Rossi: 'Same' Independent Party Making Very 'Conservative' Work

The drip feeding of information from Andrea Rossi continues on the Journal of Nuclear Physics. A poster asked Rossi why he keeps talking about the possibility of a ‘negative’ report, when he knows full well that the E-Cat works.

Rossi replied:

Gunnar Lindberg:
You make your son well educated, well trained, and test him many times. Then he goes to the war: aren’t you afraid he can die?
Beyond the metaphor: the test in course is a very long test, with a system of calculation very conservative, prepared after the test made by the same third indipendent party one year ago ( March 2013); during that test and the afterward discussions the third indipendent party has learnt all the possible further controls to make ; all the possible shortcomings have been experienced one year ago and now they are making a very conservative work. If you go to read the report of the March test published on Arxiv Physics, you will see that they had written that a long run test would have been necessary to make better measurements. Now you can understand the metaphor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

So it seems from this comment that the testing is being done by the same team that did the previous report, and that it is being carried out taking into account the feedback received (‘afterward discussions’) where there was substantial criticism from skeptics who thought there was room for trickery to have been behind the published results last time.

He also mentions that this is a very ‘conservative’ work, which suggests that the team will take pains not to overstate the performance, and will (I imagine) probably use the most conservative calculations possible so as to avoid any chance of being accused of exaggeration. This is essentially what was done in the previous report.

I actually wonder if it is possible to put together a truly ‘bulletproof’ test. I am sure that there will be skeptics and critics looking for any way possible to shed doubt on the E-Cat. But I also expect that the test will be much improved over the last one, based on lessons learned, and hopefully there will be much less room for uncertainty.

  • andrea s

    same party, skeps celebrating already

    • They are foolish if they do. While a separate team would have been better they could have alleged yet another co-conspirator from the new team. There is no end to the size and evil genius of the conspiracy posited by the pathoskeps.

      WHO is mainly a moot point if they got the WHAT right. If the calibrations, recordings, and data collection were done properly there will be no room for fraud as an explanation except in the weakest minds.

      Whether the team got the WHAT right remains to be seen of course.

      Interesting too that ELFORSK has denied involvement in round 2. If Industrial Heat funded it instead then that could be another chink in the ‘independent’ armor.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Let them, the test is not for them, it is for reasonable people.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Who cares about the pseudosceptics? Their time is over; nobody takes them seriously any longer. MY, AP & co. will soon disappear from the map. I have deleted my ECN bookmark long ago. Maybe Steven Krivit – who is IMO not a pseudosceptic, but just a hard critic of Rossi – will maintain some influence. If he has to say something substantial, it will be ok for me, as long as he avoids unfair ways of argumentation.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        We all should all care about the pseudo-skeptics because we want this technology to be accepted. Once this technology can be published in mainstream journals and is accepted we will see Trillions of Dollars allocated for research and Development instead of mere millions. Imagine how fast this research would progress if Rossi had a few billion dollars to spend on it annually.

  • Facepalm

    Page 28, http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 :

    “In the next test experiment which is expected to start in the summer of 2013, and will last about six months, the long term performance of the E-Cat HT2 will be tested. This test will be crucial for further attempts to unveil the origin of the heat phenomenon observed so far.”

    • andrea s

      sure it was announced.
      yet if the “7 professors” have more coauthors it will help.
      after all the criticism they will be viewed as “success-oriented” to say the least.
      on the other hand, if all went well, wouldn’t it be in Rossi’s and IH’s interest to let the mistery continue while they engineer a product ? why encourage others to give it a try ?

  • The only bulletproof test is to construct a usable product that saves people money. The best test would be an electrical generator that puts out much more electricity than energy input. The skeptics will not be satisfied with a lab test that performs no actual work. It has to do something useful.

    • Ophelia Rump

      The “critics” will never be satisfied. People should stop talking as if it is even reasonable to try to do so. The scientific field his strewn with the wreaking remnants of naysayers proved wrong in droves.

      Where the scientific community falls short, the commercial sector will carry through.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        I disagree. Eventually this will be old news to students in high schools. For now seeing LENR make Nature Magazine will satisfy many.

        Mainstream science cannot ignore it forever, but it may take another dozen years.

        • georgehants

          friendly, If it is like the Fact that although it has been known that the World is completely Quantum for 70 years, and that basic Fact is still not taught in young school text books, it seems unlikely that science will start teaching our students about the disgrace of Cold Fusion research for at least 100 years.
          Do you agree?

          • Omega Z

            By Georgehants you got it.

            Like in the U.S. when something major is investigated, the findings are classified, not to be disclosed for 50 years.
            That’s to allow time for the Primary culprits to have expired.
            And should that not happen, they extend it another 20 years.

            It’s discussed often here at ECW that those who have suppressed this technology should be taken to task.
            It has always been my opinion that this would happen, Eventually, but just as it’s happened before. Centuries latter.
            When the Culprits have long expired.

      • Yo Hobie

        Ophelia, you are concise and to the point – like the tip of a SEM! Especially “Where the scientific community falls short, the commercial sector will carry through.”! The commercial sector trumps academic arrogance!

      • 25% of the Brits (sorry Peter and George) think the Apollo landings on the moon were a hoax.

        • What? Are you saying they weren’t????

          • georgehants

            Better than the 65% of Yanks though. Ha.

  • Dan

    I still want to see someone heat a swimming pool during Dec., Jan., Feb. using a 1 MW E-cat, and compare the cost from last year against the test year. Is there any more practical way to decide if LENR can help us?

    • Ophelia Rump

      Yes, yes there is; but you can swim in yours in the winter, I like it!
      I hope we get to run that test of yours.

    • Sanjeev

      You can buy that 1MW plant and heat your pool. I’m sure, you won’t like the cost comparison sheet.
      No one has bought it (publicly) precisely because its not cost effective in short term. No one knows about the long term, since its not a proven product.
      The hot cat seems to have worked for 6 months, but if Rossi decides to sell it for 10 million $, it won’t be cost effective either. The tea making or pool heating test will remain unpopular for some time.

  • GreenWin

    Did the room the tests were made in get any warmer? Was any heat transferred to another body? Anybody make a cup of tea? Even without a work load, a six month proof of continuous operation at COP n – is huge progress. Team indipendent and Dr. Rossi to be congratulated.

    • In March I heard a story where at MIT they brought in an engineer to evaluate a CF device. They asked him where the excess heat was coming from. He looked up at the ceilings and said “the lights” and walked out of the room.

  • malkom700

    In view of a possible extension of the tests should be noted that the decision in the matter has become so important in all aspects of political (Ukraine), pollution (North Pole), poverty (Africa), that those who would have undermined solution, commit the crime and certainly will be prosecuted.

  • Sanjeev

    This revelation is like a spoiler for a really suspenseful movie 🙂
    I wonder if his NDA has expired today.

    So the same team, testing same prototype, only for an extended period. We can already guess the results too. The conservative bit is also not new, the last report/conclusions of it, were highly conservative too.

    I still hope that the reviewers from 3 continents are new and well known faces. That will add to the credibility and may provide incentive to the investors. Investors are the main target audience here.

    I’m almost sure that this report will not get published in mainstream journals, still hope for a miracle. Its also not for general public, they will not be convinced, especially pathoskeps. It may get some press, only if presented in a formal press conference (with some free wine for the journalists, as is customary).

    • georgehants

      GreenWin, if the report (if positive) is not followed-up in a major way by main-line journals etc. what do you think the World will conclude on the competence and ethics of main-line and academic science?

      • Omega Z

        “what do you think the World will conclude”

        Nothing george.
        They are not aware now & because it doesn’t go mainstream will still not be aware.
        So- They will conclude Nothing.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Same prototype? Really, they were testing the Hot Cat a year ago?

      • Sanjeev

        As far as I know, there are no formal announcements of them testing any new or improved version. All we know is there is a lot of R&D going on, but I doubt that the team is testing an R&D version. Since it ran for 6 months, it must be more than 6 month old device, which should be similar to the last device tested by this team.

        • deleo77

          That would actually be a good follow up question to Rossi that he might answer. Is the device the same exact one that they tested last year, or were there improvements made to that device between the last test and this one?

      • Omega Z

        I’m pretty sure I read on JONP that this is the latest version of the H-cat, Or the State of the Art model
        The Mouse/Cat.

        • Omega Z

          Paul April 11th, 2014 at 4:42 PM

          Andrea,
          Is the e-cat tested by the independent third party for the last months still “state of the art”?

          Or has it become obsolete due to further development?
          Paul
          —————————————————
          Andrea Rossi April 11th, 2014 at 8:48 PM

          Paul:
          It is state of the art, so far; as for the future…”panta rei”.
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.

  • georgehants

    The number of comments on Mr. Rossi page have risen greatly in the last few days.
    He seems in good humour.
    This all bodes well for a good result, I hope.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Right, I think we are close to the release, but I am sure the skeptics will be out in droves.

      • Yo Hobie

        Pathoskeptics are pretty boring people AND nasty too – not very happy to be around. They try to tell Mother Nature how she should act rather than shut their mouths (humility is not in their vocabulary) and wait for Mother Nature to reveal herself.

        • Fibber McGourlick

          Without skeptics the world of invention (and religion, etc.) would be over- populated with charletons. Skeptics are sometimes wrong, but they have an important part to play in the world of purported invention and discovery.

          • Yo Hobie

            Yes, Fibber, point well taken! Without skeptics discussions would be grossly one-sided. But I wish one could be skeptical without being demeaning. I read a lot of comments from skeptics and there seems to be logic in what they say (some, yes) but often it is just name calling and that makes me sick.

          • Rational skepticism is necessary, as you say. Unfortunately skepticism can turn into denial, as after a while people may become too emotionally identified with their position.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Short strokes?

  • Argon

    I personally consider sceptics as backseat commentators, they can be skeptic even the day we warm our houses with e-cats.
    I couldn’t care less how many cosmic theories they can come up with, only thing matters to me is if e-cat works, becomes available to Joe Average and proves itself in many enough real life test. Give one sealed 1MW plant to big company with good enough reputattion (IBM, NASA, Mercedes), or to even City of Stockholm, they will see after one winter have they saved money or not, and puts out positive statement only if w-cat works (reputation is too much to loose).

