parallel it would be 3.125 ohms total. ( http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Series-and-Parallel-Resistance ) I would think the boys from Elforsk at least put an ohm meter on the leads so they should have known what the resistance was, unfortunatly they didn’t include that value in their report.

    My comment was aimed at the December test:
    Page 2 – “Since the test in November shows some interesting features, we shall describe some of the results from this test in some detail before discussing, in the subsequent sections, the results from the December and March runs. Figures 1 and 2 refer to the November test, and show, respectively, the device while in operation, and a laptop computer capturing data from a thermographic camera focused on it. An Optris IR camera monitored surface temperature trends,and yielded results of approximately 860 °C in the hottest areas.

    Figs. 1-2. Two images from the test performed on Nov. 20th 2012. Here, the activation of the charge (distributed laterally in the reactor) is especially obvious. The darker lines in the photograph are actually the shadows of the resistor coils, which yield only a minimal part of the total thermal power. The performance of this device was such that the reactor was destroyed, melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers. The long term trials analyzed in the present report were purposely performed at a lower temperatures for safety reasons.” – http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Aktuellt/Artikel%20Arxiv%201305%203913.pdf

    There is no way lamp cord was able to flow enough power to heat the Hot Cat to a red glow and in the end melt steel.

  • GreenWin

    Considering we have hard documentation of LENR-based anomalous heat going back to 1991 it seems rather plausible, given the geopolitical impact of just such a technology – the whole brew was put behind a curtain. Fortunately large commercial interests have peeked through that curtain and are in process to deconstruct it. That will benefit vast numbers of people on Earth. Doubting scientists, peer review, and orthodox science will frankly look… incompetent.

    • (done with a smile)
      Ah Ah Greenwin, why you blame nasty intelligent blacksuit…

      we have few egotic scientist and a crowd if coward desperate followers… a gang of incompetent and cowrad journalist… intelligent but focuses on their next elections politicians…

      We don’t need conspiracies… ego, stupidity, incompetence, cowardliness, selfish-interest, explain that story better…

      if they were so intelligent, they would forbid us to use LENR and use it themselves…

      The only conspiracy I see today is when DoD/Darpa is funding LENR at SRI/Brillouin/Navy, while claiming it is unreal… as if they were trying to do what I say: develop it in US and prevent others to develop it.

  • GreenWin

    Considering we have hard documentation of LENR-based anomalous heat going back to 1991 it seems rather plausible, given the geopolitical impact of just such a technology – the whole brew was put behind a curtain. Fortunately large commercial interests have peeked through that curtain and are in process to deconstruct it. That will benefit vast numbers of people on Earth. Doubting scientists, peer review, and orthodox science will frankly look… incompetent.

    • (done with a smile)
      Ah Ah Greenwin, why you blame nasty intelligent blacksuit…

      we have few egotic scientist and a crowd if coward desperate followers… a gang of incompetent and cowrad journalist… intelligent but focuses on their next elections politicians…

      We don’t need conspiracies… ego, stupidity, incompetence, cowardliness, selfish-interest, explain that story better…

      if they were so intelligent, they would forbid us to use LENR and use it themselves…

      The only conspiracy I see today is when DoD/Darpa is funding LENR at SRI/Brillouin/Navy, while claiming it is unreal… as if they were trying to do what I say: develop it in US and prevent others to develop it.

  • bachcole

    You go over the line quite often. I am openly and blatantly and joyfully and obviously biased unequivocally towards Rossi because he delivered the goods in May 2013 with Levi et. al. The evidence biased me. Sorry if you don’t approve.

  • Guest

    @georgehants established science is extremely competent. Who do you think makes instruments with which we have confidence in, to have confidence in any measurement? What is incompetence, is scientific conclusion based on coerced assumptions. Luckily Levi et al “indicated” their conclusion was based on speculation stemming from hints and tidbits that Rossi allowed them to know.