    Main problem is Rossis IPR, which requires top line scientists to come out and confirm that LENR exists and can be improved, like Rossi did. But how to confirm, if Rossi doesn’t tell before IPR is in place. Either scientists discovers the phenomenon by themselves or Rossi is given the guarantees that he will get the patent after theory is published an verified. (and third option is that there is no excess heat….)

    I have been thinking that since Rossi doesn’t need the patent in first hand IF HE TRUSTS the authorities not playing dirty games, since his patent application arrived first guaranteeing him preceedense over others anyway.

    So my guess is that he want to maximise patent validty period by completing his technology in meanwhile and gives final details to authorities at the point when he is ready to mass production. That logic would fit to my head. So I’m not expecting big changes before IH is ready ofr production.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Rossi claimed to have already offered to install and operate at his (IH’s)
      own expense a plant and sell the heat to some European utility or industry.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    In principle that it’s the same team expanded is old news, since on Dec 28 2013 AR answered to Jed Rothwell “The team of Prof. has been increased.” (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=833&cpage=4#comment-891266). Also see related earlier answer from Dec 27 (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=833&cpage=3#comment-890686)

  • Pekka Janhunen

    In principle that it’s the same team expanded is old news, since on Dec 28 2013 AR answered to Jed Rothwell “The team of Prof. has been increased.” (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=833&cpage=4#comment-891266). Also see related earlier answer from Dec 27 (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=833&cpage=3#comment-890686)

  • Omega Z

    It’s the same team. The Critics will be all over it.
    Doesn’t matter..

    If they were a totally different team, They would still object.
    They didn’t replicate it. The Device was supplied by WHO? Rossi.
    Doesn’t matter..

    And, Had they replicated it, They obtained the directions from Rossi thus his directions incorporated some trick.
    Doesn’t Matter…

    But Really. It DOESN’T MATTER, Because this test is not to convince them. They Don’t MATTER..

    • Otto1923

      Bulletproof test? The bloom box is undergoing bulletproof testing at the moment. Many installations are providing power under various conditions over the lifetime of these units.

      Get these reactors out, let them run.

      • LCD

        Yeah but they might be nuclear, so…

      • Ophelia Rump

        I am pretty sure they are just flat out in production.

        • Owen Geiger

          That’s another good question for Rossi.

    • Fibber McGourlick

      They are the world–most of it anyway. If they don’t matter who exactly needs these tests?

    • LCD

      But there are such things as blackbox tests which are scientific in nature. A good blackbox test would surpass these things you mention.

      However I agree with your attitude. Rossi shouldn’t need public acceptance he just needs investors acceptance at this point.

      • blanco69

        The analogy to which Rossi refers works for me up to a point. That point is, what is to be considered a negative result? If the ecat works perfectly for say a week and then falls over. Is that to be considered negative? I thought we were trying to prove that the excess heat produced could not be achieved by chemical means. In essence to prove the ‘Rossi Effect’. A long term test that requires perfect performance over such an extended period, to me, sounds more like preproduction testing. That would suggest a whole other set of implications like, maybe they do plan to kick this thing off with a mass production run. The absence of real IP protection had made me discount this approach however, maybe the IH guys have this in hand. They should have the experience and the contacts to pull that off. Rossi’s own attempts at securing patent approval have been, er, substandard.

        • Ophelia Rump

          They proved there was no possible chemical source in the previous test.

        • Curbina

          I think that a negative result, in the context of the previous report and what Rossi seems to have in mind after these ate hints, could be a COP of not more than 2. That would still be amazing LENR proof, but not so much for commercial purposes.

          • ecatworld

            Maybe he’s not so concerned about the actual COP. It sounds likely that the ‘conservative’ calculations will understate the actual COP — perhaps he wants to be as sure as possible that the experiment itself is convincing, without room for reasonable doubt about the ‘Rossi effect’.

          • Curbina

            You also have a valid point ECW. I was trying to interpret what would be a negative result from the point of view of IH (which is supposed to make money out of this new technology). What you say is also very true, but from a more psychological point of view regarding public acceptance of the results. But I’m much more concerned of what IH will think of the results that what the general public and Pathoskeptics will.

          • ecatworld

            I’ve felt for a long time that the importance of this test to IH is that they need something concrete, valid and independent that they can show to their potential investors and partners that will convince them that this is a technology that is real and useful, and worth supporting.

          • ecatworld

            Also, this could be a crucial part of the patent strategyi

  • Omega Z

    It’s the same team. The Critics will be all over it.
    Doesn’t matter..

    If they were a totally different team, They would still object.
    They didn’t replicate it. The Device was supplied by WHO? Rossi.
    Doesn’t matter..

    And, Had they replicated it, They obtained the directions from Rossi thus his directions incorporated some trick.
    Doesn’t Matter…

    But Really. It DOESN’T MATTER, Because this test is not to convince them. They Don’t MATTER..

    • Fibber McGourlick

      They are the world–most of it anyway. If they don’t matter who exactly needs these tests?

      • Ransompw

        They aren’t the World, they simply have the incorrect impression that they are representatives. In reality, they occupy the extreme end of a bell shape curve of human thinking. Most of you occupy the other end. The middle has no idea what is going on.

    • LCD

      But there are such things as blackbox tests which are scientific in nature. A good blackbox test would surpass these things you mention.

      However I agree with your attitude. Rossi shouldn’t need public acceptance he just needs investors acceptance at this point.

  • WaltC

    I don’t interpret Rossi’s comments as necessarily saying “same team”, so much as saying that the new test protocol is built upon the prior test protocol plus suggestions based on comments about that prior protocol. Nonetheless, I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some of the prior testers are involved in addition to some new people/universities.

  • Otto1923

    Bulletproof test? The bloom box is undergoing bulletproof testing at the moment. Many installations are providing power under various conditions over the lifetime of these units.

    Get these reactors out, let them run.

    • LCD

      Yeah but they might be nuclear, so…

    • Ophelia Rump

      I am pretty sure they are just flat out in production.

      • Owen Geiger

        That’s another good question for Rossi.

  • Fibber McGourlick

    Mr. Rossi’s analogy is very clever and apt. It makes his rather nervous position on the independent tests very understandable. Nice one!

  • Fibber McGourlick

    Mr. Rossi’s analogy is very clever and apt. It makes his rather nervous position on the independent tests very understandable. Nice one!

  • kasom

    Having read Mats*s excellent book we understand that the multiple attempts to form a partnership with differnt candidates went bad because of two reasons:

    1) Rossi sceptical due to what had happend in italy before, refused every attempt to catch his IP with typical capitalist trick. That is great.

    2) Rossi disscredited himself in the view of the public because of his inability to commit flaws and mistakes. He never told, that he has personally failed testing with the Swedes or that it was a silly attempt to collaborate with NASA, who only wanted to get the technology without honestly paying for it.

    He is simply one of the many human beeings which I know (I am married to one of those), that are simply unable to admid mistakes or say: “Sorry, I was wrong!”

    It seems, that Tom Darden is the one to handle A.R best.

    I respect, that the press release was a liitle bit forced by the investigating abilities of ECW readers and didn’t meet the planned timetable, but please Tom COME OUT!!

    • GreenWin

      kasom… you need to re-consider who exactly is incapable of admitting mistakes, fraud and error. It is clearly documented and may be legally prosecuted in the US; corrupt, self-serving, ego maniacal scientists (particularly hot fusionists) will not admit error. Should prosecutions go forward without benefit of forgiveness… many well-educated, ivory tower senior scientists, politicians, and executives could go to federal prison for their remaining days.

      Do not provoke the lion.

  • bachcole

    The power density hopefully will be more. The energy density will be completely off of the charts. Mark my words.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    We’ll just have to wait.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1BPx5Wsm7k

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Two years on… still waiting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVwcltThnYc

      • Alan DeAngelis

        He’s not making hula hoops. Two years is no time at all.

        • GreenWin

          62 years ago the brightest bulbs on planet said hot fusion would give us unlimited, clean energy….

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        This test could be for the benefit of whomever is paying for the test, possibly some or all of the secret IH investors. The results could possibly encourage them to pony up with some really serious startup capital. At this point, the funders may not care one whit about the opinion of Big Science.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Well said.

          It seems to me that $200,000 is a very small fee to fund that team for that period of time.
          some Big Science may have contributed time and equipment. Not everyone is pathological.

      • Ophelia Rump

        If you can do it better, you make em!

    • Peter Shwartz

      With apologies to Gunnar Lindberg:

      You make your son well educated, well trained, and test him many times. Then he
      goes to the war: aren’t you afraid he may come back a hero and kill people?

      By perchance the reaction LENR had been reasonably well prospected for the past 30 years or so, and some enterprising garage has mechanic found a way to control its
      exuberance, and then lets the cat out of the bag overnight with immediate
      supply of 10 fully guaranteed working 10Kw generating plants up for sale for, say
      $5000 per each … anyone care to predict the money markets and stock exchanges
      for the week, the viability and sustainability of current energy producing enterprises,
      not to mention social issues and the populace being caught with a wad of
      useless unredeemable stock?
      At this stage, I’m for thinking the TV soapy approach to finalisation is best, episode by agonizing episode.

      • Ophelia Rump

        You said:
        You make your son well educated, well trained, and test him many times. Then he goes to the war: aren’t you afraid he may come back a hero and kill people?

        First, This would be an absolutely failed expression of Mr Rossi’s expressed sentiment, making no sense whatsoever.

        Second, Are you trying to insult Mr Rossi over the subject of war, for having used it in an analogy. That would be pompous and callous of you if it is so. Mr Rossi is from Italy and any American worth his salt would respect that Mr Rossi’s family knows a little something about war and familial losses.
        If that was your intention, you owe the man a public apology. That was friggin low and uncalled for.

        • GreenWin

          LOL! For real. Ophelia… you are an admirable piece of work. Perhaps I am misinterpreting. I took Dr. Rossi’s comment to mean he has tried to prepare his creation for the battlefield. And as any loving parent, he is fearful that his child may not survive.

          It is us, Dr. Rossi’s supporters, his “foster family” who share his vision, that must assure the child’s survival. Hey, we could been assigned as crossing guards at the River Styx. 🙂

        • Peter Shwartz

          Oh, the irony of analogy, surely it is not for the great thinkers like yourself, or those who look and do not read or those who look and cannot see. Ophelia, I think you have a great need to write spin, however you must first learn to read, comprehension: if you like.

          Particularly target the intention of Rossi’s application of Gunnar Lindberg’s quote.

          Secondly [Ophelia Rump: quote” If you want to be a pacifist here is what you must do, You must stop attacking people”]. Attacking people, I suggest that is a foolish assertion by you, but if I am wrong, who is the victim? Surely not the person whose life savings are lost because of new LENR technology being dumped on the market, the closure of his workplace because of LENR technology dumped on the workplace, the loss of tenure of his house because of the immediate impact of LENR.

          Perhaps if you read and understand the niceties of the industrial revolution of the 1700’s, or ponder upon the exchange crashes of the 1927’s your apparent tiny mind may understand what I wrote. I suggest you move into a real pragmatic world. I think your science has let you down!

          • GreenWin

            Mr. Shwartz, you reveal yourself to be little better than a “garage mechanic” yourself in your comment. I will remind you that modern aviation began with the Wrights, two uneducated “bicycle mechanics.” Thomas Edison, Nickolai Tesla never went to college. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Zuckerberg, all billionaire college dropouts. Sir Richard Branson, dropped out of high school.

            The “real, pragmatic world” has been created by people too motivated to follow the narrow paths of academia. And it will continue to be so.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        It’s just that I had a déjà vu moment while reading this post and then, ah yes, I remembered that day in 1970. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX8-Vmys-Fk

  • Alan DeAngelis

    We’ll just have to wait.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1BPx5Wsm7k

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Two years on… still waiting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVwcltThnYc

      • Alan DeAngelis

        He’s not making hula hoops. Two years is no time at all.

        • GreenWin

          62 years ago the brightest bulbs on planet said hot fusion would give us unlimited, clean energy….

      • Ophelia Rump

        If you can do it better, you make em!
        I will buy 5 from you for 10K each.
        10kw output electric from 5kw input electric.

        I will give you the cash for the product the moment there is public consensus that they work, and it is accepted by the scientific community.
        In a sense, you set the terms.

    • Peter Shwartz

      With apologies to Rossi and Gunnar Lindberg:

      You make your son well educated, well trained, and test him many times. Then he
      goes to the war: aren’t you afraid he may come back a hero and kill people?

      By perchance the reaction LENR had been reasonably well prospected for the past 30 years or so, and some enterprising garage mechanic has found a way to control its
      exuberance, and then lets the cat out of the bag overnight with immediate
      supply of 1000 fully guaranteed working 10Kw generating plants, up for sale for, say
      $5000 per each … anyone care to predict the world money markets and stock exchanges reactions for the following weeks, the viability and sustainability of current energy producing enterprises, not to mention social issues and the populace being caught with a wad of useless unredeemable stock?
      Nobody, so to speak has any money left now, so how much is the energy producing device worth, now?
      At this stage, I’m for thinking the TV soapy approach to finalisation is best, episode by agonizing episode.

      • Ophelia Rump

        You said:
        You make your son well educated, well trained, and test him many times. Then he goes to the war: aren’t you afraid he may come back a hero and kill people?

        Are you trying to insult Mr Rossi over the subject of war, for having used it in an analogy? That would be pompous and callous of you if it is so. Mr Rossi has said nothing to promote war. Mr Rossi is from Italy and anyone worth his salt would respect that Mr Rossi’s family knows a little something about war and familial losses.

        If that was your intention, you owe the man a public apology. That was friggin low and uncalled for.

        Maybe you thought you were attacking war, but you attacked a man, and so you invoked the very nature of war. As the great pacifist Kenneth Patchen said in The Journal Of Albion Moonlight. “When you kill Hitler, you become Hitler.”

        If you want to be a pacifist here is what you must do.
        You must stop attacking people. I am no pacifist so I want to drive this understanding into your skull like a railroad spike, violently pinning you to enlightenment forever! Somebody Stop Me!

        • GreenWin

          LOL! For real. Ophelia… you are an admirable piece of work. Perhaps I am misinterpreting. I took Dr. Rossi’s comment to mean he has tried to prepare his creation for the battlefield. And as any loving parent, he is fearful that his child may not survive.

          It is us, Dr. Rossi’s supporters, his “foster family” who share his vision, that must assure the child’s survival. Hey, we could been assigned as crossing guards at the River Styx. 🙂

        • Peter Shwartz

          Oh, the irony of analogy, surely it is not for the great thinkers like yourself, or those who look and do not read or those who look and cannot see. Ophelia, I think you have a great need to write spin, however you must first learn to read, comprehension: if you like.

          Particularly target the intention of Rossi’s application of Gunnar Lindberg’s quote.

          Secondly [Ophelia Rump: quote” If you want to be a pacifist here is what you must do, You must stop attacking people”]. Attacking people? I suggest that is a foolish assertion by you, but if I am wrong, who is the victim? Surely not the person whose life savings are lost because of new LENR technology being dumped on the market, the closure of his workplace because of LENR technology dumped on the workplace, the loss of tenure of his house because of the immediate impact of LENR. The potential suicides?

          Perhaps if you read and understand the niceties of the industrial revolution of the 1700’s, or ponder upon the exchange crashes of the 1927’s your apparent tiny mind may understand what I wrote. I suggest you move into a real pragmatic world. I think your science has let you down!

          • GreenWin

            Mr. Shwartz, you reveal yourself to be little better than a “garage mechanic” yourself in your comment. I will remind you that modern aviation began with the Wrights, two uneducated “bicycle mechanics.” Thomas Edison, Nickolai Tesla never went to college. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Zuckerberg, all billionaire college dropouts. Sir Richard Branson, dropped out of high school.

            The “real, pragmatic world” has been created by people too motivated to follow the narrow paths of academia. And it will continue to be so.

          • Peter Shwartz

            GreenWin [Greenwin:Quote”you reveal yourself to be little better than a “garage mechanic in your comment”] please permit me to reciprocate in your language.

            Greenwin, “you reveal yourself to be little better than a “garage mechanic [my sincere apologies to motor mechanics I simply paraphrase Greenwin] in your comment” My comments have/had nothing to do with the course your comments take. You could, in all probability be no further away from the context of my comment than a snowball in hell.

            Have you READ what I wrote or just looked ?? Or are you so brilliant you have become so illiterate. Your comments are to say the least foolish in the context of my comment to OpheilaRump and also yourself Greenwin.

            From past readings of mine, I considered the both of your writings Greemwin/Ophelia to be quite reasonable with merit however, I believe you both have shown quite a lot of forum supporters your involute silliness.

            Do you not think Rossi”s device albeit a god send to the population at large will not also have acute adverse effects if “dumped” on the community without warning? Or very little warning at least.

          • GreenWin

            Wow. Such a flurry of insult and invective is the hallmark of a common shill. Apologies, for not engaging my shilldar properly!

      • Alan DeAngelis

        It’s just that I had a déjà vu moment while reading this post and then, ah yes, I remembered that day in 1970. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX8-Vmys-Fk

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    This test could be for the benefit of whomever is paying for the test, possibly some or all of the secret IH investors. The results could possibly encourage them to pony up with some really serious startup capital. At this point, the funders may not care one whit about the opinion of Big Science.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Well said.

      It seems to me that $200,000 is a very small fee to fund that team for that period of time.
      some Big Science may have contributed time and equipment. Not everyone is pathological. Not every interest is disclosed.

  • blanco69

    The analogy to which Rossi refers works for me up to a point. That point is, what is to be considered a negative result? If the ecat works perfectly for say a week and then falls over. Is that to be considered negative? I thought we were trying to prove that the excess heat produced could not be achieved by chemical means. In essence to prove the ‘Rossi Effect’. A long term test that requires perfect performance over such an extended period, to me, sounds more like preproduction testing. That would suggest a whole other set of implications like, maybe they do plan to kick this thing off with a mass production run. The absence of real IP protection had made me discount this approach however, maybe the IH guys have this in hand. They should have the experience and the contacts to pull that off. Rossi’s own attempts at securing patent approval have been, er, substandard.

    • Ophelia Rump

      They proved there was no possible chemical source in the previous test.
      In this test IH had a team with no direct contact with Rossi build the devices for testing from a set of instructions which Rossi provided, while Rossi was isolated working on RandD in another lab.

      Rossi has been completely isolated from influencing the outcome of this test.

      The fact that this test was completed goes far beyond disproving your concerns.
      Rossi was denied a patent because the patent office does not acknowledge the existence of LENR. (An impossible machine in their policy because there is no accepted theory or principle to show the effect is possible without violating the conservation of energy.). If the paper explains the effect, and demonstrates how it is possible without violation, it might eventually influence the Patent Office.

    • Curbina

      I think that a negative result, in the context of the previous report and what Rossi seems to have in mind after these ate hints, could be a COP of not more than 2. That would still be amazing LENR proof, but not so much for commercial purposes.

      • Frank Acland

        Maybe he’s not so concerned about the actual COP. It sounds likely that the ‘conservative’ calculations will understate the actual COP — perhaps he wants to be as sure as possible that the experiment itself is convincing, without room for reasonable doubt about the ‘Rossi effect’.

        • Curbina

          You also have a valid point ECW. I was trying to interpret what would be a negative result from the point of view of IH (which is supposed to make money out of this new technology). What you say is also very true, but from a more psychological point of view regarding public acceptance of the results. But I’m much more concerned of what IH will think of the results that what the general public and Pathoskeptics will.

          • Frank Acland

            I’ve felt for a long time that the importance of this test to IH is that they need something concrete, valid and independent that they can show to their potential investors and partners that will convince them that this is a technology that is real and useful, and worth supporting.

          • Frank Acland

            Also, this could be a crucial part of the patent strategyi

  • Fortyniner

    Rossi has already said that one test reactor ran for the entire period so the backup units he supplied were never needed. This confirms reliability under the test conditions, and presumably the sum total logged output will prove beyond any doubt that the excess energy comes from a new source.

    I would read Rossi’s ‘goes to war’ analogy as meaning testing under more arduous conditions than in the first tests – most probably extraction of heat by active cooling for calorimetric purposes (lack of direct calorimetry was one of the main objections to the first set of tests). While he will know from IH testing how much heat can be pulled from his reactor when running at full output, the unit under test was probably run at low ‘safe’ outputs for maximum reliability and ease of control, and he would genuinely not know whether it could continue to function when connected into a calorimeter circuit. Hence ‘negative’ results being a possibility.