    • georgehants

      Hello Guest, good name, you say “established science is extremely competent.”
      If that is what you believe then I am sure you will be very happy to reply to me giving your personal assessment of the establishments handling of let’s say, the UFO problem.
      I would hope that discussing this serious subject does not frighten you as apparently it does the establishment and most so called scientists, who have to resort to debunking and joking to cover up their fear.
      I look forward to your carefully thought out reply.

    • bachcole

      May I explain things to you so that you will understand? Established science is EXCELLENT when it comes to subjects well within the dominant paradigm. However, if we look outside of the dominant paradigm, then established science has a dreadful record: check out phlogiston vs. oxygen, rocks falling from the sky, the electric light bulb, manned flight, drifting continents, etc. etc. It turns out that the ability to look outside the dominant paradigm has absolutely nothing to do with science or the scientific method or even high IQs. Everyone said that Columbus was wrong, and in FACT he was wrong, yet he managed to change the world.

      If you are looking to see how established science could be wrong in the case of fusion, perhaps realizing that how they look at the atom and it’s constituent parts is to fire elementary particles at the atom at a minimum of 1/20 of the speed of light and faster. There may be other problems with their understanding of the atom. They assume that the Coulomb Barrier is inviolate, and the way that they try to do with is certainly true. But what if there are other ways around the Coulomb Barrier rather than slamming two protons together. Our observations suggest either (1) there are other ways around the Coulomb Barrier [such as electron + proton = neutron and therefore no charge and therefore no Coulomb Barrier] or (2) “cold fusion” is not fusion but something else (or more than one something else) is going on.

      Your point about scientific instruments is a good one, but Columbus used the standard and even substandard instruments of the day to make his world change discovery: Nina, Pina, Santa Maria. He just used those instruments in a different way.

      And I don’t get your point about Levi et. al. Rossi was never around when they did their testing. There was a Rossi ally around to make sure that the testers did not open up the cell. And Rossi is not the only person holding up LENR and LENR+. We now have at least 4 companies saying that they can do it, repeatedly.

  • georgehants

    Hello Guest, good name, you say “established science is extremely competent.”
    If that is what you believe then I am sure you will be very happy to reply to me giving your personal assessment of the establishments handling of let’s say, the UFO problem.
    I look forward to your carefully thought out reply.

  • bachcole

    May I explain things to you so that you will understand? Established science is EXCELLENT when it comes to subjects well within the dominant paradigm. However, if we look outside of the dominant paradigm, then established science has a dreadful record: check out phlogiston vs. oxygen, rocks falling from the sky, the electric light bulb, manned flight, drifting continents, etc. etc. It turns out that the ability to look outside the dominant paradigm has absolutely nothing to do with science or the scientific method or even high IQs. Everyone said that Columbus was wrong, and in FACT he was wrong, yet he managed to change the world.

    If you are looking to see how established science could be wrong in the case of fusion, perhaps realizing that how they look at the atom and it’s constituent parts is to fire elementary particles at the atom at a minimum of 1/20 of the speed of light and faster. There may be other problems with their understanding of the atom. They assume that the Coulomb Barrier is inviolate, and the way that they try to do with is certainly true. But what if there are other ways around the Coulomb Barrier rather than slamming two protons together. Our observations suggest either (1) there are other ways around the Coulomb Barrier [such as electron + proton = neutron and therefore no charge and therefore no Coulomb Barrier] or (2) “cold fusion” is not fusion but something else (or more than one something else) is going on.

    Your point about scientific instruments is a good one, but Columbus used the standard and even substandard instruments of the day to make his world change discovery: Nina, Pina, Santa Maria. He just used those instruments in a different way.

    And I don’t get your point about Levi et. al. Rossi was never around when they did their testing. There was a Rossi ally around to make sure that the testers did not open up the cell. And Rossi is not the only person holding up LENR and LENR+. We now have at least 4 companies saying that they can do it, repeatedly.