    • Ophelia Rump

      What you say sounds very reasonable to me.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Hi 49’er. Here’s a thought: If the calometry drains heat in a consequent steady way, which for a long running test would probably be advisable, I don’t see why the test could not be done with a high reactor output (high temp and high cop). After all it should be easily possible to stabilize the reactor at a steady heat drain. The reactor and or the control software may have more problems with (rapidly) changing temperature drains. So I don’t see why the test should be run with a throttled back reactor. If they did, I would expect a significantly lower COP. Thoughts?

      • Fortyniner

        ZZZ – I guess that I’m assuming that because Rossi would not have known what demands the testers were going to throw at the reactor that he would have set the control parameters to somewhere near the middle of the stable range, even if that compromised power output. The test regime might have resulted in overheating if the reactor was confined in a casing, or over-cooling if liquid calorimetry was used, and AR had no way of predicting which would apply, if we accept what he has said.

        I don’t think he would have allowed the testers to fiddle with control settings – it’s likely that they were under PLC or laptop control anyway, so he would have wanted maximum latitude either way. This would be fairly certain to result in a less than optimal setting I think, unless the control system was quite sophisticated and able to cope with variable demand or anything else the testers threw at it.

        • GreenWin

          Should the testers have applied any manner of variable load on this unit – the results will be interesting. Many LENR experiments note changes in the reaction based upon little more than ambient temp change. On the other hand Rossi’s early public demos had observers confirm they could hear water boiling inside the e-cat. This caused the brawl over dry/wet steam.

          Verification of long term performance under load will be far more valuable to commercial engineering than a straight burn-in. IMO.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Indeed, GW. We know very little of the ecat’s performance under variable load conditions. It will be interesting if they did any testing in this area.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          You make some good points 49’er, but as I understand it the testers were basically free to experiment with the reactor. Naturally they would first get some solid results to prove without doubt the nuclear overunity type reaction that takes place. This type of test wouldn’t be to stressful for the reactor. I would also imagine that test was done without much interference with the control parameters.

          After that the fun begins and they can really push the reactor which, if they were free to experiment, they should have done. Rossi said it was a current state of the art reactor and apparently there was no need to use the spare reactors. So either his control system may be much more up to the task then expected or the reactor performs very stable in itself. I suspect he has made quite a few advances with the control software.

          I’m really looking forward to the upcoming report!

    • Buck

      I think one important question to keep in mind centers on Ed Storm’s presentation at ICCF-18. At about 27:30 into his presentation he presents a slide showing Rossi’s Hot-Cat operating region. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpdvwaQSnA)

      I think it fair to answer the question and suggest that the 3rd Party was informed of the operating parameters to achieve what Storms described as the “Rossi Region”, about 1100C – 1300C, on his slide. The 3rd Party group can either validate or ignore the operational parameters, and IMO ignoring the guidance of someone with experience seems fundamentally stupid.

      • GreenWin

        Buck, did I miss the slide? At 27:30 Storms’ slide #15 says Rossi heat not from transmutation… Ah, found it. Slide #16 at 32:10+-, shows the Rossi Region to be ~1100-1200K or 826-926C… This conforms to previous Levi-Elforsk results. The higher temp zones appears to be a runaway zone following a small thermal barrier TB, according to Storms.

        • Buck

          GW,

          yes it is Slide #16 and I stand corrected about the temp units. My apologies.

  • Rossi has already said that one test reactor ran for the entire period, and that the backup units he supplied were never needed. If corroborated by the test results, this will confirm reliability under the test conditions, and presumably the sum total logged output will prove beyond any possible doubt that the excess energy comes from a new source.

    I would read Rossi’s ‘goes to war’ analogy as meaning testing under more arduous conditions than in the first tests – most probably by extraction of heat by an active cooling system for calorimetric purposes. Lack of direct calorimetry was one of the main acknowledged weaknesses in the first set of tests.

    While he will know from IH in-house testing how much heat can be pulled from his reactor when running at full output, the unit under test was probably run at low ‘safe’ output levels for maximum reliability and ease of control. Rossi would genuinely not know whether a throttled-back reactor could continue to function when connected into a calorimeter system that he had no part in designing, hence ‘negative’ results (reactor instability, shutdown or marginal output) being a possibility.

    • Ophelia Rump

      What you say sounds very reasonable to me.
      They took his project away, had others build it, and yet other people test it anyway they chose. That sounds almost traumatic, after the reception he has been getting.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Hi 49’er. Here’s a thought: If the calometry drains heat in a consequent steady way, which for a long running test would probably be advisable, I don’t see why the test could not be done with a high reactor output (high temp and high cop). After all it should be easily possible to stabilize the reactor at a steady heat drain. The reactor and or the control software may have more problems with (rapidly) changing temperature drains. So I don’t see why the test should be run with a throttled back reactor. If they did, I would expect a significantly lower COP. Thoughts?

      • ZZZ – I’m guessing that because Rossi would not have known what demands the testers were going to throw at the reactor that he would have set the control parameters to somewhere near the middle of the stable range, even if that compromised power output. The test regime might have resulted in overheating if the reactor was confined in a casing, or over-cooling if liquid calorimetry was used, and AR had no way of predicting which would apply, if we accept what he has said.

        I don’t think he would have allowed the testers to fiddle with control settings – it’s likely that they were under PLC or laptop control anyway, so he would have wanted maximum latitude in either direction. This would be fairly certain to result in a less than optimal setting I think, unless the control system was quite sophisticated and able to cope with variable demand or anything else the testers did.

        • GreenWin

          Should the testers have applied any manner of variable load on this unit – the results will be interesting. Many LENR experiments note changes in the reaction based upon little more than ambient temp change. On the other hand Rossi’s early public demos had observers confirm they could hear water boiling inside the e-cat. This caused the brawl over dry/wet steam.

          Verification of long term performance under load will be far more valuable to commercial engineering than a straight burn-in. IMO.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Indeed, GW. We know very little of the ecat’s performance under variable load conditions. It will be interesting if they did any testing in this area.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          You make some good points 49’er, but as I understand it the testers were basically free to experiment with the reactor. Naturally they would first get some solid results to prove without doubt the nuclear overunity type reaction that takes place. This type of test wouldn’t be to stressful for the reactor. I would also imagine that test was done without much interference with the control parameters.

          After that the fun begins and they can really push the reactor which, if they were free to experiment, they should have done. Rossi said it was a current state of the art reactor and apparently there was no need to use the spare reactors. So either his control system may be much more up to the task then expected or the reactor performs very stable in itself. I suspect he has made quite a few advances with the control software.

          I’m really looking forward to the upcoming report!

    • Buck

      I think one important question to keep in mind centers on Ed Storm’s presentation at ICCF-18. At about 27:30 into his presentation he presents a slide showing Rossi’s Hot-Cat operating region. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpdvwaQSnA)

      I think it fair to answer the question and suggest that the 3rd Party was informed of the operating parameters to achieve what Storms described as the “Rossi Region”, about 1100C – 1300C, on his slide. The 3rd Party group can either validate or ignore the operational parameters, and IMO ignoring the guidance of someone with experience seems fundamentally stupid.

      And, I do wonder if Storms is one of the 2nd tier of assessors.

      • GreenWin

        Buck, did I miss the slide? At 27:30 Storms’ slide #15 says Rossi heat not from transmutation… Ah, found it. Slide #16 at 32:10+-, shows the Rossi Region to be ~1100-1200K or 826-926C… This conforms to previous Levi-Elforsk results. The higher temp zones appears to be a runaway zone following a small thermal barrier TB, according to Storms.

        • Buck

          GW,

          yes it is Slide #16 and I stand corrected about the temp units. My apologies.

  • Samwell

    Any ECW reader living in Sweden who by any chance attended this talk by Bo Hoistad?
    http://www.rattvik.se/bo-hoistad__158528

  • jonnyb

    I suspect that we are very close to the report now, or we would not have been given these details.

  • jonnyb

    I suspect that we are very close to the report now, or we would not have been given these details.

  • As Rossi said he will receive a preprint of the report three days before public release, and his very open and informative comments about the test on JONP suddenly started just on friday, this let me guess that we eventually could see the report even tomorrow (monday the 14th of april) on arxiv.

    What do you think?

    • Fortyniner

      It’s either that or he got one of the test people very drunk in a hotel bar! Either way he seems to know that the published results will be good enough for his/IH’s purposes – maybe much better than that.

      I’m just wondering whether the publication of the results will be a quiet appearance on Arxiv, or if some kind of splash is planned.

  • As Rossi said he will receive a preprint of the report three days before public release, and his very open, good-tempered and informative comments about the test on JONP suddenly started just on friday, this let me guess that we eventually could see the report even tomorrow (monday the 14th of april) on arxiv.

    What do you think?

    • It’s either that or he got one of the test people very drunk in a hotel bar! Either way he seems to know that the published results will be good enough for his/IH’s purposes – maybe much better than that. I’m just wondering whether the publication of the results will be a quiet appearance on Arxiv, or if some kind of splash is planned, perhaps as part of a full ‘roll out’.

      Enough optimism for the moment – it’s probably safer to go back into ‘wait and see’ mode.

  • LENR G

    This exchange just came in:

    orsobubu

    April 13th, 2014 at 5:10 AM

    Andrea,

    I’m delighted with the idea that testers could limit or push the experimental set at their free choice without external conditions. When you say that the e-cat tested by the independent third party for the last 6 months is still “state of the art”, does it mean:

    1- the core of the tested hot cat completely satisfies you and currently no other work is necessary to improve its performance and stabilty, so the research is directed on equipment around the beast

    2- the core tested is the best stable version you can provide but you are currently working both on the equipment around the cat and on new ideas about the beast itself

    Andrea Rossi

    April 13th, 2014 at 8:43 AM

    orsobubu:
    1- yes, but evolution is permanent ( an adjective you should like)
    2- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • LENR G

      Feels like we’re getting close to showtime.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I don’t catch the joke about “permanent”, maybe some playing of words in italian

      • AB

        I think he is saying that evolution never stops.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Yes but I mean that why should in particular orsobubu like the adjective permanent. Probably it’s not important, but just catched my eye because I didn’t understand it.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, orsobubu on Google is something to do with Yogi Bear so no help there.
            Good to see a need to know, I am sure somebody can help.

          • Daniel Maris

            OK Boo-boo! Is he a Trotskyite? Trotsky believed in “permanent revolution”.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            DM: Could well be. Familiarity with isms is Rossi the philosophist’s second nature.

          • Peter Shwartz

            How about, whatever is new is forever new, that is, the lineage of new builds upon and modifies itself to form something “new” infinitum.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Very good point. Rossi wrote about “permanent evolution” and must have associated “revolution”, while he recalled at the same time the political bias of the reader. There you can see that he has an extraordinarily creative brain.

          • AB

            It could refer to the e-cat running for extended periods of time during the test.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            AB, yes, both suggestions sound possible… but he doesn’t comment that much, and the second possibility is not specific to orsobubu. But permanent doesn’t have any side meaning in Italian? Maybe I vote for DM-party’s Trotsky.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            “La permanente” means a hairstyle (same as “permanent wave” in English). Make a theory of that.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Results so good they make your hair thick and curley!

            Excellent news!

          • Andreas Moraitis

            You can never foresee all side effects…

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Maybe that reader puts questions permanently on Rossi’s blog.

          • Fortyniner

            Maybe he just means that Rossi’s ‘job’ is permanent because e-cat evolution will continue indefinitely?

          • georgehants

            Peter, if we cannot find the True meaning then we should take a guess at random, make it into “expert opinion” and then it will become scientific Dogma for a thousand years. Ha.

          • MasterBlaster7

            It means that the e-cat is optimally configured with the knowledge of the LENR reaction they currently posses. You wont see true optimum configuration until they find an accurate theory for LENR. Remember….this is ALL complete trial and error.

        • friendlyprogrammer

          I think he is saying evolution doesn’t reverse.

    • Daniel Maris

      Well that’s what I wanted to hear. Sounds like we are close to testing in a real operational setting, rather than a lab.

  • This exchange just came in:

    orsobubu

    April 13th, 2014 at 5:10 AM

    Andrea,

    I’m delighted with the idea that testers could limit or push the experimental set at their free choice without external conditions. When you say that the e-cat tested by the independent third party for the last 6 months is still “state of the art”, does it mean:

    1- the core of the tested hot cat completely satisfies you and currently no other work is necessary to improve its performance and stabilty, so the research is directed on equipment around the beast

    2- the core tested is the best stable version you can provide but you are currently working both on the equipment around the cat and on new ideas about the beast itself

    Andrea Rossi

    April 13th, 2014 at 8:43 AM

    orsobubu:
    1- yes, but evolution is permanent ( an adjective you should like)
    2- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Feels like we’re getting close to showtime.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I don’t catch the joke about “permanent”, maybe some playing of words in italian

      • AB

        I think he is saying that evolution never stops.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Yes but I mean that why should in particular orsobubu like the adjective permanent. Probably it’s not important, but just catched my eye because I didn’t understand it.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, orsobubu on Google is something to do with Yogi Bear so no help there.
            Good to see a need to know, I am sure somebody can help.

          • AB

            It could refer to the e-cat running for extended periods of time during the test.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            AB, yes, both suggestions sound possible… but he doesn’t comment that much, and the second possibility is not specific to orsobubu. But permanent doesn’t have any side meaning in Italian? Maybe I vote for DM-party’s Trotsky.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            “La permanente” means a hairstyle (same as “permanent wave” in English). Make a theory of that.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Results so good they make your hair thick and curley!

            Excellent news!

          • Andreas Moraitis

            You can never foresee all side effects…

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Maybe that reader puts questions permanently on Rossi’s blog.

          • Maybe he just means that Rossi’s ‘job’ is permanent because e-cat evolution will continue indefinitely?

          • georgehants

            Peter, if we cannot find the True meaning then we should take a guess at random, make it into “expert opinion” and then it will become scientific Dogma for a thousand years. Ha.

          • MasterBlaster7

            It means that the e-cat is optimally configured with the knowledge of the LENR reaction they currently posses. You wont see true optimum configuration until they find an accurate theory for LENR. Remember….this is ALL complete trial and error.

          • bachcole

            Well, you know, Rossi was a philosophy major, and he may know that orsobubu is into all of that dialectical materialism with the thesis and the antithesis and the synthesis happening down through the ages. (:->)

        • friendlyprogrammer

          I think he is saying evolution doesn’t reverse. It will not become worse.

      • orsobubu

        I can help you with Rossi’s hidden meanings. Pekka has reason to believe
        that it is a play on words not so important and directed to me,
        nevertheless some more general interest meaning can be found, exploring
        Rossi’s world of ideas .

        The correct interpretation of Pekka’s
        doubt is that of Daniel Maris and then Andreas Moraitis. Knowing my
        admiration for Bolshevism, he wanted to joke about permanent revolution
        in Trotskyism (in under-developed, pre-capitalist countries, it was
        possible that workers seized directly the power without passing through
        the capitalist phase – thanks to the international help of advanced
        countries already walking towards the revolutionary transition from
        capitalism to socialism). Substituting thus the term “revolution” with
        “evolution”, he probably wanted to say two things: good-tempered joking
        with my political positions and at the same time make a parallel with
        the ongoing development of its creation, which requires a relentless
        research effort by which it could be possible revolutionize the world.
        It’s interesting then the suggestion from AB and Fortyniner, in the
        sense that both evolution and ECAT job never stops.

        In recent years I sent to Rossi many times the question about the impact of a

        disruptive power generation system, relatively to the global economic
        balance. As noted by Pekka, he has a historical-philosophical training
        and is well
        aware of the problem of overproduction in a capitalist system, which
        can
        generate huge troubles, and in fact, in a video interview, Rossi
        portends the danger of deep crisis due to the possibility of unlimited
        production of energy at low cost. His personal position has always been
        that LENR
        technologies will integrate with the others, in this way
        you will get a peaceful evolution of the capitalist system and the
        solution
        of poverty issues. You can then say that Rossi supports the permanent
        evolution and reform of the capitalist system, of which he is a firm
        believer.

        Personally, my interest in LENR and automation is due
        to the fact that this kind of technological upheaval, like the invention
        of the steam engine, are
        excellent catalysts of economic crises, global tensions and social
        revolutions. In other words, according to Rossi, the current ruling class can,
        by the power of ideas, reform the world by preventing that the development
        of new technologies requires the rising power of a new social class. In

        my opinion it’s just the opposite, the material technology revolution
        will make necessary the ascent in power of a new class that knows how to
        plan and deploy to all mankind the immense potentiality which – already
        today – can no longer be managed by the mechanism of capitalist profit
        and private appropriation. Rossi has always been very tolerant of other
        people’s ideas and, even if he can not accept – even for reasons of
        religious faith – revolutionary
        ideas, he always said that he is willing to die to defend the right of
        everyone to express themselves.

        So,
        it is interesting to stretch the interpretation of Friendlyprogrammer,
        according to which Rossi prefers evolution rather than a revolution, if
        this means a reverse destructive path for mankind. In fact, many
        American and British readers have harshly criticized my position, both
        here and in JONP, I think for cultural issues . In Central, Southern and
        Eastern Europe we were quite immune from the phenomenon of McCarthyism
        and Popperism, which condemned the socialist positions after the
        Thirties. In libertarian Anglo-Saxon culture, the evolution of
        capitalism must be truly permanent, while the revolution
        is more easily associated with Soviet and Chinese dictatorial regimes. The
        problem is solved if you understand that these revolutions were in fact
        fascist counter-revolutions, sold as socialist, thanks to which
        the capitalists have maintained power despite the destructive crisis of
        ‘900,
        even if at the price of some world wars. And it is interesting to note
        that American readers in particular are deeply hostile to the idea of a
        socialist revolution but often favorable to an anarchist evolution of
        mankind. I think it will be impossible to reach anarchy from capitalism,
        bypassing a socialist revolution. This type of permanent revolution to
        socialism first and then to anarchy is to me a well more founded theory
        than the idealism of a permanent
        evolution of capitalism.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Thank you very much

  • Joe Shea

    When you say the “Same Independent Party” in your headline, you are not referring to the people who conducted the first test, are you? If not, then, what is the “same” about them?

  • Daniel Maris

    ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PROMO (Seems like he’s keeping an open mind???)

    Can we handle the
    future requirements
    for safe and
    clean energy?

    Lecture
    with Bo Höistad, Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Physics at Uppsala University.

    What is
    energy and how
    do we access it? Examples of energy sources that are discussed are:

    Fossil fuels and biofuels.
    Nuclear power, fission and fusion.
    The
    wind and
    wave power.
    Solar panels and solar cells.
    Cold Fusion – scam, utopia or newly discovered energy production?

  • Bernie777

    For some reason I had never heard the F&P story (Mats Lewans book) about their reactor melting through the lab table and into the concrete floor. Twenty five years ago some egg head at DOE should have thought “something important is going on here, lets investigate”. Wonder how many other important innovations we are missing? Maybe we need a real X-Files Dept., not run by muti-national corporations.

    • that event is described in Charles Beaudette book

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

      did you hear that high temperature supecconductors were rejected into footnote before the nobel

      http://www.mosaicsciencemagazine.org/pdf/m18_03_87_04.pdf

      that Wright brothers was making SciAm laugh like Rossi today

      http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html

      about semiconductors, Mats gives a key quote showing that Semiconductors were already actively studied and ignored in the 1920s (the quote is from 31, but it was studied since long)
      the official story start in 47
      http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/1574-semiconductors-brief-history.html

      but the quote of Pauli show that it was an old story in 1931

      “One shouldn’t work on semiconductors that is a filthy mess; who knows if they really exist”, W. Pauli (1931)

      sadly the fiasco of cold fusion is quite usual…
      simply it had more impact than wegener

      • GreenWin

        The Scientific American treatment of the Wright Brothers story is predictive evidence of just how mainstream science will treat the Rossi E-Cat validations. They will ignore them. Phone calls will be made to editors ordering them to pay no attention to new validations or development of commercial LENR products.

        It will result again in huge embarrassment to government, academia and a majority of private sector energy companies. Hot fusion pundits like Sec Ernie Moniz at DOE, will tip toe around any discussion of CF/LENR under orders from lobbyist contractors with $trillions in fossil/fission.

        • LENR G

          The Gatekeepers are controlled by big money. Tough situation.

          However, we have some things going for us. The first is the Internet. Unlike the Wright Bros. era we are not limited to newspapers and radio to tell us what’s true… though it takes effort to see through the FUD. Second, we a have Democratic Administration in America that is not beholden to big oil or the nuclear industry and is quite concerned about climate change. Third, China needs this and looms large, having connections to Industrial Heat already. TPTB may conclude that it’s either us or them so it might as well be us. Fourth, this should be irresistible to science. This is major stuff indicating new wrinkles in quantum mechanics that need to be explored. And finally, it’s also an irresistible story. Someone will run with it. And the wall will come down.

          Personally I think the emergence is being “managed”… I expect by elements of the US government. If this long-term test provides the proof that the insiders need to turn yellow to green, then things could happen very quickly. Or things could be slow-rolled if they’ve determined that a fast emergence into the public consciousness would be too disruptive.

          • GreenWin

            G, the “management” you suggest is a reasoned idea. Wholesale introduction of any “too cheap to meter” energy source will collapse global energy/financial markets. At the same time, an open market thrives on competition.

            The Levi-Elforsk validation confirms energy density a magnitude greater than chemical, incl. PV and wind mills. Both suffer intermittentcy and environmental compromise. Although rooftop PV & storage leads the transition to distributed generation. This is a well managed de-centralization of the geriatric electrical grid. And it allows utilities, investors and not-so-“smart” grid peddlers to reposition their interests.

            It was a little over a century ago, that coal monopolized the energy market. We have, in the interim, discovered other methods of generating and using energy. Fossil/fission tycoons, threatened by these discoveries, killed off the competition. These tycoons and their descendent cabals are in the spotlight today. Whose got talent?

          • Fortyniner

            Earlier ‘management’ of cheap/free energy devices, presumably through the good offices of US military and security forces, seems to have been through death threats, murder, trumped up charges and seizure of assets. The fact that Rossi et alia are still alive and functioning may indicate that these people are no longer interested in suppressing CF, presumably because they now have better energy technology available.

            I doubt whether the US establishment has the slightest interest in overseeing a managed introduction of cold fusion for the good of all concerned, but it may still be protective of US corporate profits (someone is still paying the maryyugos and the presstitutes continue to remain silent, but murder and other uncompromising methods of the past seem to be off the books).

            In addition there will still be plenty of opposition from vested interests further down the food chain when they realise the implications of this development, but otherwise it may now just be a question of who can re-invent the technology and get it to market first.

          • LENR G

            There was a study that just came out that looked, scientifically, at whether or not the US should be classified more as a democracy or an oligarchy. Result: oligarchy and not even close. Public policy has little correlation with public desires and is much more aligned with corporate desires.

            I think a wise public policy, from 1989, would have been to chase down cold fusion and either exploit it or eliminate it as a possibility.

            But that of course was not in the best interests of a number of powerful industries and individuals. So we got the usual selfish dirty games.

      • Ophelia Rump

        In the military I worked on semiconductor electronics with brass manufacture plates on their chassis dated twenty years before the text book date for invention of the superconductor.

        • rewriting of history is mostly academic fraud
          that thomas Kuhn describe kindly as a desire to give linear story to students so they don’t challenge the current paradigm, ignoring that previous paradigm was defended for decades against current one.

          Nassim Taleb is more nasty as he say that they invent an history where academic are useful, and key discoverers, to ignore that maverick and practitioners mostly do the innovations.

          in LENR I dump most conspiracy theories (they will start soon with big corps), to prefer consider that all is academic planet-wide fraud, and Beaudette, Mallove, Rothwell, proved in their writings…

          now once you see that ther can be a planet-wide groupthink based on an academic fraud, the tragedy is that rational people will start to be paranoid… like when you read snowden leaks, wikileaks, …
          most of science is good, but the remains may be important too.
          I’m afraid that pseudo-science , as it is #antifragile humanity, will take advantage of that fiasco.

        • Fortyniner

          Military technology often ’emerges’ when the military has something better, rendering it obsolete. It seems that the public dates and attributions of many root inventions are systematically faked in order to hide the fact that the military-industrial complex had been hiding these technologies for decades – despite the fact they were developed using public money.

          Makes you wonder what the US military in particular has at its disposal right now, that we will learn about in 20 years time.

          • Omega Z

            “Makes you wonder what the US military in particular has at its disposal right now, that we will learn about in 20 years time.”

            LENR

            Maybe TPTB are allowing this technology to go forward because they have or are about to obtain Zero Point Energy Modules. Thus instead of stopping LENR, Just taking delaying actions.

      • Omega Z

        And this will continue with all new Ideas.
        Everything to be known is known.
        There is nothing new.

        I really liked the way Albert Einstein Thought.
        An Answer wasn’t the end, but the beginning of the next question(s)

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    For some reason I had never heard the F&P story (Mats Lewans book) about their reactor melting through the lab table and into the concrete floor. Twenty five years ago some egg head at DOE should have thought “something important is going on here, lets investigate”. Wonder how many other important innovations we are missing? Maybe we need a real X-Files Dept., not run by muti-national corporations.

    • that event is described in Charles Beaudette book

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

      did you hear that high temperature supecconductors were rejected into footnote before the nobel

      http://www.mosaicsciencemagazine.org/pdf/m18_03_87_04.pdf

      that Wright brothers was making SciAm laugh like Rossi today

      http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html

      about semiconductors, Mats gives a key quote showing that Semiconductors were already actively studied and ignored in the 1920s (the quote is from 31, but it was studied since long)
      the official story start in 47
      http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/1574-semiconductors-brief-history.html

      but the quote of Pauli show that it was an old story in 1931

      “One shouldn’t work on semiconductors that is a filthy mess; who knows if they really exist”, W. Pauli (1931)

      sadly the fiasco of cold fusion is quite usual…
      simply it had more impact than wegener

      • GreenWin

        The Scientific American treatment of the Wright Brothers story is predictive evidence of just how mainstream science will treat the Rossi E-Cat validations. They will ignore them. Phone calls will be made to editors ordering them to pay no attention to new validations or development of commercial LENR products.

        It will result again in huge embarrassment to government, academia and a majority of private sector energy companies. Hot fusion pundits like Sec Ernie Moniz at DOE, will tip toe around any discussion of CF/LENR under orders from lobbyist contractors with $trillions in fossil/fission.

        • The Gatekeepers are controlled by big money. Tough situation.

          However, we have some things going for us. The first is the Internet. Unlike the Wright Bros. era we are not limited to newspapers and radio to tell us what’s true… though it takes effort to see through the FUD. Second, we have a Democratic Administration in America that is not beholden to big oil or the nuclear industry and is quite concerned about climate change. Third, China needs this and looms large, having connections to Industrial Heat already. TPTB may conclude that it’s either us or them so it might as well be us. Fourth, this should be irresistible to science. This is major stuff indicating new wrinkles in quantum mechanics that need to be explored. And finally, it’s also an irresistible story. Someone will run with it. And the wall will come down.

          Personally I think the emergence is being “managed”… I expect by elements of the US government. If this long-term test provides the proof that the insiders need to turn yellow to green, then things could happen very quickly. Or things could be slow-rolled if they’ve determined that a fast emergence into the public consciousness would be too disruptive.

          • GreenWin

            G, the “management” you suggest is a reasoned idea. Wholesale introduction of any “too cheap to meter” energy source will collapse global energy/financial markets. At the same time, an open market thrives on competition.

            The Levi-Elforsk validation confirms energy density a magnitude greater than chemical, incl. PV and wind mills. Both suffer intermittentcy and environmental compromise. Although rooftop PV & storage leads the transition to distributed generation. This is a well managed de-centralization of the geriatric electrical grid. And it allows utilities, investors and not-so-“smart” grid peddlers to reposition their interests.

            It was a little over a century ago, that coal monopolized the energy market. We have, in the interim, discovered other methods of generating and using energy. Fossil/fission tycoons, threatened by these discoveries, killed off the competition. These tycoons and their descendent cabals are in the spotlight today. Whose got talent?

          • Earlier ‘management’ of cheap/free energy devices, presumably through the good offices of US military and security forces, seems to have been through death threats, murder, trumped up charges and seizure of assets. The fact that Rossi et alia are still alive and functioning may indicate that these people are no longer interested in suppressing CF, presumably because they now have better energy technology available.

            I doubt whether the US establishment has the slightest interest in overseeing a managed introduction of cold fusion for the good of all concerned, but it may still be protective of US corporate profits (someone is still paying the maryyugos and the presstitutes continue to remain silent, but murder and other uncompromising methods of the past seem to be off the books).

            In addition there will still be plenty of opposition from vested interests further down the food chain when they realise the implications of this development, but otherwise it may now just be a question of who can re-invent the technology and get it to market first.

          • There was a study that just came out that looked, scientifically, at whether or not the US should be classified more as a democracy or an oligarchy. Result: oligarchy and not even close. Public policy has little correlation with public desires and is much more aligned with corporate desires.

            I think a wise public policy, from 1989, would have been to chase down cold fusion and either exploit it or eliminate it as a possibility.

            But that of course was not in the best interests of a number of powerful industries and individuals. So we got the usual selfish dirty games.

        • Joe Shea

          It’s just a shame and an embarrassment to the media community that Scientific American is still so highly regarded. This is not the only great error they have made, but is perhaps the greatest.

      • Ophelia Rump

        In the military I worked on semiconductor electronics
        (PDP 1134-A mainframes upgraded model number from earlier versions) with brass manufacture plates on their (Ba11-K) chassis dated twenty years before the text book date for invention of the semiconductor.

        I brought the text book up to the computer room of the ship, slid the chassis out from the frame and sat there laughing when I made the connection.

        I had a similar experience with a Doppler Radar system in Hawaii, chassis plate dated decades before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

        History is tortured when the present is a mix of lies and obfuscations.
        Now imagine yourself a young researcher deciding what path to follow, choose one which has been hidden for decades and your future goes into the garbage.

        Perhaps Pauli was giving the best possible advice when he said that. Pauli may have even known that semiconductors were not just a reality but in advanced computing products already.

        • rewriting of history is mostly academic fraud
          that thomas Kuhn describe kindly as a desire to give linear story to students so they don’t challenge the current paradigm, ignoring that previous paradigm was defended for decades against current one.

          Nassim Taleb is more nasty as he say that they invent an history where academic are useful, and key discoverers, to ignore that maverick and practitioners mostly do the innovations.

          in LENR I dump most conspiracy theories (they will start soon with big corps), to prefer consider that all is academic planet-wide fraud, and Beaudette, Mallove, Rothwell, proved in their writings…

          now once you see that ther can be a planet-wide groupthink based on an academic fraud, the tragedy is that rational people will start to be paranoid… like when you read snowden leaks, wikileaks, …
          most of science is good, but the remains may be important too.
          I’m afraid that pseudo-science , as it is #antifragile humanity, will take advantage of that fiasco.

        • Military technology often ’emerges’ when the military has something better, rendering it obsolete. It seems that the public dates and attributions of many root inventions are systematically faked in order to hide the fact that the military-industrial complex had been hiding these technologies for decades – despite the fact they were developed using public money.

          Makes you wonder what the US military in particular has at its disposal right now, that we will learn about in 20 years time.

          • Omega Z

            “Makes you wonder what the US military in particular has at its disposal right now, that we will learn about in 20 years time.”

            LENR

            Maybe TPTB are allowing this technology to go forward because they have or are about to obtain Zero Point Energy Modules. Thus instead of stopping LENR, Just taking delaying actions.

      • bachcole

        I worry that Scientific American is still in business when they did that to the Wright Bros. That really bothers me.

      • Omega Z

        And this will continue with all new Ideas.
        Everything to be known is known.
        There is nothing new.

        I really liked the way Albert Einstein Thought.
        An Answer wasn’t the end, but the beginning of the next question(s)

  • georgehants

    If Mr. Rossi’s report turns out to be satisfactory then I am looking forward to the battle against corrupt, incompetent, arrogant science to have him recognised and awarded the Nobel Prize.
    It will be hard work as being one of the greatest scientists in history is no guarantee of recognition and many of them will be against fair reward.

    • GreenWin

      George, before orthodox science will ever consider CF, they will have to confront the massive failures in hot fusion. This is in process as ITER, the last big hot fusion project is caught in a death spiral:

      “ITER was supposed to start running by 2016. Since then, however, the
      project has been plagued by delays, cost increases, and management
      problem. ITER is now expected to cost at least $21 billion and won’t
      turn on until 2020 at the earliest. And a recent review slammed ITER’s management.”
      http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2014/04/cost-skyrockets-united-states-share-iter-fusion-project

      We must wonder how much longer world governments can pretend to fund a project begun 62 years ago at a global cost of $250B+ – having delivered ZERO, ZED, not one useful watt of energy to the human race. Fortunately Senator Feinstein in the US is getting fed up with this particular boondoggle. Time to move on.

      • georgehants

        GreenWin, I almost give up on science, are you watching my exchange at the bottom of this page.
        It is like extracting teeth to get the most simple answer.
        Time for science to move on.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        62 years ago their goal was deuterium-deuterium fusion. They gave up on that. ITER, if it works, will be deuterium-tritium fusion. They need lithium to do that. The lithium would run out in 33 million years. Sounds like a lot but it’s not compared with deuterium-deuterium fusion or LENR. Won’t future generations need lithium for other things? Should we be burning it up as a fuel?

        • GreenWin

          Yes. And of course their deuterium-tritium cocktail has failed repeatedly at NIF. Not to mention the deadly radiation problem, the fact they have no proven method to confine their plasma, nor a proven method to convert the plasma to electrical energy. When hot fusionists and cohorts grok their six decade gravy train is ending – maybe they’ll learn about LENR. Or find new professions.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            But they didn’t fail “the effort has fallen short”

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Oh yes, George I fully agree. I really look forward to the time of reckoning because the current system is seriously flawed.

      Also, if the next test is as good as I expect it to be, we are talking a Nobel prize for Rossi here. Anything other would be totally unacceptable.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Stanley Pons is still alive.

  • georgehants

    If Mr. Rossi’s report turns out to be satisfactory then I am looking forward to the battle against corrupt, incompetent, arrogant science to have him recognised and awarded the Nobel Prize.
    It will be hard work as being one of the greatest scientists in history is no guarantee of recognition and many of them will be against fair reward.

    • Yo Hobie

      I guanrantee there will be no guarentee of recognition from them. Their arrogance means they will NEVER admit anything wrong in the face of truth. They will take their beliefs to the grave only to be replaced with newer, younger and more open minded scientist. But I hope to be wrong.

    • GreenWin

      George, before orthodox science will ever consider CF, they will have to confront the massive failures in hot fusion. This is in process as ITER, the last big hot fusion project is caught in a death spiral:

      “ITER was supposed to start running by 2016. Since then, however, the
      project has been plagued by delays, cost increases, and management
      problem. ITER is now expected to cost at least $21 billion and won’t
      turn on until 2020 at the earliest. And a recent review slammed ITER’s management.”
      http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2014/04/cost-skyrockets-united-states-share-iter-fusion-project

      We must wonder how much longer world governments can pretend to fund a project begun 62 years ago at a global cost of $250B+ – having delivered ZERO, ZED, not one useful watt of energy to the human race. Fortunately Senator Feinstein in the US is getting fed up with this particular boondoggle. Time to move on.

      • georgehants

        GreenWin, I almost give up on science, are you watching my exchange at the bottom of this page.
        It is like extracting teeth to get the most simple answer.
        Time for science to move on.

      • Yo Hobie

        GreenWin, I have to admit that I’ve been mesmerized by the science of hot fusion, ITER and NIF, and how can you not like them BIG AWESOME machines! But I have been reading that even if they did solve the scientific issues behind hot fusion the engineering issues would make it untenable.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        62 years ago their goal was deuterium-deuterium fusion. They gave up on that. ITER, if it works, will be deuterium-tritium fusion. They need lithium to do that. The lithium would run out in 33 million years. Sounds like a lot but it’s not compared with deuterium-deuterium fusion or LENR. Won’t future generations need lithium for other things? Should we be burning it up as a fuel?

        • GreenWin

          Yes. And of course their deuterium-tritium cocktail has failed repeatedly at NIF. Not to mention the deadly radiation problem, the fact they have no proven method to confine their plasma, nor a proven method to convert the plasma to electrical energy. When hot fusionists and cohorts grok their six decade gravy train is ending – maybe they’ll learn about LENR. Or find new professions.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            But they didn’t fail “the effort has fallen short”

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Oh yes, George I fully agree. I really look forward to the time of reckoning because the current system is seriously flawed.

      Also, if the next test is as good as I expect it to be, we are talking a Nobel prize for Rossi here. Anything other would be totally unacceptable.

    • bachcole

      I am not sure that a Nobel would be appropriate because it doesn’t fit nicely into any of the categories, except perhaps Peace. It straddles Chemistry and Physics. But he is an engineer. It would be very cool if they awarded him a special Nobel prize simply because the invention is so special and so Earth shaking. But I wouldn’t hold my breath on this one for a bunch of years. We still have to get some kind of serious recognition first.

      • georgehants

        A scientist is I think anybody who searches for new knowledge of the natural World.
        That is the only definition of a scientist, all others are applied scientists etc.
        Not somebody with a piece of paper showing their qualifications, that means nothing regarding showing their scientific ability in real life.
        All those that have dismissed Cold Fusion and many other important subjects in science probably have pieces of paper saying they are “qualified”
        If you think that only qualifications make a scientist then you exclude half the great discoveries in history including Faraday, (a book binder) Einstein (a paltry degree) etc. etc.
        If Mr. Rossie is not a scientist, searching and hopefully finding new knowledge, then who is?

        • bachcole

          By your definition of scientist, you are correct, obviously. By the more common definition of scientist, he is an engineer. I guess when he is trying to decide how it works, he is a scientist. But it is difficult to impossible to separate the two.

          Now everyone is bound by your definitions and expectations, nor mine for that matter.

      • Samwell

        Bachole, actually Rossi’s work fits extremely well into the physics category, according to the will of Alfred Nobel. The prize is not for scientists only, but for inventors as well. The following is an excerpt from the will: “The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics”. However, this aspect of the prize has been mostly neglected so far. Given that Rossi’s device actually works, it is by far the most important invention in the last half century, if not in all time.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Ernest Rutherford said “All science is either physics or stamp collecting”. So, they gave him the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Stanley Pons is still alive.

      • Yo Hobie

        I would love to see Stanley Pons and Andrei Rossi receive the Nobel prize. Now wouldn’t that be amazing and one of the best stories in the history of science. I also wish that Martin Fleischmann would have been around to receive it too – I don’t think that a Nobel prize can be awarded posthumously.

  • Fortyniner

    What? Are you saying they weren’t????

    • georgehants

      Better than the 65% of Yanks though. Ha.

  • The Defkalion web site has come back online. No content change.

    • It could have been down because of planned web host maintenance to protect against the Heartbleed bug, or just a software glitch in the server. Who knows. Stuff happens.

      • Omega Z

        http://www.defkalion-energy.com/
        At top
        The site is currently under planned maintenance.
        At bottom
        Please note our site is currently under construction
        January 16, 2014

        Not for Heartbleed bug. It’s http not https

  • US_Citizen71

    It appears that the test setup likey used some form of liquid calorimetry:

    “Andrea Rossi

    April 13th, 2014 at 2:05 PM

    Andreas Moraitis:
    The generated heat is withdrawn by means of heat exchangers, based on well known technologies. The reliability doesn’t depend on the heat exchangers. Obviously, the temperature of the secondary depends on the heat exchanger, while the primary temperature depends only by the E-Cat. The lower the flow of the secondary, the higher the secondaty temperature, and vice versa.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Andreas Moraitis

    April 13th, 2014 at 8:48 AM

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    It’s good news that there were no malfunctions of the Hot-Cat during the test. Obviously, you have reached by now a high level of reliability – which is everything else but natural for a completely new invention. Congratulations for that!
    My question is if you are already at a point where the process works as reliable if significant amounts of the generated heat are withdrawn systematically from the system. Evidently, that would be a precondition for the practical utilization of the generated energy.

    Best regards,
    Andreas Moraitis”

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I’m not sure if he meant the test setup. I’ve asked him again about that. My concern was that the withdrawal of heat could somehow interfere with the reaction.

      • Fortyniner

        Rossi is certainly being much more forthcoming these days. So we learn that there is active cooling employing primary and secondary systems (as several commenters here had guessed), and from his answer to Frank, that there is a separate external control system which may be quite sophisticated.

        It is becoming clear that even seven or eight months ago, progress was well advanced – considerably more so than many of us assumed. It’s even possible that the test unit was a pre-production prototype being put through its paces. If so we may be in for further surprises quite soon.

        • Omega Z

          Just had this thought.

          Several have posted how Rossi is feeding more information as of late.
          How better to fill the void of silence & keep people from digging up news on their own.
          You Know. Like Leaked Test Results. Ha

      • Pekka Janhunen

        In light of his most recent comment (“No role in the measurements, just check that the E-Cat was working
        properly, checking the control system, looking at the surface, to be
        sure no cracks emerged, things like these”)
        , probably it’s bare Hot-Cat as last year because he could observe its surface directly, i.e., doesn’t sound like liquid calorimetry.

  • US_Citizen71

    It appears that the test setup likey used some form of liquid calorimetry:

    “Andrea Rossi

    April 13th, 2014 at 2:05 PM

    Andreas Moraitis:
    The generated heat is withdrawn by means of heat exchangers, based on well known technologies. The reliability doesn’t depend on the heat exchangers. Obviously, the temperature of the secondary depends on the heat exchanger, while the primary temperature depends only by the E-Cat. The lower the flow of the secondary, the higher the secondaty temperature, and vice versa.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Andreas Moraitis

    April 13th, 2014 at 8:48 AM

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    It’s good news that there were no malfunctions of the Hot-Cat during the test. Obviously, you have reached by now a high level of reliability – which is everything else but natural for a completely new invention. Congratulations for that!
    My question is if you are already at a point where the process works as reliable if significant amounts of the generated heat are withdrawn systematically from the system. Evidently, that would be a precondition for the practical utilization of the generated energy.

    Best regards,
    Andreas Moraitis”

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I’m not sure if he meant the test setup. I’ve asked him again about that. My concern was that the withdrawal of heat could somehow interfere with the reaction.

      • Rossi is certainly being much more forthcoming these days. So we learn that there is active cooling employing primary and secondary systems (as several commenters here had guessed), and from his answer to Frank, that there is a separate external control system which may be quite sophisticated.

        It is becoming clear that even seven or eight months ago, development was well advanced – considerably more so than many of us assumed. It’s even possible that the test unit was a pre-production prototype being put through its paces. If so we may be in for further surprises quite soon.

        • Omega Z

          Just had this thought.

          Several have posted how Rossi is feeding more information as of late.
          How better to fill the void of silence & keep people from digging up news on their own.
          You Know. Like Leaked Test Results. Ha

      • Pekka Janhunen

        In light of his most recent comment (“No role in the measurements, just check that the E-Cat was working
        properly, checking the control system, looking at the surface, to be
        sure no cracks emerged, things like these”)
        , probably it’s bare Hot-Cat as last year because he could observe its surface directly, i.e., doesn’t sound like liquid calorimetry.

  • bachcole

    Breaking down the walls of the box of disbelief is like the medieval soldiers trying to break down the door of a castle. It might take some more pounding. The 2013 May Levi et. al. Report was the first crash of the monster pole (whatever it is called, help me out here). This next report will be the next crash. But don’t get discouraged. There is NO counter kinetic energy protecting the door because Rossi/LENR+/IH has all of the kinetic energy and the opposition doesn’t have squat. Eventually the door will break open and the juggernaut will roll in.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      The castle door crossbeam developed a visible crack in last fall’s test. The believers are once more rushing forward with their battering ram. Meanwhile, in the palace ballroom, big energy is honoring the mainstream media and wikipedia.

      • bachcole

        Thank you for that, Iggy. The mainstream has no “force” to keep the juggernaut out. They can only try to hold the line, but the truth will prevail, eventually. The next blow by the battering ram will cause an even bigger crack.

    • Ophelia Rump

      With each Boom Boom BOOM, on the door, the field of awareness surrounding associates to the testers or their institutions becomes larger, more curious and more aware that the ground is shifting under their well established feet.

      Next the curse will be broken and the doors come down, it will signal an institutional rush for financial participation which will make storming a castle look tame.

      The ground is shifting, failure to recognize events of paradigm changing proportion is punished with obscurity, in business and academia, and finance.

      This pile is coming down the mountain already.

  • GreenWin

    kasom… you need to re-consider who exactly is incapable of admitting mistakes, fraud and error. It is clearly documented and may be legally prosecuted in the US; corrupt, self-serving, ego maniacal scientists (particularly hot fusionists) will not admit error. Should prosecutions go forward without benefit of forgiveness… many well-educated, ivory tower senior scientists, politicians, and executives could go to federal prison for their remaining days.

    Do not provoke the lion.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    The castle door crossbeam developed a visible crack in last fall’s test. The believers are once more rushing forward with their battering ram. Meanwhile, in the palace ballroom, big energy is honoring the mainstream media and wikipedia.

    • bachcole

      Thank you for that, Iggy. The mainstream has no “force” to keep the juggernaut out. They can only try to hold the line, but the truth will prevail, eventually. The next blow by the battering ram will cause an even bigger crack.

  • Christopher Calder

    If you ever wondered what the challenges would be to produce a LENR powered steam car, watch Jay Leno’s very entertaining video on his 1925 Doble E-20 steam car.

    See *Jay Leno’s Garage* –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUg_ukBwsyo

    Imagine it powered by a Hot-Cat and natural gas. I am sure they could design more efficient ways of doing things in 2014, which 89 years after this car was built.

    • Ophelia Rump

      That is awesome, just put a Hot-Cat in a Doble, I would be delighted.

      Thank you so much for that, I had no idea that existed.

    • Fortyniner

      Even if only industrial units are released I would like to see steam locomotives hauling trains again. A 5-8MW plant would be ideal. This is a British 1940s ‘spam can’ 2-6-2 engine doing its thing on a rail-tour special last year (unfortunately I don’t suppose any new generation of steam locos would look much like this).

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8YhCy7xE-M

      • georgehants

        Just be missing that great big, in many cases, beautiful string of smoke.

      • Christina

        Without the terrible soot previously descending upon passengers as the coal-fired steam engines ran, steam-engine railroads would be great–if there is no other drawback to them.

        I’m hoping they’ll eventually run on Rossi Effect electricity–say in about 10 or 20 years.

        But I hope they’ll be steam in 5 years.

  • If you ever wondered what the challenges would be to produce a LENR powered steam car, watch Jay Leno’s very entertaining video on his 1925 Doble E-20 steam car.

    See *Jay Leno’s Garage* –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUg_ukBwsyo

    Imagine it powered by a Hot-Cat and natural gas. I am sure they could design more efficient ways of doing things in 2014, which is 89 years after this car was built.

    • Ophelia Rump

      That is awesome, just put a Hot-Cat in a Doble, I would be delighted.

      Thank you so much for that, I had no idea that existed.

    • Even if only industrial units are released I would love to see steam locomotives hauling trains again. A 5-8MW plant would be ideal. This is a British 1940s ‘spam can’ 4-6-2 engine doing its thing on a rail-tour special last year (unfortunately I don’t suppose any new generation of steam locos would look much like this).

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8YhCy7xE-M

      • georgehants

        Just be missing that great big, in many cases, beautiful string of smoke.

      • Christina

        Without the terrible soot previously descending upon passengers as the coal-fired steam engines ran, steam-engine railroads would be great–if there is no other drawback to them.

        I’m hoping they’ll eventually run on Rossi Effect electricity–say in about 10 or 20 years.

        But I hope they’ll be steam in 5 years.

    • john M
  • Ophelia Rump

    With each Boom Boom BOOM, on the door, the field of associates to the testers or their institutions becomes larger, more curious and more aware that the ground is shifting under their well established feet.

    Next the curse will be broken and the doors come down, it will signal an institutional rush for financial participation which will make storming a castle look tame.

    The ground is shifting, failure to recognize events of paradigm changing proportion is punished with obscurity, in business and academia, and finance.

  • artefact

    on JONP:

    Andrea Rossi
    April 13th, 2014 at 7:53 PM
    Ecco Liberation:
    I do not know, if yes we will see in the report. I have attended now and again, maybe 30% of the time od the test.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    ###########
    Frank Acland
    April 13th, 2014 at 9:10 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    You mention attending the testing for about 30 per cent of its duration. What has been your role as you have been there?
    Many thanks,
    Frank Acland
    ###########
    Andrea Rossi
    April 13th, 2014 at 10:40 PM
    Frank Acland:
    No role in the measurements, just check that the E-Cat was working properly, checking the control system, looking at the surface, to be sure no cracks emerged, things like these.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • artefact

    on JONP:

    Andrea Rossi
    April 13th, 2014 at 7:53 PM
    Ecco Liberation:
    I do not know, if yes we will see in the report. I have attended now and again, maybe 30% of the time od the test.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    ###########
    Frank Acland
    April 13th, 2014 at 9:10 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    You mention attending the testing for about 30 per cent of its duration. What has been your role as you have been there?
    Many thanks,
    Frank Acland
    ###########
    Andrea Rossi
    April 13th, 2014 at 10:40 PM
    Frank Acland:
    No role in the measurements, just check that the E-Cat was working properly, checking the control system, looking at the surface, to be sure no cracks emerged, things like these.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • georgehants

    A scientist is anybody who searches for new knowledge of the natural World.
    That is the only definition of a scientist, all others are applied scientists etc.
    Not somebody with a piece of paper showing their qualifications, that mean nothing regarding showing their scientific ability in real life.
    If you think that qualifications make a scientist then you exclude half the great discoveries in history including Faraday, Einstein etc. etc.

    If Mr. Rossie is not a scientist, searching and hopefully finding new knowledge then who is?

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Thank you very much

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Ernest Rutherford said “All science is either physics or stamp collecting”. So, they gave him the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

  • Bernie777

    So, Dr. Rossi has mastered LENR power production. “I never wrote that power generation eludes me.” What do you think? I know it is matter of degree, but?

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    So, Dr. Rossi has mastered LENR power production. “I never wrote that power generation eludes me.” What do you think? I know it is matter of degree, but?